Atheist Become a Christian…sort of

Comment by: Ron

Ir,

I read your entry with a new light. I saw something in your words that I need clarification on. I got the impression from reading your blog that you still believe in God you just don’t believe in what you have been taught about God.

I had pretty much stopped believing all the stuff about God

You can believe in God without accepting traditional belief about Him. I also was left with the impression that you are trying to find a Church to belong to that would allow you to believe differently but still believe…in something even if it is to be a better person and share that. After all why else would we need a Church? It is not anything you said specifically, it was just something I derived from the tone of your note. I love your heart.

And yes TXatheist I will be fine whatever his answer is.

Comment by: Ron

Lynn I.,

After reading the article I too took issue with it. I personally thought that it was an attempt to move the Christian faith closer to the Bahai faith where everything is accepted. But what if that Church can help people who would not have been helped otherwise?

This brings a lot of other questions too. At what point do we Christians hault the dilution of the Faith? One of the most important lessons that my Dad taught me growing up is when he said “Son, you will never be able to make everyone happy all the time and so you shouldn’t even try. You should just do the best you have with the information that you have been given and always remember that you reserve the right to be wiser tomorrow than you are today.” Can we expect Christianity to make everyone happy all the time? Granted it should be a religion about love and people but doesen’t it stand to reason that trying to make it fit the mold of making everyone happy just waters down the faith and spreads it out too thin?

I also see that it is about reaching people and we don’t want to limit that or put it into a box. But where is the balance? At what point do we say yes it is about reaching people but those people must be spurred to a higher standard too…It is not easy and to try and make it simple is to degrade the faith.

Lynn, I am not just asking you but everyone because I don’t have the answers.

Comment by: Tom in Sacramento

I’ve already copped to not being a big fan of church membership; seems to me an idea that has more in common with country clubs or Rotary Clubs than it does with Biblical Christianity. The whole concept suggests that God won’t know His own kids at chrunch time and so He’ll need our help to keep ‘em all straight.

As a result, the only flaw I see in the story is that there was a membership process to begin with. Anyone should be able to attend. And everyone will know in a relatively short time who are the ones whose lives most fit the pattern that Jesus lived out.

Tom in Sacramento

Comment by: Ir

Ir,

I read your entry with a new light. I saw something in your words that I need clarification on. I got the impression from reading your blog that you still believe in God you just don’t believe in what you have been taught about God.

This is so tricky…I have a really hard time being direct with Christians about where I’m at. I don’t like saying what might like I’m insulting your best friend, Ron.

Ok, let’s see. I don’t say “I don’t believe in God”. Being precise, I don’t think about God in any personal way.

I’m happy to discuss the Bible and I even will say things in Christian terms to Christians who need encouraging. I mean, what’s the option? Be selfish? Be more concerned about being right than showing I care? That’s not who I am (well, not when I’m in a good mood, anyway)

You can believe in God without accepting traditional belief about Him.

Here’s the problem - I can’t believe in God without thinking about God. And if I think about God in any sort of personal way, that raised a multiplicity of questions I can’t answer, which frustrates me and distracts me from getting on with my life.

So I don’t think about God [in any personal way].

I also was left with the impression that you are trying to find a Church to belong to that would allow you to believe differently but still believe…in something even if it is to be a better person and share that.

I like being in community and if there is a community which is truly accepting of all viewpoints then I might be interested. But I am wary, because I know that people who are closer to where I am spiritually often carry a lot of anti-evangelical Christianity/Christian baggage and I don’t want to go there. Even if I do sound rather negative about evangelical Christianity/Christians sometimes. One reason I kept going to church is that being with evangelicals kept my view balanced because by being around them I’m reminded that they are often wonderful people with wonderful hearts, even if I don’t share their beliefs any more. I was worried that if I left I might only remember what bugs me about them and I didn’t want that to happen to me.

I love your heart.

Thanks, Ron. I’m glad you see it, especially because that means I haven’t been so negative here that it’s been completely hidden by all my complaining!

I love yours too - I think you’ll make a great minister (if that’s why you’re going to seminary).

Comment by: TXatheist

Cully,
In UU the only people who would be uncomfortable are the fundamentalists, imo. I’ve heard some church of christ and I believe episcipalian(sp) are open to gays. Check it out if you want but if you came to my church as a gay person, we’d offer you a seat and cup of coffee:)

Comment by: Albert

By reading some of the comments here you would think that what Mr. Jensen wrote about is some sort of new daring concept for Christianity. But it’s not. It’s really what “liberal” Christianity has been about for many decades now. You throw out the supernatural and “other worldly” and you’re left with a social club with some nice ethics. Trouble is it isn’t doing very well as statistics on church attendance show. In fact after leaving evangelical Christianity I took a good hard look at liberal Christianity (a la Marcus Borg etc). It just was difficult to get too excited about it. Inoffensive yet uninspiring at the same time.

Comment by: Jayson B.

An Atheists who believes in the teachings of Christ, but not Christ himself, isn’t a Christian……..he’s a humanist.

When you strip away the supernatural stuff that jesus taught and leave just his teachings about humanity, he wasn’t saying anything new. Not an iota of it was original, or revolutionary. They’re basic tenants of humanity, core to our survival. And if those tenants are the things this guy is looking for, he’s already found them, in his heart.

I appreciate this guys intentions, but I think he was a bit misguided. He’ll be allowed at the church as long as the church itself feels he is convertable and therefore has a ‘use.’ The moment they feel that he is never going to convert, I would not be surprised that he’s asked to not come anymore.

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

TXAtheist…

It is perhaps arguably true that “many Xians support John Spong.” I guess this depends on your definition of Christian. For example, if I say I’m an atheist, but that I believe in a supreme being, you would most likely counter that I am not really an atheist, in the “classical” definition of the word, since the word implies, by it’s Merriam-Webster definition at least, “one who believes that there is no deity”. I can also call myself a sponge, but that doesn’ make me one.

I would argue that Spong can definitely be seen as not being “Christian” in the classical definition of the term, which I am putting forth as one who holds to the tenents of the Nicene or Apostles’ Creed (or both). Spong has not only demonstrated that he doesn’t hold to those principles, he also has demonstrated that he doesn’t hold to his own denominations 39 articles of religion.

You might argue that my definition of “Christian” is too narrow. Perhaps, in that case I feel like we need a new word. Perhaps what I mean is orthodox Christian. But that is often misunderstood, too.

Anyway, my $.02

Comment by: Lisa W.

Referring to Tom’s comment about not liking the idea of membership… I feel the same way. There have also been comments about ‘allowing everyone in’ equals ‘watering down the faith” I just don’t get that kind of thinking. I think this posture contributes to the idea of Christians being ‘narrow minded’. The bigger question is if we INVITE non believers or, gasp.. unrepentant homosexuals, will they ultimately feel loved and embraced? Will they feel comfortable and welcomed truely? If we stand by with a hidden motive to convert them…Isn’t that just a bunch of Bait and Switch??

Comment by: TXatheist

We will have to disagree then. You are saying Bishop John Spong isn’t a xian? Yes or No?

Comment by: TXatheist

Let me make the distinction. Spong says the resurrection is a metaphor. To rise again and live again but in a new phase. Now, is he a xian or no?

Comment by: Stephan

TX, that’s a rather nuanced position. It sounds like Spong is saying that Jesus is no longer dead, but it was not a physical resurrection. It was a transformation to a new state of being. I will not pass judgement on Spong, but say that this interpretation, as I understand it, is a little suspect. That, along with a denial of the virgin birth, would certainly put one on the fringe of mainstream Christian beliefs. I would also put fundamentalists on the fringe of Christian beliefs, but on the opposite fringe.

Comment by: Stephan

TX, on the resurrection I don’t believe there is much difference between fundamentalists and the mainstream. Where I believe they differ is in the addition of beliefs that may or may not be supported by scripture. I believe Spong’s error may be in removing beliefs that are supported by scripture.

There are a host of issues (baptism, the sacraments, end times, cultural issues, etc.) where I think we can disagree and still call each other Christians. I believe that the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus are foundational to Christianity and cannot be removed without compromising the overall message of Christianity.

Comment by: Stephan

TX, to say I am a fundamentalist because I believe in the resurrection is like saying I am a vegatarian because I like carrots. It’s a pretty big leap. I mentioned to fran in another post that I don’t think generalizations are helpful to this dialog.

I don’t expect you to say you are in the same group as me, as far as religion is concerned. I’m sure there are many other areas that we share common beliefs. If you are going to discredit me as a person because of my religious beliefs there is nothing I can do about that, but you are missing the point of this whole dialog.

Comment by: TXatheist

So when you say Spong isn’t a xian that’s not generalizing the entire world who realizes it’s absolutely impossible for someone to rise from the dead? Are we all way out there for saying once your dead and buried you ain’t going to rise after 3 days? I’m not missing anything but if you expect me to say, yeah the resurrection is possible or happened I’d have to forget everything we know about science concerning life,death and physics. As far as you not being able to do anything about it, I’d say Spong did it and you are capable to.

Comment by: Daz

“the entire world who realizes it’s absolutely impossible for someone to rise from the dead?”

The entire world does not agre with you.

” if you expect me to say, yeah the resurrection is possible or happened I’d have to forget everything we know about science concerning life,death and physics”.

Non-sequitur.

Comment by: Siamang

I think that there’s a big difference in worldviews here.

I also think that as a rule, the dead don’t rise. As a rule, virgins don’t give birth either.

And there’s the fact that numerous myths previous to Jesus’ time have half-god-half-man heros who are put to death, go to hell to save people and then ascend to heaven. Heck, that’s the story of Disney’s Hercules!

Some, like me, find it mighty suspicious that these stories pre-echo Christianity. TXatheist’s central problem with them seem to be the idea that this stuff just doesn’t happen.

Of course, if this stuff DID happen all the time, we wouldn’t be still talking about it two-thousand years later!

I’m willing to accept, for the sake of discussion, that if God exists, He could do it if He wanted to. I just haven’t seen evidence sufficient to compel me to believe that these miracles occurred.

Comment by: Texan

Tx,
What do you consider a fundamentalist? I will tell you if I am or not based on your assessment.

My premise is that Jesus did claim to be God and therefore we have some options on our thinking of him–one is that he is crazy and shouldn’t be listened to and the other is that he was telling the truth so the utmost attention should be paid to what he says and what he did.

Also, the reasoning behind telling Jesus apart from other individuals who claim deity is that he behaved in a rational manner, like a normal joe. If you take away his statements of who he said he was, you get a very reasonable human being who was good. A good teacher.

From what I’ve seen in these people who claim to be God, (the letters) is that they have a really shakey grasp on reality, they aren’t all the way here “with us” and can have other problems as well.

I don’t think that by accepting the resurrection you have to abandon math, science and physics….I think you do have to accept the supernatural though.

I don’t know if this helps clarify things for you, but it’s my best shot at explanation.

Tx, thanks for your thoughts and questions, they make me think. :)

Comment by: TXatheist

Peter,
In saying god could have risen JC from the dead as a miracle is a huge leap in presuming it happened and even bigger that god exists. I personally don’t think JC existed.

As far as people being fundamentalists it’s a case of denial, imo. I see people like Spong as liberal xians and almost all the others as fundamentalists but that’s my view.

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

TX,

YES. It is a HUGE leap. I agree! I guess you and I are getting at the heart of what we who follow Christ believe.

Leap number one: There is a God

Leap number two: Jesus existed (easier leap, because in many people’s considered opinion, mine included, the documentary evidence of his existence is strong. The documentary support for the New Testament is, imo, an embarassment of riches.)

Leap number three: Jesus was crucified and buried but rose from the dead on that third day.

I’ll say this: Christians believe a bunch of things that appear both on and even under the surface to be preposterous. Certainly preposterous in the light of known natural laws. And certainly impossible with in a closed universe, as it is understood by so many men of science and philosophy.

However, if there is a God, and He is who I understand Him to be based on Scripture, and Christ is who He claims to be, then it is possible based that… and only that. Where I differ from Spong is that if the Resurrection didn’t really happen, I don’t think Christ is worth following. (Obviously, I believe it really happened.)

Thanks for the response!

Comment by: Siamang

Texan,

I personally know a lot of people who claim deity. They are rational, sane, normal, intelligent, articulate people with a religious belief.

Their religious belief is that we are all God incarnate. According to their beliefs, they can perform miracles if they are clear enough in their thinking, and focused enough in their faith to transcend the material world and act on their inherant God nature. This is a modern variation on the ancient Gnostic tradition (weirdly, L. Ron Hubbard patterned Scientology on these same ideas).

My father has this sort of belief. He is not insane, any more than anyone with a faith that differs from yours.

But he believes that Christ taught us a central point, by example, what all of us can be like if we understand that we are God made physical.

He also believes that the early church hid these teachings and corrupted the teachings of Christ, to make it a patriarchal and hierarchical dogma.

I don’t buy any of it, but I can see how a religious leader can claim divinity and not be crazy. Well, not crazy in the clinical sense. It’s very possible that Jesus was speaking from the Gnostic traditions.

Comment by: TXatheist

Peter,
I can agree with you on your view of faith. That is fine with me.

Well, point #2, about evidence for Jesus existing. We’ll just have to disagree then. There is none.

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

TX,

I sure don’t mean to upset you or “close out the light”. But I still maintain that what I (and others, I think) call biblically orthodox Christianity (sorry to keep using that terminology) is quite dependent on a few key things, and the big key qualifier there is the Resurrection. An impossible, ridiculous, preposterous notion that someone once actually rose from the dead. Only even possible if God is who He says He is…

That is, of course, the definition from a theological perspective. From a more earthy “personal” perspective, it seems to be about trusting Christ, which I honestly find impossible to do unless He actually IS who He says He is.

I guess my question to you is, are you open-minded to at least the POSSIBILITY that if God is and is who the Bible says he is, then He could have and would have caused Christ to be resurrected? I think it really all hinges on that, not Christ’s teachings, excellent as they are, and not those who might make the Xian message more “palatable” to those who can’t stomach the resurrection.

Comment by: TXatheist

Peter,
I’m not upset I just find statements like Peter’s the problem. I say something he finds inflamatory and he wants to ignore me then. Again, I am not arguing that you believe JC rose and god exists. I’m saying that I can’t find one single example today and that’s because it’s like Spong said it is, a metaphor. I agree with his xian view on it though I find it completely untrue in any sense and that’s another reason I remain an atheist. I’m a content atheist. I’m trying to remain open minded but I can’t give god the power to raise Jesus from the dead as god doesn’t exist. If I have to choose between your possibility of god and Spongs I go with Spongs. God is a idea and Jesus’ resurrection is a metaphor. I can agree with Spong enough to think that is a feasible way to explain it. I can’t find any scientific logic or reason to believe someone literally rose from the dead. I want to say that I find that completely void of intellectual insight. I’m sorry, I can’t admit it based on my scientific view of physics.

Comment by: TXatheist

Sorry Peter, # 49, I meant statements like Stephan’s are the problem.

Comment by: Albert

For those of you who would like to read a little diversion on life, death etc
http://www.peopleinspirit.com/dr_rodonaia_s_nde.html

Comment by: Ir

TXatheist, am I right in thinking some atheists disagree with you that Jesus never existed? There’s divided opinion among atheists on that, isn’t there?

I as an atheist can actually put down my guard and see the positive of a xian, john spong, and then several people say he’s not a xian. I see him as progress and then people come right out and say he’s not a xian. It’s like me seeing a ray of hope and you slamming the door on him closing out the light.

That’s a consequence of ‘beliefism’ - it cuts a deep divide between people who all say they are Christians, with atheists and liberal Christians on one side and conservative Christians (probably what TXatheist calls fundamentalists) on the other.

Comment by: TXatheist

Ir,
Absolutely. I only switched maybe 2 years ago on the Jesus existing thing. Your synopsis is dead on with the divide. It can get better though:)
Jayson, thanks, at least someone will see it’s not just me and hopefully that message will come across. Not that they agree but that they see our side.

Comment by: TXatheist

I’ll get to it shortly but did you see the ad at the top? It’s for the movie “the god who wasn’t there” concerning JC. I like Lowder but Gerd Ludemann was the first guy I read who introduced me to the no jesus idea.

Comment by: Lisa

This all kind of smacks of ‘the holocast didn’t happen.’

Comment by: Lisa

holocaust

Comment by: Jayson B.

The new testament cannot be used as historical evidence, because it simply is not a historical document, nor do scholars consider so. This is what is called a christian myth.

Comment by: TXatheist

Francis,
Point well taken. I say there is no evidence that JC lived. I’m listening though:)

Comment by: Lisa

Of course the two are very different. That’s why I used the term “smacks of”. As I was breezing through the comments I just got the feeling that there was a heavy feeling that sounded like ‘if there is no Jesus then I don’t need to deal with him/christianity.’ When I think of the ‘facinating field of the search for the historical Jesus’ I think of discovering that he WAS not that he WASN’T. I havn’t really realized, I guess, that people actually spend time trying to demonstrate that he didn’t even exist. This is new to me. That’s a cool thing about this blog:the ’stretch’ that’s happening.

Comment by: Lisa

I hear ya, Jayson. I just kinda think: So, I’ll try to prove that 2000 years and a gajillion people are fools? I suppose it’s an exercise some folks need to go through. And I’m all about embracing the process and asking lots of questions. My starting point is just not ‘Did he exist.’

Comment by: Ir

Jayson wrote: It’s simple really. Since this questions haven’t been answered by the faithful in order to justify their faith, we need to work backwards. Proving something didn’t exist only needs to happen when we skip the first step of proving its existance in the first place.

Jayson, it’s a fact that there are writings about Jesus, so doesn’t that have to be the starting point? Doesn’t a person who holds the view that Jesus never existed need to address that fact and have reasons for concluding that those writings weren’t based on a historical figure Jesus?

Comment by: Rick L in TX

I would be interested in any responses to the following. It seems to me that the statement “Jesus never existed” (or “God does not exist”) is every bit as much a claim to knowledge, to access of truth, as is the claim that Jesus/God existed/exists.

Comment by: Lisa

I hate to say it but the effort to prove that what a lot of people have believed over time is based on someone who didn’t exist would show they are fools and you are not, right?
BTW - my background is catholic, then a 10 year break into the new-age realm followed by my most recent return to the christian faith (10 years) via the Vineyard Community Church. Jim H. was my pastor for years and is my neighbor…down the block) My starting point then is that Jesus existed and that somehow he was resurrected. And my faith grows (florishing and sometimes lanquishing) at the intersection of Love and Humanity.

Comment by: Ir

Thanks for the response, Siamang.

Admittedly I’m a little surprised at TXatheist and Jayson saying they think Jesus never existed, because I thought that was rather a minority viewpoint among atheists. Maybe it’s more widespread than I was aware. To date I haven’t read any of the arguments for Jesus never existing - probably because I thought, “if most atheists reject them then I doubt I will think them credible”.

Comment by: Ir

Thanks for the link TXatheist. I’ll take a look at that website sometime.

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

TX writes

“I’m trying to remain open minded but I can’t give god the power to raise Jesus from the dead as god doesn’t exist.” With all due respect, I’m not sure that’s really “open-minded” although I’m also not necessarily suggesting you must change your views in order to be. However, you must admit that your presupposition that God doesn’t exist colors your ability or inability to believe in a historical Jesus rising from the dead.

I most certainly don’t mean to be disrespectful on this. However, this certainly gets at the real meat of the difference between us with regards to what we do with the person of Jesus. Orthodox Christianity has as its bedrock foundation the literal resurrection of a real Man who was God named Jesus, as it is put forth in the New Testament. It is well documented (in my humble estimation) that this was believed ever since Christ ascended. Is it absurd from a rational, modern scientific perspective. Yes, of course, if the universe is a closed system. The miraculous will NEVER be explained scientifically, by definition.

I certainly, based on what I know of the documentary evidence behind the canonical New Testament that we now have, differ with you on the evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus, and the extent to which the New Testament is myth. You certainly have your perogative. Know, though, that I and so many like me don’t “blindly” accept the New Testament on faith. We continue to feel we have very solid reasons for accepting it the way we do.

It’s unfortunate that just about the only way that I can be “right” in my faith is if you are “wrong” in your faith, or lack thereof. It means we won’t find common ground on the issues of the miraculous and specifically the resurrection. Thankfully, it doesn’t mean we can’t still be friends! And it doesn’t mean we can’t continue to discuss it.

I really like where this is going, though. It really gets at the heart of what distinguishes us. Thanks all for the discussion.

Comment by: Ir

Siamang wrote: But do we assume that every character written about is historical until proven otherwise?

We have accounts of the trojan war, but it is not proof of the historicity of Odysseus, the existences of sirens, cyclopses, nymphs and other mythological creatures.

Those myths were believed to be literally true in the time of Homer.

But we don’t start today with the starting point that the story of the Odyssey is true, and then go about trying to disprove it.

I can’t really comment on that because I don’t know whether the Odyssey claims to be a record of historical events or not. I only know that at least one gospel does claim that, so that’s a claim that I would say needs addressing.

Comment by: TXatheist

No Peter. You have to prove the first obstacle god exists before you can get to the resurrection. There are 1000’s of gods so to say your god exists then you got your work cut out for you. You can’t just jump to point two which is physically impossible, the resurrection. We can’t get to the meat of the issue when we haven’t gotten over the first hurdle. The miraculous are explained by science all the time, the big bang, evolution but that’s because they aren’t really miracles. They are ideas we have to explore and explain. You can’t do that with supernatural claims that are religious in nature.
I’m not differing at all, I’m standing here listening to any evidence and if you use the bible that’s called circular reasoning. Is god real? Yes, the bible say so. How do you know the bible is true? God says so in his word the bible.
I don’t doubt you really believe the NT or Jesus. I did once. With all due respect I don’t think you realize how hard it is for me to say I agree with John Spong. He’s a christian that still pushes the bible and god to some extent. I’m basically saying some of xianity is ok by me. That is so hard to admit to any xian because then they think I might actually believe or can be converted.

Comment by: TXatheist

You give Him(god)the power to show himself. I say differently because there is no him to begin with.

Comment by: Albert

Sorry about posting twice. Didn’t seem to work first time around.

Comment by: Albert

Now they’re back. Must be spirits at work :-)

Comment by: Texan

Here’s someting I found interesting on outside evidence that Jesus existed. I saw something like this on the National Geographic channel a couple of weeks ago.
Nothing more than his existance. No claims to divinity included. (unless addes by believers later on, which has been debunked-the site explains it)

As far as I know, Josephus is the only outside evidence he existed, but historians teach the existence of other figures on as much or less information.

Comment by: Albert

I would think if God exists “he” would be more interested in how we lived our lives rather than talking about his existence/nonexistence endlessly.

Comment by: Albert

Question to all-
If the existence of God was as plain as the nose on your face would/could you really have free will?

Comment by: Siamang

Stephan, if the Bible is to be taken as literally true, He proved His own existence to multitudes in attendance just about every generation since Adam.

The Cecil B. Demille-style-effects extravaganzas seem to have stopped shortly after 35AD.

Did the people before then not have free will?

I think that atheism has a more parsimonious explanation for the lack of observable mega-miracles.

Comment by: Stephan

Siamang, good point, although the scope of those miracles were far more limited than you mention. Jesus actually sought, according to the Bible, to hide his miracles from people. Even those miracles were not enough to convince people then, so I’m sure TX would not be convinced by them now. I’m talking about real proof, such that it would satisfy the most hardened skeptic. I would suggest that if we were presented with the full reality of who God is, we would have no choice but to follow Him.

Comment by: Albert

One view of free will

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/fwill.htm

Comment by: Jayson B.

TX, Tom pointed out in another thread that God’s gift of free will prevents Him from proving His existence. He wants us to choose to follow Him. If it was proven, there would be no choice.

I can’t understand this at all, it just doesn’t make any sense to me. You call free will a gift, yet by every definition free will is the very thing that condemns nearly all of humanity that has ever existed to an eternal existance of torture, pain, and destruction.

How can free will be a gift when it is the very device used to judge us eternally? Either God judges us and shows himself to us, or God will not judge us and gives us the ‘gift’ of free will. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Comment by: Siamang

Stephan said

Do siamangs have tails? I think I just saw one chasing his.

Nope, we’re apes! ;-)

Comment by: Texan

If all there was in existance was one irrevocable proof of God and no more, would it be enough to convince someone in the face of all the debunking and proof to the contrary?

Just one piece. Either big or small.

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

Also,

Siamang writes “First you have to prove I have free will now!

I don’t believe that anyone has proven that such a thing exists.”

Wow, I think you might be the first atheist calvinist I ever met.

Just kidding. Laugh a little, it lowers your blood pressure!

Catch you all tomorrow!
Peter

Comment by: Jayson B.

Texan

If there was absolute proof of God, the debunking and skepticism wouldn’t exist in the first place.

People don’t try to debunk Gravity.

Comment by: TXatheist

Again with the presumption. God exists and gave us freewill to use. You can’t get to hurdle # 2 about us having free will until you get past hurdle #1, god. To even begin to ask about freewill you’ve already established god and that he can give out free will. There is no basis for that. That’s my standard answer because yours leaps too far. God can do anything you want if you believe in him.

Comment by: TXatheist

I’d like to point out something Siamang’s point. The Founding Fathers of this country did mention God in the Declaration of Independence. They also said it clearly in the Preamble that it’s Nature’s god and the Laws of Nature. Not arguing, just making a side note that I would have been a naturalist in their time because heretics got burned at the stake.

Comment by: Siamang

Texan said:

If all there was in existance was one irrevocable proof of God and no more, would it be enough to convince someone in the face of all the debunking and proof to the contrary?

Just one piece. Either big or small.

I dunno. What you got? What’s the quality of the evidence, and how does it rack up against how the world really appears to work?

For example, if you had proof that human DNA was only 6000 years old, and had nothing in common with any other living thing, that would be pretty frigging strong.

If the stars spelled out “Hey everyone, the Seventh-Day Adventists are Right!” that would be incontrovertable.

If the horrific crimes of the holocaust had never happened, because the waters opened up and the millions of poor souls were able to walk to Israel… there would be no question.

But you see, these things are notable in the fact that they simply do not happen. We are meant to believe that they did, or they could have happened, if we are to save our souls. Despite all evidence that the world simply refuses to work like the one described in the Bible.

I don’t know what magical realm the Bible describes, but it bears little resemblance to Earth. Even Tolkien had trouble topping it.

Comment by: Albert

Quote from a Quaker ” We don’t know nearly as much about God as we think we do and most of what we think we know is probably wrong anyways”.

Comment by: Lisa W.

I am confident of my belief in God because of my personal experience. But, I am not certain of much. As an atheist are you certain of your belief that god does not exist? Or are you more agnostic - unsure either way?

Comment by: Siamang

I do not have a belief that God doesn’t exist. To be perfectly clear, so far, in my life, I lack the evidence that would lead me to believe in a personal God.

I further think that no particular religion’s claims of absolute truth have more reliable evidence than any others’, so I have no compelling reason to make a leap of faith in any particular direction. I wouldn’t know which way to jump.

Comment by: Lisa W.

Siamang,
Ok this is a mind-bender for me so patience please as I learn.
So, just for clarification..I thought Atheists don’t believe in God, meaning the existence of God. but, you’re saying you believe there is a God but that you don’t have personal experiential evidence that a personal/relational god is possible for you?

Comment by: Albert

If there’s no criteria to say who is Christian or not then the term Christian becomes meaningless.

Comment by: Ir

Ron, I replied to you this morning way up in comment #9 - but I messed up the formatting so it looks like I was replying to myself.

If people were judging Spong’s heart then I’d have a problem with that, but I think all they were doing is comparing what he says he believes with what they consider a person needs to believe to be a Christian.

Here are Spong’s 12 theses:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

I found those in A Call for a New Reformation

Comment by: Lisa W.

Siamang - thanks for the clarification.
I’ve learned alot today.

Comment by: skikid

Yeah me too! I dont quite know what to make of it.

Comment by: skikid

Gotta think about this one for a while.

Comment by: Siamang

I like the idea.

Comment by: TXatheist

I’d like to throw my hat in the ring. I even have an idea as the “interim” host. Role reversal. xians have to pretend to be atheists and atheists have to pretend to be xians. To me it’s a perfect way to walk a mile in their shoes. Being a xian once and now atheist I will try to be as objective as possible since I somewhat understand both sides. I’m completely open to a better idea or alteration of this concept:) We’re here to grow. See ya tomorrow.

Comment by: Siamang

Well, the trick would be to serve all users equally. There’s a high standard of that so far here.

Comment by: Ron

Jim,

He who leads learns right? I’m all over it chief. I like the idea. Are you getting burned out?

Comment by: Ir

I think it’s a neat idea too.

We could perhaps pair up guest hosts so that on any given day there is one Christian and one not Christian guest host - to help things feel equitable?

One other thought - Jim, I was wondering if at some point you might want to move to a discussion forum format - or link a discussion forum to the blog. Discussion forums have various features that make it easier to have extended discussions on them than it is in the comments pages of a blog.

Not that I’m complaining about this format. It’s just a suggestion.

Comment by: Cully

I second Ir’s suggestion about a forum, Makes it much easier to follow the threads of conversations.

Jim, guest hosts could be quite interesting, especially if you alternate xtian and atheist, moderate and liberal, etc. Or perhaps a “point/counter-point” series. A xtian and an atheist guest blogger sound off editorial style about the same topic, to which we can reply and continue the discussion.

Comment by: Rick L in TX

If as Ron says, he who leads learns, I probably have the greatest need to lead, but I am also a little overwhelmed at the thought of sharing this task, esp. with such capable people as you have named. Happily, I know I can count on my brother Tom to ably assist me.

I am glad that Siamang drew the short straw to go first. If you decide to make it a co-hosting with one atheist and one Christian I am open to that as well. Fridays are best for me if we move forward with this idea.

Rick L in TX

Comment by: Siamang

Thanks, Justin. That’s fascinating. I need to keep those in my pocket. It’s a good thing to have a better knowlege of people’s beliefs.

Comment by: Esther

Hi, Jim,
First, thanks for your personal attention to all of us.
You said,
I know that it is fun to sit here in a corner and talk with each other since you can enjoy higher levels of learning but I am wondering if there is a way that those of us who have formed something of a community can serve others who are not as e-verbose/articulate.

I very much agree with you.

But, I do not see having us rotating in the hosting position would change much of the picture.

Wouldn’t it be the same thing of “us” talking with each other?

Actually, I’ve been urging and urging my friends to come on here to read. A couple of them did but did not stick with it!

Do you get my point?

Comment by: Tom in Sacramento

As usual I’m finally getting a chance to read after the parade has passed by. But the conversationseveral score posts ago reminded me of a quote I ran across from my favorite author a couple days ago.

In his essay, “Fern-seed and Elephants”, CS Lewis wrote, “The rejection as unhistorical of all passages which narrate miracles is sensible if we start by knowing that the miraculous… never occurs. Now, I do not want here to discuss whether the miraculous is possible: I only want to point out that this is a purely philosophical question. Scholars, as
scholars, speak on it with no more authority than anyone else.

The canon, “If miraculous, unhistorical,” is one they bring to their study of the texts, not one they have learned from it. If one is speaking of authority, the united authority of all the Biblical critics in the world counts for nothing. On this they speak simply as men—men obviously influenced by, and perhaps insufficiently critical of, the spirit of the age they grew up in.
… C. S. Lewis
(emphasis mine)

I mention this because it has been my observation that one of the most difficult things to do is to combine a passion for careful logical analysis with humility. It is a necessary element, I think, not just for the study of God’s word but for any study, period. It was precisely a failure at this point that skewered the Korean researcher who was recently found to have fraudulently claimed a cloning, or the BYU physicists a few years back who claimed cold fusion in a bottle.

And it happens among Christians and it happens among atheists. And when it happens, wherever it happens, it marks the end of productive discourse because egos rather than intellects have begun to carry the conversation.

Someone above, maybe several (I’m too tired to search) asserted that the resurrection is impossible because people never rise from the dead.

And if thre is, with absolute certainty, no God, then that evidence would seem sufficient. But, since I don’t think anyone has claimed absolute certainty that there is no God (He might be hiding in my back bedroom. ;-) ), then we are left with only a religious position: the belief, or faith, that there is no God. But that is quite another position. And it lacks the necessary ingredient for the evidence presented to be sufficient.

Because belief that there is no God doesn’t prove that there is no God. Just as belief that there is a God doesn’t prove anything either.

And so we are left with an open possibility. There may be a God. And, of course, if there is a God, then all bets are off. He can intervene to work miracles if He so chooses.

We may choose to believe in miracles or not. But that is logically a priori to the matter and has no bearing on their reality.

Alas, I’m sorry, I get wordy late at night and only now see how the slider on the scroll bar has shrunk away to nothing.

Tom in Sacramento

Comment by: Siamang

Tom, you said essentially what I was thinking. How come I couldn’t say it as well or as clearly?

Comment by: Jim Henderson

I am looking into the discussion group thing (which I think we have to do one way or the other) and we’ll get back here by the eod

Comment by: TXatheist

No Peter, documents supporting the NT doesn’t verify or point to god. It doesn’t make the ideas of JC credible. It only reaffirms a story. That’s it, nothing more.
Faith: I don’t have faith that the cook made my eggs done right. I look at them and if they are runny then I send them back. If they are crunchy I send them back. When a reporter does a live coverage event or films or tapes there is evidence. If it’s about a train wreck it happens here to, it’s tragic but happens. If a reporter said some guy jumped on a horse and that horse began to fly that event requires proof because that doesn’t happen according to physics. There is zero evidence for Jesus and God. Your faith in those is nothing I’m challenging. That I accept but your claims of evidence are unsupported.

Comment by: TXatheist

Albert,
That’s usually is known as Pascal’s wager.

Comment by: TXatheist

You are not familiar with Pascal’s wager as that is what it is about?

Comment by: TXatheist

Yeah, proof, not corraborting ideas in two different works. I am not going to open my mind so much that my brain falls out:) Just because you put the bible on a pedestal doesn’t mean I will. It’s just a book until evidence/proof shows otherwise. It’s fiction by all accounts with some tiny historical aspects that are true.

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

TXAtheist,

Thanks for continuing to engage this discussion. I hope it is at least as fun for you as it is for me. You are obviously a very intelligent and articulate person. Unlike so many of my fellow Christians… ;-)

Actually, I think I’ve chosen my words kinda carefully. I’ve never said “proof”. I have said evidence. You don’t find the evidence compelling, and I submit it might be your presuppositions that result in this. I freely admit that I come to the evidence with some presuppositions of my own, which include my own experience in encountering God. So I freely admit that we both have presuppostions in this area.

As far as proof, I go back to an earlier assertion I made that if God is who he says He is, it’s up to Him to “prove” Himself to you, and I, for myself, trust Him to be able to do it. For me, the definite statement on this is in Hebrews 11, the chapter on faith.

Anyway, I wish I had time for this discussion today, but I have a heavy workload. I hope you all have an amazing day!

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

TXAtheist,

I’m certainly open to agreeing to disagree. Although I think I agree with your point actually. For me it is faith, although I contend it is not a “blind” faith by any stretch. I have a feeling if we were in the same town we could be good friends!

And I’ll agree with you all about Contact. Great movie, and a VERY good companion to this discussion. Interesting how the theist in the movie believes in the scientist enough to believe that she’s telling the truth in the end. I know that Carl Sagan was an atheist, and I admit I haven’t read the book, but that scene is a great example of what I mean by faith. He knows that she is reliable, so when she tells him this, he believes in her enough to believe that she’s telling the truth.

I also love the little scene where they discuss “Occam’s Razor” and He asks her to prove that she loved her Dad. Thought-provoking stuff you have to admit.

Later,
Peter

Comment by: Texan

I’ve been reading the discussion on proof of God and it has been very interesting. I would have responded sooner, but life got in the way. (The nerve!)

I’ve noticed a couple of things. The first thing I’ve noticed is the huge amount of thought that goes into everyone’s entries. That’s great! I’ve had to think a lot about my own answer. My answer to my own question is this, I wish I had proof to give, but all I have is evidence that points. (to steal a phrase from Peter)

Siamang,
Human DNA that is 6,000 years old would be compelling evidence, but I really think that even if it was found that human DNA is only 6,000 years old, I think people would find a reason to explain it away and want a better “proof”. Do we have to have a reason for everything to be able to wrap our minds around it? Perhaps.

However, it seems to me that no matter what evidence is submitted, someone will come and debunk it. I think this will be always be around in every arena of life. So I don’t think it would matter what it was, God in person, writing in the sky, a burning bush….people will find a way to write it off as some act of nature or human deception. I think that is why there is no “hard proof” only evidence “pointers.”

Even though there are thousands of documents supporting Biblical writings, some disregard that as enforcing a story. Well, call it that or supporting evidence. We believe Alexander the Great existed on less evidence, or call it “writings that enforce a story”. I think one reason Christians can follow this evidence is because if the Jesus story was false, it would have fallen apart along the way. Is there anyone willing to die for a lie like this? It is said that Peter was crucified upside down just for believing in Christ. If he was in on a conspiracy, when would be a good time to come clean?

Peter in Pennsylvania said

Those of you who debunk those documents have said so, but I think you have to admit at least the possibility that the evidence might be compelling. We have other ancient documents which historians trust (for the most part) with far longer periods of time missing between the time they were thought to be written and the earliest extant manuscripts. It is interesting that so many who accept those will reject the Bible, whose manuscript support is so much greater.

I will add that I agree with Peter that we all come to the evidence with presumptions that we carry, myself included. So do we throw down presumptions?

I think that is why God chooses to reveal himself at certain times to people when they are ready or when he chooses, which are often the same.

This is a great diablog.

Comment by: TXatheist

Texan said:

I think one reason Christians can follow this evidence is because if the Jesus story was false, it would have fallen apart along the way. Is there anyone willing to die for a lie like this? It is said that Peter was crucified upside down just for believing in Christ. If he was in on a conspiracy, when would be a good time to come clean?

Texan: Do you think there are scholars out there that dismiss Jesus as a non-historical figure and nothing but pure myth? I’m not asking you to agree, just that there are scholars who find the story of Jesus false. I also suggest you see what happened to Bruno for telling the church their view of the earth being the center of the universe was wrong.

Comment by: TXatheist

Does anyone else this is sad? They are hungry for food, not bibles.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46226

Comment by: Cully

Uhm… Tx… you know The Onion is a satirical news site, right?

Comment by: Siamang

Tom wrote

But scientists estimate that the cumulative odds of a planet being able to support life are in excess of 1:1 trillion; IOW, too great to have happened accidentally.

Tom, any guesses to how many planets there are in the universe?

Is the number bigger or smaller than one trillion?

In other words, “million to one coincidences occur every day in New York.”

You see, we won the lottery. Whatever planet was the lucky one, the one in a trillion one, the creatures on that planet are saying, “wow! The odds are so great against us, we must have been created!”

(The unlucky planets never have people on them wondering anything.)

Here’s the point, given the number of stars in the universe, and the number of planets around each star, the odds against life could be LITERALLY ‘astronomical’, and yet life would be inevitable.

Comment by: TXatheist

Stephan
“We” are open to it as much as you are open to the possibility that it took a great number of events to occur for human life to arise on the 3rd planet from the Sun and to date that is the only life form in existance in the entire universe, to our knowledge.

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

TXAtheist,

You seem like a remarkably intelligent person to me, but to argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has just as much “evidence” for existence as Christ and the God of the Bible… Does that not seem a little ludicrous? On the site you cite (cute rhyme, eh?) for documentary evidence they say, for instance “We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this.” Uh… really?

The FSM has nothing like the Chester Beatty Papyrus from 200 - 250 a.d., or the John Rylands Manuscript from 130 a.d., or the host of other very early manusripts and fragments that support the New Testament’s very early authorship. (You can find information about these “evidences” from http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_04.htm and numerous other sources as well.)

I like the fingerprint analogy, too. If you don’t think there’s fingerprints to be found, you won’t look for them, and you won’t find them.

Comment by: TXatheist

Peter,
I say this with absolute respect to you. It does not seem ludicrous to me to compare the two on the same level of evidence. Please understand we are looking for fingerprints but we don’t think god put it there. Most atheists are intrigued by science.

Comment by: Stephan

TX, I take up your implied challenge. I will believe that all life as we know it sprung up on its own if I can see it for myself. I think you also have faith in something you cannot see.

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

TX

Thanks for the respect! Right back at ya, man!

I suspect that you and I might differ on the definition of terms then. What I call evidence is a pointer to something, not a final authoritative proof, a little different from Merriam-Webster’s primary definition, closer to their secondary one. I separate evidence and proof.

And I still respectfully submit that perhaps you haven’t examined the textual evidence for the dating and authorship of the Bible, which is KEY to the evidence for Christ existing at all, with an open mind, but rather with the presupposition that it can’t be true under any circumstances. Especially when you compare the documentary evidence for it to that for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which I think and hope you were doing a little tongue in cheek.

Comment by: TXatheist

Peter,
Let’s agree on the definition of heresay first before we continue please:) What is heresay?

Comment by: Cully

Tom we have another body (a moon, in this case, not a planet) in our very own solar system that fits all the minimal requirements for life: Enceladus, one of Saturn’s moons. Our recent (as in this week) discovery of liquid water there put’s in pretty firmly into that category.

Also, I didn’t mean silicon based bacterial life, or things of that nature when I spoke of non-earth-like life. I meant intelligent life as well.

It seems in this case that numbers, much like the bible, can be interpreted as the observer wishes. I think that the astronomical numbers open the door for all sorts of life out there, you think that they close down the possibilities.

Here’s a question that I see bandied about a lot but never see a satisfactory answer for: If we were to ever find non-terrestrial intelligent life what would that mean for Christianity? Outwardly Christianity seems pretty Earth-centric. Could it stand up to several billion other intelligences, that perhaps have a book of their own? Christians cannot even accept that Muslims worship the same god… could they accept an alien god?

Comment by: Tom in Sacramento

Cully, I do not believe that the discovery of intelligent life on another planet has any bearing on the truth of Christianity, pro or con.

As for your last comment, any Christian that believes the Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians do is, IMO, simply ignorant of religious history. The majority of Christians I know are not so ignorant (and the rest I’ve never asked), but you may not have been so fortunate in your associations as I have. But as an objection, in my book that’s a non-starter.

BTW, I never got a chance to say so — I read it amid a jillion other posts when I came back from vacation — but I wanted to extend profound kudos for “coming out” and to compliment you on your courage in so doing. Gutsy move, and a great exemplar of what has made so much of the dialog here so excellent.

Tom in Sacramento

Comment by: Tom in Sacramento

Tx, you make an interesting comment here:

Please understand we are looking for fingerprints but we don’t think god put it there.

Where do finger prints come from?

Tom in Sacramento

Comment by: Tom in Sacramento

TX, No.

There is a small, IMO bridgable gap between Jews and Christians. But there is a huge, IMO unbridgable gap between Muslims and Christians. But, if the question is, “Is there a God?”, your objection is irrelevant because it deals with people, not God, nor evidence about God.

Indeed, if there is anything of an evidentiary nature in the dispute between Christians and Muslims over the Prophet and The Christ, it would seem to me that it is supportive of the Biblical account. (And I have, and have read and studied, the Quran.) Because the Bible talks about the existence of an evil force in the universe that is bent on man’s destruction, and in Biblical documents less than 100 years after the death and resurrection of its Founder, we see that heresies and false teachings had already begun to spring up. So the existence of false religions is precisely what one ought to expect.

Tom in Sacramento

Comment by: Siamang

Siamang, your understanding of probability is incorrect. A “one-in-a-million” chance does not mean that if you repeat the same action one million times you will get your desired result once. It means each time you repeat the act, the chance is “one-in-a-million”. The other 999,999 attempts have not bearing on the outcome.

I do not think my understanding of probability is incorrect.

It is true that subsequent attempts have no bearing on the outcome. I was talking about probability.

Let’s say the odds of life on a planet is one in six. Let’s suppose we have a 6-sided die. What are the odds that rolling once, you roll a six? One in six.

Now let’s assume you have six dice. Roll them all, what are the chances that ONE of them hits a six? One per roll.

What are the odds, given a million dice, thrown all at once, that there will be a six somewhere in them? Almost certain.

The universe is THAT BIG. There are trillions of untold planets out there, and every single one of them is a die roll. We’re a six.

The odds against us could be literally astronomical. A trillion to one is VERY short odds given that there are probably over 2 x 10^22 planets in the universe.

Comment by: Siamang

Tom wrote

Cully, no, the reason that the 1:1 trillion is a long shot is precisely because it takes the number of years into consideration. It is several orders of magnitude greater than the number of years.

…
And, Siamang, small quibble: there is still no evidence for any other planet that even fits the minimal requirements for life to even be possible. So you argument is hanging by an impossibly slender thread at that point.

I’m sorry, but you were the one who used the long odds (trillion to one) as evidence FOR God. I was merely pointing out to you that there are far, far, far more than a trillion planets out there.

You somehow accept the trillion to one odds, but you reject the mathematical conclusion that based on trillion to one, and 2 x 10^22 planets (very conservative estimate, based on only one planet per star) there are 2 billion planets out there with life, each one saying “I’m special! God must have created me! Our home planet is the center of the universe!”

Your central assertion is life is trillion to one odds. Assuming you are correct, you just proved my point.

It’s just math, Tom. It’s not hanging by a thread. It’s the VERY DEFINITION of a trillion to one.

Comment by: Nutrideath

Siamang,

Probability is so interesting.

Anyway, at a molecular level, the proteins needed for life are very complex molecules. The odds against just a single, simple protein molecule required for life assembling correctly on its own are much higher than your 2 x 10^22.

The odds are more like 1 in 10^113. To put that in perspective: scientists dismiss anything with a 1 in 10^50 chance of happening as never happening.

Also, the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the entire universe.

Pretty steep odds indeed. But that’s just for a single molecule. Life requires more than 600 of those specific & unique protein molecules. Oh, plus they have to be located inside a cell membrane, or they get damaged pretty quickly. And they all have to exist pretty much simultaneously.

Comment by: Nutrideath

Ir, so what’s already happened that had of 1 in 10^50 odds against?

Comment by: Nutrideath

Of course, but it didn’t have to happen by chance. (That’s the whole point of looking at the odds. From a scientific viewpoint, they show life could not have happened by chance.)

Comment by: Nutrideath

(I’m trying to be less wordy… how’m I doing?)

Comment by: Ir

Good job on being less wordy :) You can get the prize for most improved efficiency of word use in posts today :)

Comment by: TXatheist

Stephan,
I respect your answer but that is the xian one you’d have to admit. The muslim would be different and the Jewish one I would say.

Comment by: TXatheist

Tom,
False religions? I’m afraid to even ask if are referring to Islam as false:(

Comment by: TXatheist

Nutrideath,
Are you familiar with a guy named William Dembski?

Comment by: TXatheist

Has anyone seen Hemant’s blog entry titled “Atheist bashing” GRRRRR!!!

Comment by: Siamang

Nutrideath wrote:

The odds against just a single, simple protein molecule required for life assembling correctly on its own are much higher than your 2 x 10^22.

The odds are more like 1 in 10^113.

A simple protein molecule?

You’re kidding, right?

Which protein molecule are you talking about?

Alanine? Cysteine? Phenylalanine?

Don’t get your science from wacky fringe creationist websites, Nutri.

Comment by: TXatheist

Siamang,
Have you ever heard of William Dembski?

Comment by: Ir

TXatheist wrote: Has anyone seen Hemant’s blog entry titled “Atheist bashing” GRRRRR!!!

I just went to read it because of your post. I looked up the station yesterday then completely forgot to listen this morning - oh well. I was surprised to read his edited version of how it went - that’s too bad.

Comment by: Cully

Mmmm not sure where the rest of that post went but here it is again:

Nutrideath> No evolutionist would assert that all proteins appeared simultaneously, or fully formed. You seem to be saying that the process was big pool of chemical **POOF** complex life. Any evolutionist worth his salt would tell you that there are dozens if not hundreds of steps in between.

You are also calculating these numbers based on sequential trials. One person at his keyboard hacking away to get your 26 letter sequence. (or one guy in one lab with one beaker of chemicals) But if billions of people were at billions of keyboards (as was the case with amino acids in the early oceans) then that 26 key sequence gets reached much much faster.

Comment by: Siamang

Dembski, yeah, his stuff is familiar.

He doesn’t seem to get the lottery fallacy.

The odds are a million to one that I’ve won the lottery. But if you limit your selection sample to those people who’ve already won the lottery, you can’t say, “I think you cheated! The odds are too great against you winning the lottery!”

Dembski looks at things that have already come out a certain way and says “jeepers, what are the odds that it came out THIS EXACT WAY?!?!”

It’s amazing that people THINK they understand probability. Everyone thinks they do.

But I guess that’s why Vegas can stay in business.

Comment by: Siamang

But, in all of the millions of experiments that have been performed not a single one produced life from non-life. Some guy in the 40s or 50s did a famous experiment where he mimiced what he thought was a high-probability soup in a big jar, then ran simulated lightning thru it. He got some brown sludge.

Dude, update your science education. Can I say that perhaps it has progressed somewhere in the last 50 years?

Check out the science being done by Dr. Jack Szostak and others at Harvard and elsewhere. They’ve got self-replicating, evolving rna. They’re working on a model of the first cell. It turns out that a certain type of clay that was common in the young earth, both helps RNA precursor chemicals to spontaneously become RNA, and creates fatty acid vessicles which may have been the first cell walls.

Nutri, read read read:

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Before_DNA.html

Comment by: Siamang

Is that hypothesis called panspermia, Denigma? Looked it up. Exogenesis is the more limited term, but also possible.

Fascinating field.

Comment by: Siamang

Denigma, have you read that Carl Zimmer article I linked upthread? The one about Stozack at Harvard? That’s the article that got me totally pumped about abiogenesis. Zimmer really knows how to tell a scientific story that has some fire in it!

I just finished Zimmer’s “Smithsonian’s Intimite Guide to Human Origins”, and I’m reading his “Evolution, the Triumph of an Idea.” Parasite Rex is on my birthday list!

You a medical student?

Comment by: Siamang

I wrote

Which protein molecule are you talking about?

Alanine? Cysteine? Phenylalanine?

Sorry, those are amino acids. Rushed into typing that before I knew what I wrote!

Those amino acids combine to make proteins. Small steps make larger and larger steps. Molecules form amino acids. Amino acids can bond to become a peptide. And even peptides can self-replicate, fix chiralty problems, form complex networks, error correct, form mutual systems… Fascinating stuff.

From small to large, from simple to complex. One small step at a time.

Comment by: cautious

i read comment #246 in book form, when it was called “Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds” by Philip Johnson.

but, non-snidely, the way that DNA codes for proteins, through the codon-anticodon sequence that we’re all in love with, is fascinating. That almost every organism on the planet uses the almost exact same translation kit (UGA means stop for everyone) is an amazing point of evidence towards the singular origin of life on Earth.

And as Siamang said, “Check out the science being done by Dr. Jack Szostak and others at Harvard and elsewhere. They’ve got self-replicating, evolving rna.” RNA is more than just a few amino acids that self-combined…

Comment by: Siamang

Nutrideath said

What I meant by refering to work from the 50s was that in none of the experiments done then & right up until now has anyone observed spontaneous generation.

I don’t know any scientist who proposes a spontaneous generation hypothesis. Again, that’s the creation model.

The RNA world hypothesis, the Iron-sulpher world hypothesis, exogenesis, panspermia, and the various alternatives, combinations and variations… none of them describe any spontaneous generation.

There isn’t a hard, sharp difference between life and non-life.

There are multiple intermediate stages between the two.

Here’s how creationists misdescribe abiogenesis:

Simple Chemicals

*poof*

Bacteria

Here’s a very simplified chart of what the RNA world model is:

Simple chemicals
|
v
Polymers
|
v
Replicating polymers
|
v
hypercycle
|
v
protobiont
|
v
bacteria

Comment by: Eliza

Siamang, that’s very VERY cool stuff going on in the Szostak lab! I can’t believe Lee Strobel didn’t mention it in The Case for a Creator! Seriously, though, thanks for the info & link.

“We are not claiming that this is how life started. We are saying that we have demonstrated growth and division without any biochemical machinery.” Jack W. Szostak (Yeah, well, that’s a good start!)

Comment by: Nutrideath

Hi cautious, you wrote:

What keeps creationism alive is its refusal to be scientific. It speaks in the language of science, there are scientific-styled creationist journals, but everyone in the movement is arguing from the scientifically-ridiculous ground that the Bible is 100% literal truth.

I believe what the Bible says about creation is scientific. Its just that many creationists throw that out, they act as if “It doesn’t need to be scientific. It was God doing it!”

Some of the non-scientific ideas you mentioned are advocated by people, but those ideas in many cases are not exactly what is found in the Bible itself.

For instance, the Bible doesn’t say that all animals were created in the Garden of Eden. Neither does the description of the creative days specifically say those days were limited to 24 hours long. Or that billions of animal species were crammed onto the ark.

You can apply reliable science to what you find in Genesis. The two are compatible.

For instance, the first chapter of Genesis is very scientific in respect to its order. It begins with an earth that is dark & formless. Then we find “let there be light” - a description of when the sun ignites. Then dry land, followed by vegetation, followed by animals. Animals of the sea come about first, followed by the ones on dry land. The order of all these happenings is obviously scientifically sound.

Especially when it comes to Genesis, try reading those first couple of chapters thru a scientist’s eye, instead of seeing the holes in the arguments of zealots. I have found that in most cases they haven’t read it either.

Comment by: Siamang

Cautious wrote

My belief that it happened on Earth naturally will be given a slight push, but I don’t think it will cause the Pope to give up his day job.

Nor should it, to my mind.

If you accept God, then you must accept that EVERYTHING in His creation, he made with a natural process.

When a bird flies, you may rightly judge it a miracle, but you don’t say “miraculously God holds each sparrow aloft.” You, as a modern person, must allow for the science of aerodynamics.

In 1623 Gallileo wrote:

“Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something.”

There isn’t magic holding the sparrow aloft. God is too clever to make a world where He is constantly required to lift each sparrow. Behind all of God’s actions in the natural world, there is a process.

Comment by: Siamang

Nutri,
According to Genesis, birds were created a day before land animals.

I don’t know how many millions of years difference that one day makes.

Wanna bet as to which appears first in the fossil record?

According to Genesis, God created plants a “day” before he made the sun. How did those plants live without sunlight for those x millions of years?

Here’s a strange question for you, Nutri, not sure if you can answer it.

I understand the scriptural basis for interpreting the Creation as taking 6 literal days. What is the scriptural basis for interpreting it as longer than that?

You see, I think the world is about 4.5 billion years old. I get that information from multiple lines of evidence, from vastly different fields of science. They agree, and so I take them as being pretty accurate. Ask a geologist, a biologist, a seizemologist, a paleontologist, an astonomer, etc the question “how old is the Earth” they’ll all say, within a very small variation, a number right about 4.5 billion years.

If you ask an Old-earth creationist, or an IDist, or any two ID “scientists” you’ll get an answer somewhere between 6000 years and 4.5 billion. No two will agree. Many will demur and try to weasel and back out of the question and say it doesn’t really matter.

Now, I understand the scientific reasons for saying 4.5 billion. And I understand the scriptural reasons for saying 6000. But I do not understand the SCRIPTURAL reasons for *interpreting* the bible to say 4.5 billion, or any number other than somewhere around 6000.

What scriptural part of the bible brought you to the value of millions of years for a day? Why not trillions of centuries? Why not tens of days for a day?

Comment by: Siamang

But why, Ron?

Why did you go in one direction, the long direction, and not the short one?

Why SPECIFICALLY do old-earth creationists and ID ists creep toward the exact value proposed by the very science they say doesn’t work and is based on faulty assumptions?

Why not ten trillion years? Why not three zillion years? Why any change from one day at all?

How about this one, why do so many ID “scientists” say it doesn’t matter? Can you imagine ANY real scientist saying “it doesn’t matter” about any question, let alone such a serious, important foundation question like the age of the Earth?

Here’s what I think: They’re caught between a rock and a hard place. They don’t want to look silly to people who see from the rocks around them that the world is quite old, at the same time, they don’t want to cheeze off the young-earth folks who send in their checks and support their candidates in school board elections.

Comment by: Nutrideath

Cully wrote: Most importantly is the order of earth and sun. The earth cannot have formed without the gravitational forces of the sun, so it can’t have been there before the sun was “ignited.” You also skip over the biblical formation of the stars which occurs in Genesis AFTER dray land, and the land plants. Stars are necessary components for the formation of ANYTHING in the universe. Without the fusion of stars we’d have no heavy elements for anything else to form from. No silicon for earth to form from… no carbon for life to form from.

You can do better than this, I’ve seen it!

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Cully! So here goes:

(Genesis 1:1) 1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Notice, this doesn’t specify any length of time. This statement could be describing a process of billions of years — as science postulates. Stars of the “heavens” could form, live their lifecycle, & go nova — forming the heavy elements you speak of. None of this contradicts Gen. 1:1. Also notice, this verse is before any of the creative “days.” The “days” describe creative periods specifically related to the earth and not so much these “heavens.”

We might say “In my grandfathers day…” We aren’t speaking of a particular 24 hour day, and we’re not speaking of a set amount of time in relation to other “days” - Granddad’s day might’ve lasted 90 years, Gramma died early so “Gramma’s day” is only 40 years.

The creative “days” represent epochs within whose framework there exist logical groupings of what was happening. Nothing says each creative day was the same length as any other. A “day” is just a grouping of creative processes.

For instance, verses 2 & 3 deal with the first of those “days.” It begins with a formless, dark earth, and ends once there is an established day & night pattern:

(Genesis 1:2-5) 2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. 3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.

So, could this be referring to the solar system, with its dust accreting & gradually coalescing into the earth and our sun? The same “day” progresses until there is enough matter in the sun to begin nuclear fusion. By that time the earth has gained “form” too, and its spin naturally — with the now present light — becomes Night & Day.

You mentioned that the “stars” came after the formation of dry land. I think this is what you’re referring to:

(Genesis 1:14-19) 14 And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.

That’s day four. But, remember, all the creative days are mainly referring to the earth, and are told from the vantage point of an earthly observer. So, these verses don’t refer to the actual creation of the “luminaries” — but to their becoming visible, or at least more visible, on the earth’s surface. Notice, prior to the fourth day, what happened on the second day:

(Genesis 1:6-8) 6 And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.

This “Heaven” is what we commonly call the sky nowadays. This describes a cloud envelope around the earth, much like the one existing on Venus. Notice, an “expanse” between the waters — the waters of the ocean and the waters of the thick cloud cover above. This cloud cover was gradually thinned in day four, until the “luminaries” were visible.

This same cloud cover was later dissipated almost completely when God “opened the floodgates of the heavens” and caused the flood (Gen. 7:11). This is where all the water came from.

How am I doing so far?

Comment by: Stephan

Siamang, here’s my take on it. I’m not sure ID should not be taught in science classes. I don’t think it’s science, but philosophy. At the same time, I don’t see the harm in saying, “There are some questions that science can’t answer. We can tell you how all of the matter interacts, but we don’t know where it came from. There may have been an intelligent force that put all of this in motion.” I know the ID crowd wants more than this, but maybe that could be a point of compromise.

Comment by: Cully

Stephan, in all honesty, I am not trying to argue ID verses evolution. I’m trying to understand the ID viewpoint. This is a common argument, (that Genesis got the order right) that when *I* look at Genesis I don’t see. I really just want to see it from the other viewpoint.

Comment by: Stephan

Siamang, the rant is ok. We’re not debating anymore, but trying to understand each other. I think that is profitable.

I think the reason Christians have found evolution threatening is that they think it proposes a reality without God. I don’t agree, but this is why they feel threatened. And when someone feels threatened they fight back. Sadly, this has been seen too many times between the church and science. If I could stop it from happening, I would.

Just know that the ID movement is not coming from a bunch of crazy, uneducated zealots who want to deny science.

Comment by: Cully

Nutrideath> Better. But there are still logic holes and liberties here that I’m not following.

First, you point out that all of this is being told from the viewpoint of an Earthbound observer, and so the stars were always there, just hidden from view.

Why would this be so? All of this is being told BEFORE there are earthbound observers to observe it. This is not my grandfather recounting a bad call by an umpire at a ball game. He was there to SEE that event, and so observational bias makes sense. He didn’t see the same thing the umpire saw, so he can disagree. Why would this be retold from the point of view of someone whose entire species didn’t exist yet?

Also 1:16 doesn’t say that God “revealed” the two great luminaries. It uses the word “make.” You are applying a definition that simply isn’t supported by the text.

I’ll concede that “day” does not equal day, for the sake of argument. You get that part, it’s poetic, fine.

Comment by: Siamang

Stephan wrote

Just know that the ID movement is not coming from a bunch of crazy, uneducated zealots who want to deny science.

Far more often I hear evolution described as coming from a vast conspiracy of hubristic, overly-educated elites who want to deny God.

I find it really hard to argue the theistic side of evolution without a lot of theist evolution fans behind me. The side that says “God may be there, behind it all. God may have created evolution.” I feel like I’m out there defending God. ME! And people say, “of course you support evolution, you’re an athieist!” “But no!” I say. “I believed in evolution when I was a Christian, too!”

I often wonder how many theistic supporters of evolution there are, and why I’m fighting their fight for them.

My only dog in that fight is that evolution is awesome. It’s so amazing, it’s the closest thing I can find to evidence that makes me think there may be a God.

I feel like when I’m talking about evolution to a creationist or an ID supporter that I’m saying “No, no, just listen and shhhh a second. If I can just show you this piece of evidence and point out some details that help you understand it, you’ll see this really amazing awesome aspect of the God that you love. You’ll really LOVE this, just give me a chance!”

Comment by: TXatheist

Ron,
The fact is? Can we say you believe god did these things and you don’t understand how god did it? I wouldn’t question how god did it because there is no god doing anything. To answer your question on how much we know, imo, we know maybe 1% of what is out there in space. To get the other 99% is almost unimaginable. If we got to 2% I’d be happy and even if that other 1% took 10,000 years to understand. We are speck in a gigantic universe.

Comment by: Stephan

Ok, someof the people pushing ID might be crazy, uneducation zealots, but so are some people who believe in evolution. So are some people who like peanut butter and chocolate. I happen to agree with those people on the topic of peanut butter and chocolate, but little else.

Honestly, you probably know as much about the ID crowd as I do. I only see them on the news. None of my friends are in on it. In fact, I suspect some of my Christian friends might be liberals. I am considering turning them in to the authorities, but I’m not sure if that’s Jerry Falwell or James Dobson.

Comment by: TXatheist

Stephan,
I won’t argue but I have read Behe and Dembski’s material. I’ve got UCTV where Johnson was a law professor though his television broadcasts were about the “philosophy” of evolution. I’ve read about Johnson’s wedge strategy and his intention is literally to cast doubt on evolution, bring in other possibilities, make ID a possible, and then have it as the answer for any weakness in evolution. If evolution can’t explain it was god(id). They’re not bad guys but there is a reason their ideas never make it to peer reviewed science journals…shhhh….ID is not science at all:)

Comment by: Nutrideath

Cully wrote: First, you point out that all of this is being told from the viewpoint of an Earthbound observer, and so the stars were always there, just hidden from view.

Why would this be so?

The reason it is written the way it is is twofold: its audience & its purpose.

It was meant for humankind, both the set of people who read it when it was written & all the people down thru the ages who’ve read it since then.

Think about that for a minute: How hard would it be for you to write an explanation of [insert subject here] & how it works in such a way that the same information you write would be just as understandable to people in 4000 BC as to people in 2006 AD?

So, Genesis is a “general overview,” if you will of how God went about creating things. It is told from the standpoint of the earth because for thousands of years the readers of Genesis would know nothing of space. It is not meant to answer every question, or even be terribly detailed about the ones it does answer.

Genesis also isn’t meant to be a science textbook. It wasn’t meant to educate specifically about scientific points, so it doesn’t go into extraneous detail about stars, how they form, go nova, why that’s important for the earth, etc. etc., or even biology.

But where it touches on scientific matters, it is in line with observeable science. Siamang speaks of Creationists who believe in evolution, and he speaks of evolution as if it is an accepted fact by all scientists everywhere.

Maybe somewhere along the line they stopped calling it the “Theory” of evolution. But nevertheless there are plenty of well versed scientists out there who believe God did the creating.

Comment by: Nutrideath

No Ir, I’m not familiar with Reasons to Believe.

Comment by: Nutrideath

Yes Siamang, I’ve noticed that before about skeletons too. It is fascinating.

But you can think of it from a creatinist’s standpoint too.

To illustrate: I used to be a CAD draftsman. I drew houseplans on a computer. Most of the time when beginning a new plan we started with an existing one rather than starting from scratch.

It was much easier to use the computer to stretch a room larger, rotate a design element, change the roof pitch, or whatever to make a new plan. Lots of details wouldn’t have to change - like maybe the HVAC system would work just fine with no changes at all.

Biology reminds me of that process. Its reasonable to think that once the Designer had already worked out the 4 chambered heart and digestion and hair the nervous system and billions of other little details, he wouldn’t start over from scratch for the next design, he would build on what he already had.

Comment by: TXatheist

andy,
I thought it was split according to Gallup polls. 45% belive god and a young earth did it, 45% believe god created an old earth using evolution and 10% just believe in the science.

Comment by: TXatheist

Nutrideath,
I am not asking to argue and I won’t retort a word but I’ve got to ask. Why can’t you let go of god? I’d also ask why you can’t differentiate between god and then science. With the best of intentions to understand nutrideath as a person:)

Comment by: Cully

Nutrideath> Okay. I understand your viewpoint, but I still don’t buy it. The information, written simply enough for it to be understood at either end of a 6,000 year span, is an intriguing explanation. The problem is that it was written in roughly 1450 BCE (if you assume Moses wrote it) which means that your span is reduced to less than 3,500 years.

It’s not quite as long a span, but Euclid managed to write a text that has stood the test of time for nearly as long, roughly 2250 years. The difference is that Euclid’s explanations of his school of geometry are not nearly as open to interpretation or misunderstanding. Euclidean Geometry is as concrete and understandable now as it was in roughly 300 BCE. The line of prime numbers is still infinite. The combined angles of any triangle still equal 180 degrees.

I also find suspect your assertion that things were recounted from an earthly perspective because the intended audience wouldn’t have understood space to be suspect. Children have never experienced sex (hopefully) and don’t understand it, but we can explain to them where babies come from. God would clearly have understood space and could have explained it to the Israelites, so that we knew at the other end of this span that Genesis was correct without having to put it through so many hoops and translations, don’t you think?

Comment by: Nutrideath

Ir, I was taught those things as a boy at church.

Comment by: Ir

Ok, thanks Nutrideath. You might like the Reasons To Believe website; it keeps up to date on reconciling the latest scientific findings to the Bible.

Comment by: andy gr

Ok, forgive me if I’m speaking across people, but here’s my point: there are other places to go to argue for or against evolution; lots of Christians (never mind the exact figures) believe in evolution anyway. But this site is one of the few where Christians and atheists can have civil conversations without just rying to prove each other wrong. Let’s not blow it.

Comment by: Nutrideath

ack! my post got screwed up! Sorry Cully.

No time to fix it. On my way out the door.

Comment by: TXatheist

andy gr,
May I ask where you are? In Texas just last month Governor Perry said he was for teaching ID in schools alongside evolution. The exact figures in the USA are the problem, imo. If it was like the UK then I’d have a different view.

Comment by: Ron

I just had to see that 300 roll over.

Comment by: Daz

Speaking of creationism I didn’t realize until today that one of its big promoters Henry Morris, who founded the Institute for Creation Research died last month.

Comment by: Lisa W.

Siamang,
re#271 -

I often wonder how many theistic supporters of evolution there are, and why I’m fighting their fight for them.

Just for the record I’m a Christian who supports evolution.
I think God is big enough for all of it.
I always have.

Comment by: Siamang

Thanks, Lisa.

Andy gr, the corrolation between creationism and christianity looks a lot stronger on this side of the pond. This is a big current concern in America. Our president and many members of our federal legislature have voiced support for teaching ID in science class. Entire state boards of education are rewriting their science standards to a definition so loose that astrology and tarot cards could be considered science.

A couple years ago the Discovery institute pulled a fast one, where they created an intelligent design tv special that LOOKED like a real science special, you know, lots of national geographic looking footage, and cgi animations of DNA. It was called “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.” Then they put it up on a satellite feed that went out with free rights to broadcast it to public tv stations. One of my local stations, run by the local school board of education, piped in to every classroom in the district, pulled it off the satellite downlink and was about to broadcast it. (Of course, that’s unconstitutional as a government endorsement of a religious point of view.)

Luckily I saw that it was scheduled to be run and called a friend who works at the board of education. I probably saved LAUSD a multi million-dollar lawsuit! ;-)

But there’s a big battle over this going on here. It’s not like a couple of flat earthers. It’s big.

Comment by: Siamang

Andy GR wrote:

UK figures (MORI) are:
22% chose creationism
65% evolution (with or without a designer)
and the rest did not know.
Other European figures are much lower on creation.

You may be right that the US has different figures, but even so I think you’ll find that most western Christians believe in evolution: certainly, it’s rare to find a Roman Catholic or Anglican leader who opposes it, right up to the Pope.

A Pew poll last year had 42% of Americans saying life on earth has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.

48% said it had evolved. 18% of those who said it evolved said God directed the evolution.

Comment by: Siamang

Thanks, cautious. You know anything about punctuated equilibrium? I had a hypothesis about how these retroviruses provide for a mechanism for accelerating the number of mutations in a species under stress. I was wondering if I was correct. Anyone confirm that? I’ve googled it, and it seems very plausible, but I haven’t specifically read anything where someone lays it out like that.

Comment by: Donkey Kong

As an atheist, what do I think about this atheist who likes to go to church? I think I would like to put my foot up his ass!