I understand where Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians are coming from when it comes to their belief about the Bible. It is liberal Christians I have a hard time understanding. While I certainly wish every Evangelical would become a liberal, that doesn’t mean I think the liberal Christian belief system is rational and logical. In fact, I find liberal beliefs quite confusing and often contradictory. As I have often said, liberal religious beliefs are like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
Every Christian sect believes that Jesus Christ is God. Every Christian sect believes that Jesus became a human, died on the cross, and rose again from the dead three days later. Every Christian sect believes that Jesus, while on earth, was God in the human flesh. He came to earth to become the atonement for humankind’s sin. He was buried and rose again from the dead three days later securing life everlasting for all who will follow him. Every Christian sect believes that Jesus ascended to heaven and some day will return to earth again to usher in his eternal kingdom.
Most sects would also say they believe Jesus was born of a virgin, healed the sick, and raised the dead. The bottom line is this…….Jesus was a supernatural being who came to earth to do a supernatural work. From start to finish, Jesus’s life was anything but ordinary human.
Where do we find the story the Jesus? The Bible. This story is found nowhere else. Surely we all would agree that Jesus Christ is the alpha and omega of the Christian religion and all that every Christian sect knows about Jesus comes from the Bible. Without the Bible there would be no discussion going on about the historicity of Jesus.
On what basis do Christian sects believe what the Bible says about Jesus? Is the Bible just another work of literature? That’s what liberal Christians would have us believe. The Bible is just another work of literature and should be treated like any other text from antiquity.
If this is so then why have doctrinal statements or for that matter have churches at all? If the Bible is just an old book then why invest so much time and money in believing and living out its story? Quite frankly Harry Potter would be a much more interesting God and I suspect children would LOVE going to the First Church of Harry.
At this point……liberals start stammering and steaming….
You see, the Bible really is MORE than just another work of literature. Every Christian sect believes that the Bible is revelatory, that God, through the text of the Bible speaks to humanity. We can fuss and fight over words like inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility but the fact remains ALL Christians give the Bible weight and authority that they give no other text. Without an authoritative text there is no Jesus and without Jesus there is no such thing as Christianity.
We can argue endlessly about the various critical methods and hermeneutics but sooner or later every Christian must say, THIS I BELIEVE. And when they do this they are saying, I believe the Bible, to some degree or another, to be true/factual/correct.
Liberals and Evangelicals alike continue to shed beliefs like lovers and their clothes on a hot, steamy summer night. Science continues to challenge and attack Christian beliefs and Christians back up and retrench. The Christian Church has gone from a doctrinal sumo wrestler to a wasting away anorexic model. Doctrine after doctrine is abandoned or reinterpreted and it seems only Jesus is safe from discard. And even with Jesus, we now have liberals who are quite willing to jettison the virgin birth, Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the dead, and his bodily ascension back to heaven. At the rate they are going the only thing left will be Jesus’s image on a piece of toast.
Atheism is not Christianity’s biggest problem. Atheism will not bring the Christian house down. Christians will do that all on their own. When people realize that NOTHING matters they will conclude that NOTHING matters and they will stop attending church and stop giving their money. The beast will die a slow, agonizing death, a death brought on by their unwillingness to have beliefs that matter.
Currently, there is a battle raging over the historicity of Jesus. Christianity finds a strange champion in Bart Ehrman. He has done much to hasten the death of Christianity, yet here he is, defending their man. I suspect any day now there will be a liberal theologian or pastor somewhere that will say, “Well, we don’t really need to believe Jesus was real to be a Christian.” Game over.
As an atheist, I think Christianity is false. I reject any, and all, claims made by the various Christian sects. I don’t think Jesus was anything that the Bible says he was. While I believe Jesus the man was a real historical figure, I reject any supernatural claim made for Jesus. At best, the Bible is an admixture of fact and error and it is almost impossible to tell one from the other. That said, I have great respect for people who have beliefs they are willing to stand up for and defend. There is something about a person’s willingness to stand up for their beliefs no matter the cost….I admire such boldness, such conviction.
I know someone will be sure to suggest that I still think like a fundamentalist. Believe what you will. While I am most certainly not a fundamentalist, I do admire people who have courage and conviction. I respect people who believe something enough that they are willing to give their lives to it.
I think you’re touching on one of the key elements that caused me to start questioning my faith and ultimately lead to me becoming an atheist. I was a liberal Christian. No one in my family ever took the creation story literally, and I grew up believing all the bits about Jesus being divine, but not accepting all the crazy bits.
Eventually, I began to ask myself: “If I can so easily reject parts of the Bible as clearly false, then what’s to stop the rest of it being false?”
It took a while to ask this question, because for a long time I would have assumed that God intended some of it to be historical and other bits of it to be allegorical. As you say, like trying to nail jello to the wall.
Hmm, I guess we both have different ideas of what a liberal Christian is, Bruce.
By your definition, I’d say a liberal Christian is either an agnostic or a nominal Christian.
I would like to think that a liberal Christian is one who is not bound by religious tradition and is willing to find new ways with which to express his/her faith to accomplish what Jesus began with His ministry (which includes clarification of the “Law” for those who have taken it too literally and have missed the greater point, which is love.).
And while I agree with you that it is easy to respect someone who is willing to die for their beliefs, I find it hard to sympathize with the religious fanatic who blows people up thinking he/she will get to heaven because of it.
I believe it matters a lot whether what a person believes is true or not. I myself have great respect for those who try their best to find out whether what they believe in is actually true, even if it means being persecuted for doing so. Far too many of us Christians have become comfortable living with a second-hand faith and have mistaken religion and traditions for true spirituality.
I’m curious about your statement about Jesus’ ministry being about a clarificaiton of the Law, which is ultimately love. This seems to be a common position for many Christians, that Jesus fulfilled or clarified the Law, and boiled it all down to love.
What I’m curious about is how anyone could come to this position. If you were presented with the Old Testament Law for the first time, without any access to any information about Jesus (i.e. if you received it as the people of the time did), and were asked to summarize it, I can’t imagine the word love being anywhere in the summary. And certainly not the main theme.
To me, when examined objectively, Jesus’ main message of love (if he existed and if that was his main message) seems less fulfillment and clarification and more absolute contradiction of the Law.
Hello Formerchristianatheist!
Thank you for your question! I hope I can answer you satisfactorily.
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He basically quoted two verses from the Old Testament, namely:
“Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”(Deuteronomy 6:5 NIV)(Deuteronomy 6:5 NIV)
and
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”(Leviticus 19:18 NIV)(Leviticus 19:18 NIV)
The Law is supposed to produce a certain kind of behavior in people. When you pass a law saying that “You shall not steal”, the implication there is that stealing hurts your neighbor and can result in destructive conflict that can affect society in general.
Some people have come to the conclusion that “as long as I don’t steal, I’m fulfilling the Law.” But what if the Law is removed? If one has not dealt with the urge to steal, then it is highly likely that the absence of the Law (and its corresponding penalties), will result in a person stealing.
Case in point: ever seen what happens when government breaks down? What’s the first thing that happens? Looting and rioting.
Only a person who has genuine concern for others (i.e. love) will choose not to steal at this point. That’s why Paul said in Romans:
“Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”(Romans 13:10 NIV)(Romans 13:10 NIV)
Jesus clarified the intent of the Law by setting an example of what it means to be a genuinely loving person: i.e. one who sacrifices even his/her own life for the sake of others. If all people behaved in this way, then the Law would be accomplished. There wouldn’t be a need for the Law at that point. That is why Jesus said:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
(Matthew 5:17-18 NIV)
So a true measure of the genuineness of a person’s love is to see what happens when the Law is removed.
If he/she remains a loving, caring member of society, then that person has truly fulfilled/accomplished the Law.
Of course, the ancient people of the Old Testament probably would not have come to this conclusion until Jesus pointed it out to them. This is why Jesus is so central to the Christian faith. He is literally “the author and perfecter of our faith.”
Thanks for your response. I appreciate hearing your understanding of how you link the message atributed to Jesus to the horrific Old Testamant Law. As you might imagine, though, I don’t find it very satisfying.
The example of laws against theft is an obvious one that almost everyone can agree on makes society a better place. Replacing that law with “love” is easy enough because if I love my neighbout then presumably I won’t steal from him. But, that is one example that, if you don’t mind the expression, is cherry-picked to suit the argument.
As we all know, the Old Testament is chock full of laws that are not particularly loving towards one’s neighbour. Examples abound of both legislative law (e.g. putting someone to death for a homosexual act) and common law (e.g. the complete and under destruction of other societies under the guidance of God) that have nothing to do with love. One could suggest that these are examples of the consequences of not living as God intended, or of not loving God, but they are not the sort of discipline any moral fatherly figure could be imagine doling out in love.
Furthermore, both the Old Testament law and the New Testament message of “love” are simply cultural suggestions that might have seemed appropriate at the time. There’s not much in the Bible to suggest a loving life when it comes to creatures other than humans. What about love and care of animals? What about love and care of the environment? “Love” just gets hijacked by Christianity to mean “obeying God”.
As I say, try completely throwing out the New Testament. Then go through the Old Testament without bias as if you are reading it for the first time. Come up with half a dozen words to summarize the law. I’d bet money that love is not one of the words used.
I guess to clarify and add to what I’m saying, the definition of the command “love your neighbour” is comletely subjective depending on how you or your neighbour interprets being loved. And that’s why “love your neighbour” is an atrocious system of trying to run society. You might behave towards me in a certain way, thinking you are being loving, indeed intending to be loving. You might give it your all and really think you are making society a better place by loving me. All the while, your behaviour towards me might be interpreted by me as hateful and disrespectful. In that scenario, you’ll be indignant that you are behaving in a loving manner, and I’ll be resentful that you are hurting me.
My examples above of care for the environment or for animals are illustrations of this point. Many Christians might think they are “loving” people who behave in a respectful manner because they don’t lie to me or steal from me. They wish that everyone else would be as loving. But, all the while they are trashing the environment by needlessly driving a gas-guzzling SUV, which to me might happen to be more important than being honest with me. So in that example, the one person is confident they are loving their neighbour, while the neighbour is outraged at their incredibly selfish, immoral, and anti-social behaviour.
I hope I make myself clear on why either “love your neighbour” or “love God” are totally useless themes in society. They are completely subjective on your definition of what is good for your neighbour or of what your particular god wants you to do.
Sorry for the late reply, had
a rather busy weekend with my family.
You make some very compelling
arguments against the continuity of the Old Testament Laws and the New
Testament Faith. I also take note of your argument on the subjectivity of
“love”.
I agree with you that a lot
of the specific commands outside of the Ten Commandments sound harsh. But a lot
of us (note that I include myself), make the mistake of interpreting the Old
Testament by present socio-cultural standards. If we insist on interpreting
Scripture that way, then it is inevitable that it will come across as barbaric.
The same thing can be said
when studying any text or literature from the ancient world. You simply cannot
expect the ancient people to have the same standards for moral behavior that we
do right now.
That is why we do exegesis.
We first determine the context in which the text we are studying was written.
You talk about gay rights and
rules of military engagement. You do realize that governments only started
taking women’s and children’s rights seriously only around the late 18th
and 19th centuries? How about the abolition of slavery? When did
that happen? Apartheid?
Only three years ago, the
world took notice that the US voted a colored man into the Presidency for the
first time in its history.
Despite all of these
milestones, we still have to have international covenants on human rights both
during peacetime and wartime. And you know what? We still hear of governments
violating them, not to mention individual acts of violation.
So if human rights violations
persist in our time despite the existence of international and locally binding
laws and covenants to protect them, what do you think the situation was in
ancient times when there were NO such laws in place?
This is the context in which
the Old Testament was supposedly written. You’re talking about cultures who had
no qualms throwing their babies into flaming hot bronze statues, having sex
with just about anyone and anything, and generally just defiling the land with
immoral behavior.
“All
these detestable activities are practiced by the people of the land where I am
taking you, and this is how the land has become defiled. So do not defile the
land and give it a reason to vomit you out, as it will vomit out the people who
live there now.” (Leviticus 18:27-28 NLT)
So, was it
cruel for the Hebrews to “completely consecrate to God” all those people who
were already living immoral lives in the land they were conquering? If the
tables had been turned, and the Canaanites, Jebusites, Hittites and all the
other inhabitants of the Promised Land were to invade the Hebrews, do you think
they would have done any less? On the contrary, they might have even done more:
rape, pillage, torture for sport, and all other forms of heinousness that
wartime without rules of engagement brings.
On the subject
of love, yes, I agree with you that the word “love” is very subjective. But
only if we don’t agree on which kind of love we are talking about.
It’s a limitation
of the English language that it uses only one word to describe a variety of
human affections. The Greek has at least three that I know of: eros (lust),
phileo (filial or brotherly love), and agape (allegedly the highest form of
love). In my own language, we have several as well.
The love being
described in the New Testament is very specific. It talks about “agape”, of
which the closest translation is “self-sacrificing love”. It means that you are
so committed to another person that you are willing to sacrifice your own
self-interests in favor of his/her well being.
Any social
contract obligations that we have entail us having to sacrifice certain
self-interests in favor of maintaining order in society in general. We howl in
protest when our rights are being violated, but we seem to have forgotten that
those rights exist not just to benefit the individual, but to benefit society
in general.
I believe this
is the idea behind the Old Testament Law. Israel was to be a special nation in
the ancient middle-east at a very specific point in time where historically, no
other nation was like it. It possessed the “Law” outlining the conditions for
exercising “love” (i.e. agape) towards God (as the Author of the Law) and one’s
neighbor, as opposed to the “lawless” practices of other nations.
Of course, we know from reading Scripture that
Israel itself was not able to keep the requirements of the Law, despite having
possession of it.
It is here that the Christian
faith begins. But that is a topic for another subject. J
I would reject the first half of your response on one main flaw. You rightly
point to the culture of the times to justify the laws of the Old Testament.
Since the culture of the times was so horrific, then condemning homosexuals to
death didn’t seem that bad. There is one fundamental flaw with this argument is
that, for the Christian, the Old Testament law must come from revelation from
God, not simply by trying to advance the society of the time a little bit. If
God is timeless and moral, then he would not introduce laws to Old Testament
times that seems a bit more civilized at the time but which remain horrific and
barbaric to us now. If morality came from God, then the morality presented by
God through the Old Testament laws would not become immoral in modern times.
Yet it does. One has only to read the Old Testament to see how immoral much of
it is. You yourself admit that it sounds harsh by today’s standards. That is an
argument against divine revelation of the law and an argument for the law
simply coming from the minds of forward thinking men who lived in the culture
of the times.
Secondly, relating it all to love, I have always
thought that the claim of the English language failing in its description of
love is a cop-out, and I do in this case too. Every pastor will preach at some
point about the three types of love in the original Greek of the New Testament,
and point to the single word love in English. English actually has many
parallel words such as like, lust, respect, admire, affection, condone, etc.
All and any of these can be used in describing how behaviours in society might
be defined as “loving your neighbour.” But, it doesn’t negate my previous two
points: 1) that none of these definitions come out as themes of the Old
Testament (nor do agape, eros, philia, or storge). There is simply no way
around the fact that there is very little love in the Old Testament law, and to
pretend that Jesus “fulfilled” the law with love is just a fantasy. 2)
Regardless of how love is defined, it is still subjective. I might respect you,
love you, like you and so on, but if I don’t understand how my actions actually
affect you, then I’m not going to be a very good neighbour. Jesus said nothing about
this. He said to treat people as you would like to be treated. The problems
with that philosophy are obvious and I already pointed them out (not everyone
wants to be treated the same way).
Fascinating! I haven’t heard those kinds of arguments before. They’re quite well thought of, and I appreciate you having taken the time to present them to me.
I’ve never thought that a revelation from God should be timeless. But I can see how one could come to this conclusion. As a Christian, I believe that God IS timeless after all.
The one thing that I cannot reconcile about your argument however, is you implying that the WHOLE Old Testament is immoral and inapplicable in our time. I humbly beg to disagree. The Ten Commandments alone remain highly relevant in our modern times. I would even venture to say that modern civilization has these as their foundation.
As to those laws or provisions specific to their time, this is not hard for me to reconcile with the timelessness of God. God sees the beginning and the end. Humans do not. They live and are bound within a specific period of time and socio-cultural context. It wouldn’t make sense for God to talk about double-helixes and quantum mechanics to a civilization just coming out of the bronze age. Similarly, talking about women’s, children’s and even homosexuals rights at that time would have likely fallen on deaf ears.
So in this case, the limitation is not with God, but with humanity itself.
I concede to your argument against English not having enough words to describe love. But it really does not help that English uses the same word “love” to describe a predilection for hamburgers and affection for one’s spouse, parent or child.
However, I again humbly beg to disagree with your argument that “loving God” and “loving your neighbor as yourself” are completely useless themes in society. On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely these two that hold the fabric of society together. When the time comes that all forms of government fail, it will be the people who love (i.e. self-sacrificing love) who will keep humanity from devouring itself.
Finally, I have to ask, if self-sacrificing love is not the common theme that binds the Old and New testament narratives together, then why go through all the trouble of putting them together in the first place? If it is purely a work of contrived fiction, what would have been the purpose of it’s authors in threading together such a tale? The early church fathers MUST have had some kind of basis for interpreting scripture in such a way, else they would NOT have been able to so convincingly fool their followers and so fuel the growth of Christianity in the ancient world so that it would end up being practiced by roughly 2/3rds of the world’s population today.
I don’t think the ten commandments are the foundation of modern civilization
at all. The first five are completely irrelevant to modern civilization. Number
ten is pretty well in opposition to the foundation of any capitalist society.
People wanting to better their lives with more things, while I agree is not
necessarily a worthy and advisable life goal, is most certainly important to
capitalism working, so “thou shalt not covet” is hardly relevant either.
Commandments six through nine are sensible guidelines to a civil society, but
you can’t seriously think that they were a new revelation at the time that they
were supposedly given to humanity by God. It’s not possible or feasible to
believe that the world had no idea that murder, adultery, theft, and perjury
were wrong up until the time that Moses was handed the ten commandments. These
are clearly common sense rules that any society would have without the need for
guidance from God.
I perceive the next part of your argument is that God somehow softened his
rules a bit to fit with the culture of the time. Indeed, why would God talk about
DNA and Newtonian mechanics in the Bronze Age? But surely a loving God wouldn’t
need to leave women, homosexuals, and Gentiles out to dry just to be able to connect
properly with the Israelites of the time. The whole thing stinks of being
man-made. Of simply being a reflection of the culture of the time, not of some
divine revelation that was moving anyone along to any greater morality at all.
I’m not sure if we are still understanding on another
on “loving your neighbour.” You claim it is the command that binds the fabric
of society together into one that is civilized. If you assume that your love of
your neighbour is treating them in the way that THEY want to be treated, then
that may have some sense. But that is not what Jesus commanded. He commanded
people to treat others as you yourself would want to be treated. This brings me
back to my previous examples in which you may think you are loving me, but are
in fact doing something that I find hateful.
I see that you’ve mentioned capitalism. I take it that by capitalism, you are referring to the accumulation of material wealth? I also take it that you’re familiar with how Scripture deals with the issue of the blind acquisition of material wealth?
Let’s leave the Bible out of it for a moment and ask ourselves, what is the logical conclusion to capitalism? While it is true that many useful technological advances have come about as a result of capitalism, those advances are merely the byproduct and not the end goal of capitalism. Capitalism is only concerned about producing material wealth. And material wealth cannot be universal because the material is finite. In other words, capitalism can only produce wealth for a specific amount of people. And that is why there is a HUGE disparity between the number of rich people and the number of poor people in the world. And history will tell you that that has always been a source of conflict for humanity.
Yes, “You shall not covet” goes against capitalism. But that’s because capitalism, if left unchecked, is detrimental to humanity in the long run. The Law is concerned about promoting the welfare of humanity in general (and not just the few). And as long as humanity exists, promoting its welfare is ALWAYS relevant.
To answer the next part of your post, I don’t think God was leaving anyone “out to dry”. His choosing the Israelites to be His “special posession” serves a greater purpose. The Israelites are supposed to be the “light for the Gentiles.” They are the ones who are supposed to promote the the Law to the rest of the world. God’s choosing the Israelites was just a means to an end, and the end is to reconcile ALL the nations to Himself. This includes women, children, homosexuals and non-believers alike. If God were so high-brow about His standards, then He should not have bothered with humanity at all in the first place, filthy sinners that we all are.
But as it is, Scripture consistently tells us that God is right there with humanity. He is right at the thick of humanity in fact, culminating of course with the birth, life, death and ressurection of the Messiah, “Immanuel” Himself.
Finally, I think it is important that we understand what Jesus meant when He talks about “loving oneself”. I think C.S. Lewis provides an excellent explanation:
“…our love for ourselves does not mean that we like ourselves. It means that we wish our own good. In the same way Christian love (or Charity) for our neighbors is quite a different thing from liking or affection.”
Now the big question this raises is this: what is truly good for humanity?
We can look at “good” from two perspectives: “good” in the short term, and “good” in the long term. I can engage in a hot, steamy, adulterous relationship now and feel “good” about it, but it obviously isn’t “good” for me (or my family) in the long term. I can stuff myself silly with pizza, hamburgers and steak and feel “good” about it now, but again, it will have not so “good” consequences later.
To me, Scripture is dealing with the latter type of good: the one that is for the long term. And to love your neighbor as you love yourself means that you’re primarily concerned about the long term welfare of society.
Incidentally, you mentioned in an earlier Post that you think Christianity doesn’t deal too kindly with animals or the environment?
Environmentalists talk about “sustainable development” and the proper management of finite resources. Well, did you know that the Old Testament already had a Law dealing with this? You’d be surprised how relevant “Keep the Sabbath holy” truly is.
“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD. For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards. Do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to have a year of rest.”Leviticus 25:2-5 NIV)Leviticus 25:2-5 NIV)
Keeping the Sabbath does not mean going to Church on sundays. It means giving yourself (and everyone else) a time to rest, recuperate and enjoy the fruits of our labor. Because working on an empty tank means that you’ll probably be cranky and hot-headed and do more harm than good to society. Is it still not relevant for us to have our R and R today?
I only brought capitalism up because you claimed that the ten commandments
are the basis for modern society. They are clearly not. Much of modern society
is based on greed and the accumulation of wealth, which is in direct opposition
to at least one of the ten commandments. I’m not trying to open a discussion on
the merits or detriments of capitalism.
If you don’t mind, most of your response sounds to me like a classic case of
trying to make evidence fit a preconceived conclusion or agenda. Your
preconceived conclusion is that God exists and that he loves humanity. Then you
read the Bible and find ways to make what you read fit into that conclusion. I
take the opposite approach in life. I look at the evidence as objectively as
possible and then form my conclusions. This difference in approach is what
defines the difference between your interpretation of God as loving and my interpretation
as him as a hateful, vengeful, petty, vindictive man-made deity. For example,
you claim that through the Israelites God brought in his laws. But the evidence
doesn’t support that. As I’ve already mentioned, it is not feasible to think
that any law introduced by Moses (if he even existed, which is very doubtful)
was new and advancing to any society of the time. Humans had been involved in
agriculture for thousands of years before the time of the ten commandments.
Murder, theft, perjury would all have been understood to be wrong in any
advanced civilization of the time.
This approach of forming the conclusion first is relevant to the very
beginning of our discussion. As I pointed out to begin with, anyone who ever
read through the Old Testament for the first time, without any reference to the
New Testament, would never bring “love” as the main theme out of the Old
Testament law. That is simply a conclusion that any Christian already has when
they then go looking for love in the Old Testament.
As far as the C.S. Lewis quote goes, there is an
equally important quote that goes along with that: “I think humanity has had
about all the Christian charity it can handle over the centuries. No more,
thanks.”
My friend, if you want to go down the road of contesting our objectivity with regards to how we interpret reality, I’m afraid our discussions will never end. It is impossible for one human being to say that he/she can interpret reality without being subjective. We are individuals, and as such, see reality differently based on what has made us individuals. Any evidence for reality is ALWAYS subject to interpretation. I think sgl already posted a link to Richard Feynmann’s article about how even the scientific method itself is subject to human subjectivity. We can’t help but interpret. That’s what makes us human.
None of us can ever hope of having ultimate authority on what constitutes ultimate reality, and I’ve never claimed to have that authority. I am merely sharing with you how I see reality from my perspective, not to force you into accepting it, but merely for the sake of broadening our respective viewpoints, in the hope of coming closer to what reality ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.
Unless you don’t believe in an ultimate reality, in which case, we’re both just wasting our time.
But I don’t think you would have wasted your time writing all of your well-thought out responses if you weren’t sincerely curious about how another person with a different viewpoint from your own interprets a common reality. So I take it that you’re still willing to discuss.
I agree with you when you say that standards for civil behavior already existed prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments. Scripture tells us that the Word “existed in the beginning”. In other words, the Law existed prior to it being formally handed down to Moses and the Israelites. Because if it didn’t, then on what basis did God judge Adam and Eve? What basis did He judge the earth in the time of Noah?
At this point, I must clarify with you that I don’t believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Like I said, God would not talk about DNA, Quantum Physics, and Fuzzy Logic to those whose technology is limited to a nomadic/agricultural level. I believe the Book of Genesis is a simplification of the actual Creation process, much the same way we simplify the process of sexual reproduction to our children using the birds and the bees.
I think the most important thing that the Genesis account is telling us is the definition of sin. Sin begins when we fall short of the Creator’s expectations. It means that you’ve shunned the purpose for which you were made. Sin is rebellion against authority and the natural order of things.
Any medical doctor will tell you that disease begins when parts of your body start doing things they’re not supposed to. Sin therefore, is a disease of the heart and soul of humanity. This is how Scripture explains the existence of suffering and evil in the world. And I personally believe it is a pretty accurate description of reality as I know it.
We don’t need the Ten Commandments to tell us that there are certain things we’re not supposed to do in this life. We know these things instinctively. Even before I became a Christian, I KNEW in my heart whether what I was doing was wrong or right. And more often than not, reality confirms it when my actions bear fruit. You treat a person badly, it will cause problems. You treat a person nice, then things will go well.
Sometimes though, the fruit of our actions don’t come immediately or as apparently. At such times, it may seem to us that things we thought were bad were not so bad after all. But believing that a wrong thing is right does not negate the consequences of doing the wrong thing. We ALWAYS reap what we sow. I’ve learned that the hard way.
So there IS a Law written onto our very own DNA, which tells us that there is a standard to which we SHOULD abide by.
I believe the purpose of the Ten Commandments was to make this inherent Law in our hearts formal, much the same way we formalize an agreement in writing. The written agreement is not the agreement itself, but a representation of the actual relationship.
I think of the Commandments as the Constitution of the Israelites, a Magna Carta meant to remind them of their identity and obligations as God’s chosen people.
I sort of agree with your implied conclusion that my exposure to the Christian New Testament is coloring my interpretation of the Old Testament.
If you REALLY want to find out what the theme of the Old Testament is WITHOUT the New Testament, then you can ask someone who practices Judaism. Maybe that will clarify for both of us whether self-sacrificing love is truly the theme of the whole Christian Bible.
Finally, I’m curious as to the author of your last quote. Do you mind if you share it with me?
As usual, we completely disagree on almost everything you write. I
completely reject the notion that evidence for reality is always subject to
interpretation. Surely you don’t need me to start listing scientific
discoveries that leave no room for subjective interpretation. Any subjective
interpretation of reality is merely an error, not a different perspective. If I
interpret electrons to have anything other than a negative charge, that is not
my personal interpretation, it is simply wrong. If my reality is that force is
not the product of mass and acceleration but rather the product of mass,
acceleration, and distance, then I’ve made an error, not a personal
interpretation.
I agree that morality is innate. We all know what is right and wrong. But
that is because morality is a human construct. We also all know what the colour
yellow is because we define the colour yellow as humans. It is because morality
is a human construct that it is innate, and that merely strengthens my point
that morality requires no divine revelation. The Ten Commandments, then, are
merely an attempt to write down what everyone already knew (along with some
other commands that are not part of human morality).
We are speaking very different languages. You talk of a Creator. I don’t
believe in one. You talk about sin. I don’t believe sin exists. You speak of
characters, such as Noah, that to me are fictional. So none of that has any
more relevance to me than if you started talking about how Mickey Mouse is
relevant in a discussion about God. (Please, don’t go there, it was just an
example).
Given the vast difference in language we are speaking, I’m not sure what
purpose this discussion serves?
Well my friend, you tell me: why DID you engage in this conversation in the first place?
I don’t know about you, but I’ve been getting quite a lot from our exchange. You’ve broadened my perspective considerably as to how a non-subscriber to the Christian faith thinks. You’ve asked me genuine questions that led me to a lot of constructive introspection. This in turn has clarified a lot of my own questions about my faith.
If differences in opinion were such a great setback to communication, then the world would be a very hard place to live in indeed. But thankfully, communication CAN still occur despite our differences, and truly, the world is a better place because of it.
Again, I don’t think you would have gone through all the trouble of writing and responding if you weren’t curious about something.
As it is, I am more than willing to continue in our exchange, provided that we BOTH benefit from it. You are free to continue to pick apart my faith, provided that you likewise grant me the opportunity to try and put it back together. If we continue to have an impasse, then at least we can agree to disagree. There is no need to slam the door on one another.
I think I engage in these sorts of conversations because I am curious about the similarities and differences in Christian’s thought and opinions to those I held when I was a Christian. It is interesting and enlightening.
I don’t see myself slamming the door or anything, I’m just not sure where else this can go. That is largely because once I reach a point in conversation in which the other party is discussing things in terms of things I don’t believe exist at all, I find it difficult to carry on a serious conversation. For me it is a bit like going to a scientific talk and having a conversation with somneone not about the intracicies of human physiology, but rather a conversation with someone who claims humans have no heart. It gets to the point that it makes no sense to me.
I can’t place where my quote about Christian charity came from. Something is telling me it was Hitchens, but I’m not sure that it was him at all. Sorry I can’t place it.
I think I understand what you’re saying. And I appreciate again your candor on the matter.
Perhaps if we clarified some common ground, we can begin to work around (and perhaps even reconcile) our differences in perspective. If I might ask a few questions of you?
1) Do you believe there is absolute truth/objective reality/ultimate reality?
2) Do you believe that there are things beyond normal human physical perception that drive existence? In other words, do you believe in the concept of a “pneuma” or “spirit/soul”?
3) Do you believe there are moral standards of behavior that humans SHOULD abide by in life? If this is the case, then what do you think a morally healthy person looks like?
4) Do you believe in causality/law of consequence? If so, do you believe that some of our actions today can have much greater implications that we can perceive, even beyond our lifetimes? If so, do you think it reasonable that we should forego those actions that benefit us now, but have detrimental consequences beyond our lifetimes, for the sake of succeeding generations?
5) Do you believe humans have a purpose in life, other than the obvious biological ones? If humans are the current pinnacle of biological evolution on earth, what do you think is the next step? What do you think humans are evolving into?
You don’t have to answer all of these questions if you don’t feel like it. I won’t take it against you if you don’t.
If anything, I am glad that at least we agree that we both are getting something out of this exchange. We are both learning more about each other, and hopefully, about other people who share in our beliefs as well.
Thank you again for your time. Our exchange is actually something that I look forward to nowadays. So I do hope that you won’t soon get tired of it.
Several of these questions could be answered with a yes or a no depending on
the definitions and circumstances, but I’ll answer them as plainly as I can.
1) Yes. I am a scientist so it is hard to reject absolute truth about
things.
2) I believe there are things beyond normal human physical perception only
in that we don’t have the ability to perceive everything in the natural world
yet, much like ancient people not being able to observe microorganisms. I have
no reason to believe there is anything other than the natural and physical
world. I don’t believe in the concept of a soul.
3) I believe morality is definable and that humans should behave according
to a certain morality. But I believe that morality is a human quality.
Therefore, while it is objective within humanity, it is relative in the greater
universe. I have written at some length about my beliefs on morality on my
blog, you may see more of it there.
4) I don’t see how I could deny consequences in the future. Certainly our
actions today can have implications greater than we can perceive. Humanity’s
role in changing the environment is a classic example of this. Certainly we
should live in a way so as to benefit succeeding generations. But I don’t have
much hope that humanity will do so.
5) From a biological perspective humans have no purpose. We exist and that
is it. Nature doesn’t care whether we exist or not, nor does it care what we do
with our lives. Eventually every human, all life on earth, and earth itself
will disappear as our sun turns into a red giant. Nothing will matter at that
point. However, certainly our lives can have purpose. We all find purpose in
various things in life, in relating to people, in having children, in having a
career, etc. But no, I do not believe in a greater purpose in a spiritual
sense. I don’t think humans are the pinnacle of evolution. Evolution doesn’t
work that way. We are simply a species of primates that has evolved. We will
eventually go extinct as 99.9% of all other species have so far. Humans may or
may not evolve biologically. It depends on factors completely out of our
control as evolution happens on an enormous time scale compared to a human
lifespan.
Thank you for taking the time to respond! And my apologies for replying a bit late. I had just come from spending the weekend with my family and surviving in-law.
Okay, here goes:
1) I’m glad that you do not reject absolute truth. I have found it more difficult to have a proper exchange with a relativist/postmodernist. We have our first common ground.
2) Spoken like a true scientist.
Would you by any chance, also consider Philosophy to be dead? Because if the natural world is all there is to life, then it makes no sense for us to even consider the spiritual or unseen aspect of things right?
3) I would like to visit your blog sometime. Would you mind sharing the link?
4) Again, I am glad that you believe in causality. As for your not having much hope for humanity, well, that is one of the things that Christianity is supposed to cure! But the verdict is still out on that one I guess.
5) There seems to be something wrong with your assumptions here. Are not humans the dominant species on our planet (currently that is)? How do you suppose we got to this position? If the evolutionary process was not involved, then how does one account for the complexity of the human biology? Humans themselves are organisms are we not? Which means that we are comprised of smaller, simpler lifeforms. How did those lifeforms come together in the first place to form the complex organism that we are? Is evolution not a vectoral process? It posits that life began from simple carbon-based lifeforms to more complex ones. So there is a direction inherent in the evolutionary process. I am asking where you think this process will take life next?
Finally, as a side note, I should probably also mention to you that if I had taken up the pseudonym “Formeratheistchristian”, it would accurately describe my own experience.
So ditto on wanting to know how a former-Christian-turned-atheist thinks. It was what drew me to Bruce’s site in the first place.
I hope we can continue with our conversation and further expand each other’s understanding for our mutual benefit.
I don’t like boxes and labels. I don’t like it when someone tries to put me
in a neat little box and then they think they can understand me. That is why I
am reluctant about these types of categorizing lists. As I said, any of those
questions might have been answered either yes or no depending on the
interpretation or circumstance. In that light, I again feel that we are
speaking quite different languages, and I’ll attempt to explain why in regards
to each point.
1) I don’t think that someone who doesn’t “reject absolute truth” can
immediately be ruled out as a relativist or post-modernist. As I say, I don’t
like boxes and labels. Some things are absolute in life. Others are relative.
2) I don’t see why my statement that I see no reason to believe there is anything
beyond the natural world would lead you to ask whether I would consider
philosophy dead. That seems like a non sequitur to me. Philosophy is a large
field of study of basically asking questions. Just because there isn’t any
evidence for things outside the natural world doesn’t mean I would discard the
whole process of asking questions about things. But, it also doesn’t mean that
I would randomly ask questions about a spiritual world. To me, asking oneself
about the spiritual world is an example of starting with a conclusion and then
looking for evidence, a process that I have written relatively extensively on
my blog about why I reject it. If there is no evidence for a soul or the spiritual
world, then there is no reason to start drawing conclusions about the existence
of a soul and to start hunting for the evidence. But, it is certainly not also
a reason to completely throw out philosophy in its entirety. I would argue the
exact opposite in fact: that someone who thinks there is a spiritual world is
the one who has discarded philosophy.
3) My blog can be reached by clicking on my name.
4) Again, I would argue the exact opposite. Christianity does not give hope,
and certainly not hope for humanity. Of all the people I meet, it is the
Christians (and other religions) who have the least interest in passing on a
healthy world to future generations. Most Christians seem to have a fatalistic
attitude that Jesus is going to come back any day now, so why bother caring for
things like the environment. If there is any hope for the future of humanity, I
would argue it will come from science and an acceptance of the abilities and
limitations of our species rather than from the writings of a misogynistic delusional
Roman who exported a particular cult of Judaism to the world at large.
5) From my perspective it is you who has something wrong with your
assumptions about evolution. You seem to think that humans are the pinnacle of
the process of evolution, as though we sit at the top of some grand pyramid,
and then are asking me what comes next. The better analogy is to think of a
very large and complex tree, and humans represent one small leaf on one small
twig of one small branch of the tree. You are asking what will sprout from that
leaf next. It may be that a new twig will branch off, or it may be that the
twig will wither and die off (as most twigs on the tree of evolution have
done). If you asking me questions such as whether humans are organisms, whether
we are complex, and how organisms came together in the first place then I would
suggest that either you don’t understand the process of evolution very well, or
else you don’t think that I do. Asking me where evolution will go next is a
non-starter.
My apologies for any offense that my previous response caused. I was not trying to put you in a box or anything. I was just trying to find some common ground. I believe the purpose of our exchange is to gain understanding, rather than to cause conflict. So I appreciate you telling me that you’re being offended. I shall try to be more tactful in my succeeding responses.
1) Agreed. I don’t like it either when people think of me as blind, ignorant, hypocritical, and misogynist just because I proclaim myself to be a Christian.
2) Your answer is kind of reassuring. I will render final assessment after I get to read your blog.
3) Thanks, I will go ahead and read your blog. Just in case you’re interested, my own blog can be found at shinbrouken.blogspot.com.
4) So, do you think that there is/are living organisms which have attained the same level of dominance on our planet? I kind of appreciate you trying to be humble about our humanity, but I think its rather obvious who is at the top of the food chain as far as life on our planet is concerned. Also, you’ll have to pardon me for asking, but how am I not understanding the process of evolution? I know I’m not a scientist, but I beg for your patience in explaining to me how you, as a scientist, understand the evolutionary process.
Let’s get something clear. I am not offended by what you write. When I converse like this, I am simply making points and listening to someone else’s points. I usually try to neither offend someone nor go out of my way not to offend someone. I just make my point and assume that they understand that a difference of point of view is not an insult, and I make the same assumptions about things that other people say to me. I try not to take things personally, so I don’t think you need to keep reassuing me that you didn’t mean to offend me, because no offence has been taken.
Our differences on evolution, I think, are about the fundamental process and the results of the process. I hear you saying that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. That somehow we are the most advanced and complex result of evolution and therefore we have some special significance. But, the way I see it is as I described with the tree analogy. We are simply one species on the tree of life that includes hundreds of millions of species through time. We happen to have a very large and complex brain that has enabled us to currently sit at the top of the food chain and control manage our environment more to our advantage than any other species that we know of. But, that doesn’t mean that the next species to evolve will be some even more intelligent “super-human”. The next species to dominate the earth may be an insect or a reptile. No one knows. I don’t see it as a humble approach to humanity, but simply a scientific approach.
For some reason I find Bruce’s site different today and am having difficulty signing in with my usual name.
I’m glad to hear that you weren’t offended. You’ll have to forgive me if I try to tread softly every once in a while. After all, I’m kind of in hostile territory here at Bruce’s blog.
By the way, I think the new Disqus format has changed how clicking your name works. Instead of going to your blogsite, it just shows your latest comments. So I am not able to visit your blog yet.
I understand the tree analogy for the evolutionary process. I’ve seen Darwin’s drawings and the modern renditon of the Phylogenetic tree. Given your take on how a species becomes dominant, I would personally put my bet on bacteria or some other micro-organism gaining dominance eventually.
You mentioned that humans currently have the ability to control and manage our environment to our advantage more than any other species as of the moment. If all of creation were morally neutral, then it matters not what we do right? We could blow each other and the rest of the world up with nuclear weapons and nature wouldn’t give a damn. It would just produce life again from the ashes of nuclear winter. And if it can’t on earth, then it will do so somewhere else.
The thing I can’t reconcile about that is why did nature produce humans in the first place? Why have we evolved a moral consciousness? If we were no better than the organisms from which we evolved from, then it makes no sense for us to have developed this moral consciousness. Unless nature meant it as a fail-safe to prevent our species from indeed blowing ourselves and the rest of the world up. But if we start thinking that way, it means that nature has a purpose in design. The more complex the organisms it produces, the more complex it ways of interacting with each other and the rest of its environment becomes.
Species evolve, gain dominance, and then die out. But in that process, I see a purposeful determination to create a species that is so perfect that it will NEVER die out, but will continue to spread even beyond the confines of this planet.
I find it fascinating that both Steve Hawkings and the Bible seem to be pointing at humans in fulfilling this role. They both point to the colonization of stars as our destiny.
“He took him outside and said, “Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” – Genesis 15:5, NIV
One of the defining moments in my Christian journey was when I read the chapter on the Evolution of Consciousness in M. Scott Peck’s book, “The Road Less Traveled”:
“I have said that the ultimate goal of spiritual growth is for the individual to become one with God. It is to know with God. Since the unconscious is God all along, we may further define the goal of spiritual growth to be the attainment of godhood by the conscious self. It is for the individual to become totally, wholly God….We are born that we might become, as a conscious individual, a new life form for God….We will have become God’s agent, his arm, so to speak, and therefore a part of Him. And insofar as we might then through our conscious decisions be able to influence the world according to His will, our lives themselves will become the agents of God’s grace. We ourselves will then have become one form of the grace of God, working on His behalf among mankind, creating love where did not exist before, pulling our fellow creatures up to our own level of awareness, pushing the plane of human evolution forward.”
If I had read that without having read the Bible, I would have dismissed Dr. Peck as a lunatic. As it is, it coincides rather perfectly with the Biblical doctrine of God being one with His people in the Last Days.
Now you tell me, how in the world did nature produce a mind that is capable of conjuring up ideas like this? How can a random, mindless, impersonal process produce something so purposeful, insightful and personal as a concept of an eventual union between the process and the result of the process, between the Creator and the created?
Unless humans and their thoughts are all really just unintentional outworkings of a random, chaotic process. In which case, our exchange of ideas is a complete waste of time. Just random chattering within a cauldron of chaos that is neither here nor there.
In either case, I’m nevertheless still interested in hearing your thoughts.
If you Google “Atheist for Peace Blogspot”, you will find my blog called atheismforpeace.
Again, I don’t see evolution as a process that produces a species that becomes dominant, and I certainly don’t think of it as having that purpose, nor do I think most evolutionary biologists think that way. From my understanding of your position on evolution, you put too much stock in humans as different from other species that have evolved. We are not. We are fundamentally the same, except that we have a more complex brain capable of reason, extensive memory and learning, and complex verbal and written language. These skills have allowed us to gradually accumulate and pass on vast knowledge through generations which most species cannot do more than one generation as parent to offspring.
You ask why nature produced humans in the first place. There is no particular reason. It just happened. The evolutionary process produced humans because the conditions were appropriate at various points in the evolutionary history for particular species of mammals to evolve into primates and then hominids. An example of a particular condition that allowed this to happen was the asteroid that likely killed off the dinosaurs. If that asteroid didn’t happen to collide with earth, then dinosaurs would likely still be roaming the earth and humans almost certainly would not be.
You also ask where morality comes from in evolutionary terms. That is an interesting question and there are many evolutionary biologists much better qualified than I to answer it. If you look it up online you will likely find some good explanations. But briefly, the theory is that morality developed in humans as a mechanism that increased the survival of groups of humans by working together. If no one ever felt that random murder was wrong, then from the very earliest stages humans would have been randomly killing even their closest relatives all the time over the smallest disagreement. That would have reduced the chances of survival of the species. Any trait that decreases the chance of survival of a species tends to disappear through time with evolution. Hence, things that increased the likelihood of small primitive groups of humans working together (i.e. morality) developed. If you think about it, much of our morality is still based in this idea of close-knit small groups. Most people think that killing another human of their same culture is immoral, but that killing someone of another culture even if they haven’t personally harmed you (such as in a war), is not immoral.
When you talk about a Creator and the created, then again you are speaking in a language that makes no sense to me. I don’t believe there is a Creator, so I would consider a relationship with one to be a delusional type of psychosis.
Evolution involves some random processes, but the overall process of evolution is not random. I have a page on my blog that explains the very basics of evolution if you are interested.
Apart from the implication (maybe not intentional on your part) that my being a Christian is equivalent to having a delusional psychosis, thanks for your reply.
I have very quickly read some of your posts in your blog, as well as the “Understanding Evolution” section. And while you’ve made an arguable case againt religious bias against evolution, I think you should also include a section on scientific dissent against evolution (such as can be found here: .
After all, religion is not the only thing that can blind humanity. Challenges to established ways of thinking is always difficult to accept. But if one truly believes in an objective science, then it stands to reason that criticism is welcome, if not encouraged.
Both scientists and religious leaders are guilty of stifling work that tends to challenge accepted norms. After all, both are still only human.
From what I can see on the webpage you reference on dissent from Darwin, the purpose is not to dissent against evolution, but rather to debate the details of the process. Even that website states: “It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory’s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.” However, the webpage is a thinly veiled attempt by proponents of intelligent design to be taken seriously as scientists by not openly admitting that they are essentially intelligent design believers. That is a pretty dishonest approach by them.
The rejection of evolution is not an example of being open minded or being careful to examine all the evidence. It is an example of being completely out of touch with reality. In science, scientists are encouraged to challenge and criticize findings so that all the evidence is examined in an unbiased manner. But, there comes a point when continuing to do so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not being open-minded and careful, it is being ignorant of the facts. You would probably not take seriously someone who wonders if the earth might be flat, or if water might not be made up of hydrogen and oxygen. You would not think they were being open-minded and trying to make sure they didn’t miss some evidence. You would likely think they did not accept reality. Evolution is in the same boat. The evidence supporting it is so overwhelming that there really isn’t much point in having a conversation with someone who doesn’t accept it. I used to converse with people on this topic a lot, but gave up in frustration. That is why I posted the page on evolution on my blog, to avoid going over and over the same things.
If you don’t accept evolution, then I respect your position, but I doubt that either of us will gain much in a conversation about it. It would be analogous to you having a conversation with someone who didn’t believe that the earth is round. It’s not something I’m willing to waste time on.
I’m sorry, but I was under the impression that that website was by scientists for scientists. I do believe they have a disclaimer stating that by signing the statement, they are in no way endorsing any of the existing alternatives to DME. (Its on item 5 of their site FAQ). As far as I understand, it is a call for academic freedom.
Maybe a website that is closer to your own profession will shed further light on the situation: http://www.pssiinternational.com/weblog/2007/06/the_real_agenda.html
And I’d be careful when you start using the words “closed-minded” in a conversation that seeks to enlighten both parties. That’s a surefire way of ending the discussion. (Its a lesson we are taught as diplomats when undertaking negotiations.) Just a friendly reminder.
As I’ve said earlier, I’m more than willing to keep sitting on the table with you as long as we agree to disagree.
BTW, I didn’t say I didn’t accept evolution. I accept evolution as a process. I think where we disagree on is the origin of that process, and whether the process is intentional or merely random.
If that is too problematic for you, then we can always move on to other subjects.
My problem is that I don’t see why people like you would look for webpages that try to dispute the established facts of evolution in the first place. The whole process stinks of an agenda, and of the fear that evolution effectively kills God. You’ll notice, as with my previous examples, that people don’t go about practicing “academic freedom” in trying to point out the flaws in heliocentrism, or in the composition of water, but rather spend endless amounts of time desperately trying to weaken evolution which has been well established for 150 years. It is time to accept it and move on. Academic freedom is important, and discussing ideas is important. Denying established reality is a waste of everyone’s time, and worse it is completely academically dishonest because it pushes an agenda that is not based in evidence and facts. So, I’m not interested in finding better and better webpages that might help me understand the “problems” with evolution, any more than I am interested in finding webpages that explain why the earth might actually be flat.
As I’ve said, a conversation where we agree to disagree is one thing. A conversation where we are discussing things like the errors of evolution is a non-starter for me. That is not being close-minded, it is accepting the reality of the world we live in.
The process of evolution is not random. It involves some chance, but it is not a random process. However, that does not mean that it is designed. Many biological processes are not random.
I respect your opinion on evolution my friend. I am not trying to push the issue. And I’m not trying to “kill” evolution but giving you the links to these sites. What I’m trying to get at is the truth.
You say evolution is reality. These sites tell me otherwise. You are one biologist who is telling me DME is a done deal. These are hundreds of scientists and doctors claiming that it isn’t. Am I being unscientific when I try to follow the evidence here?
From where I’m standing, it is a matter of your opinion against theirs. Am I not entitled to raise questions about something that is clearly in contention? After all, I am NOT a scientist nor a doctor, so I cannot by myself, form an educated position on the issue. I would have to rely on the statements of others.
What you’re telling me in effect, is that I should take your position on evolution hook, line and sinker, when there are other alternatives being put forth. If one doctor tells me that I have to undergo an expensive and potentially debilitating surgery for a knee injury, am I not entitled to get a second opinion from another doctor?
Finally, I don’t think I’m driven by an agenda of fear of losing my God. I already rejected God once before when I chose to leave Roman Catholicism for atheism. I was not searching for God when I became a Liberal Christian after living as a practical atheist for over twenty years. The evidence for His existence just became apparent to me. If somebody were to show me indisputable evidence to the contrary, I don’t believe I’ll hesistate in becoming an atheist again. As it is, no such evidence has been presented.
So you’ll forgive me when I don’t accept your position that DME is reality. I respect your opinion, but I don’t accept it.
As for your last statement, what do you mean when you say evolution is not random? Do you mean that the process itself consciously decides what particular mutations/changes to undergo for certain species? Because that in itself connotes design: a pre-meditated decision on the part of the process to select which attributes to apply to certain species. Could you enlighten me further on your position?
I don’t think my point on evolution is being understood well. I’ll try to explain my position again.
You tell me that you are open to finding the truth, and you ask why you should take my word over hundreds of other scientists who claim that evolution is not established. You shouldn’t. You should not take my word for it. If you want to know the truth about evolution, what you should do is educate yourself on the issue as one would on any other topic: by reading what the experts have to say on it.
Take an analogy. If you wanted to know whether the earth was round or flat, who would believe about it? Would you believe the 99.99% of scientists who agree that we are in a heliocentric solar system with a roughly spherical earth, or would you believe the 0.001% of people out there who for some reason still dispute it? Furthermore, if someone from the 99.99% of scientists told you that the fact the earth is round is no longer worth discussing because it was well established, would you say: “Yes, but what about these hundreds of other scientists who say it is flat? I just want to get to the truth. Why should I believe you?” No. You would not take this approach. You would recognize that the very, very small minority of people who think we live on a flat earth have their facts completely wrong, or have some agenda that they are trying to push and therefore ignore all the evidence. This is exactly your approach to evolution: you are ignoring the established scientific approach to examining the evidence, accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists (I have yet to meet in person a single scientist who does not accept evolution), and are instead asking about the very few people out there who reject it (almost all of whom have some reason to reject it, such as a religious belief).
You ask: “Am I being unscientific when I try to follow the evidence here?” The answer is yes you are, because you are rejecting the scientific evidence on the subject and following a very small group of people who reject the evidence and follow an agenda. I don’t know how I can say this any clearer: this is not a matter of my opinion versus theirs, it is a matter of virtually all scientists and established fact versus a few people who don’t.
Another analogy, just to hit home the point. Imagine you have cancer and 99% of all cancer-specialist doctors tell you the cancer can be cured with chemotherapy. These 99% show you all the patients that have been cured by chemotherapy. But 1% of doctors tell you that the other doctors are hiding the evidence from you and insist that simply eating bay leaves will cure your cancer. But, they can’t produce a single patient who has been ever cured by eating bay leaves. In that example, would you really say: “What about all these doctors that say they can cure me with bay leaves?”
I address the random processes in evolution in my blog page on evolution. I probably don’t need to repeat it here, but briefly, no there is no consciousness or any pre-meditation involved in evolution. The random process is the chance mutations that occur in reproduction. But the non-random part of it is that the chance mutations that are most likely to lead a species to increase survival are the ones that are passed on to future generations. That is not a random process, but it is also not conscious or pre-meditated.
Thank you for your response. I’m sorry it
took a while for me to reply. I had just come again from the weekend here in my
country.
I’m afraid my point is also not being
understood. I am not against evolution per se. It is fairly obvious to me that
the evolutionary process exists. For me that is not the issue. The issue I was
trying to get at is evolution being used as an end-all explanation for the
existence of life. Again, from where I am standing, this is not sufficiently
established.
I understand your point about balancing the
opinions of the few against the many. However, if you are going to go that way,
it would be likewise easy for me to use the same argument to justify
Christianity: it being practiced by more than two-thirds of the world’s population
versus a “handful” of self-proclaimed atheists. I assume this is likewise not
acceptable to you. Just because a majority believes something to be true,
doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be true. It is the same for believing that
evolution alone is responsible for life on earth.
Furthermore, I think history will show that
it is oftentimes a small minority who is responsible for changing established
norms and views towards better and more scientifically accurate ones. I would
think that as a physiologist, you are aware that the practice of vaccination
was not well received by the majority of the medical community at the time when
it was first introduced. But it eventually became an accepted medical practice
once the fear and bias had been overcome and the appropriate research allowed.
Similarly, in the Christian world, it used
to be thought by the majority of the officials of the church clergy that the
Bible should not be translated into other languages apart from Latin.
Individuals like Wycliffe and Tyndale were persecuted for wanting to translate
the Bible into English. But it eventually became an accepted practice to
translate the Bible into as many languages as possible so that it may be read
by as many people as possible, allowing them to form their own opinions about
it rather than be at the mercy of church officials who were known to translate
the Scriptures for personal gain.
Again let me be clear, I am NOT against
evolution per se. I DO acknowledge the existence of the evolutionary process.
What I do NOT believe is evolution as a process ALONE being responsible for the
existence of life. My belief is that there must be a catalyst outside of
evolution itself responsible for initiating the processes which caused life and
its complex forms to exist. I do hope we
can get this point out of the way.
Lastly, I do not think I would choose to
outright believe contrary claims to prevailing thought without some kind of
proof or explanation. I acknowledge that the burden of proof should be on those
who are proposing contrary claims. But to outright deny them the right to
explain and provide proof just because their position is contrary against
popular belief is just plain bigotry: the same kind of bigotry that a
closed-minded religious person would have against those who are proposing new and
possibly more accurate ways of interpreting church doctrine.
I am an advocate of freedom of expression,
as well as the promotion of a free marketplace of ideas. I am against all kinds
of monopolistic efforts to control or otherwise limit freedom of expression or thought.
That being said, I also believe that freedom of expression serves a purpose,
and that is to help humankind to get closer to the truth/ultimate reality.
Freedom of expression does bring with it
the baggage of having to listen to a lot of bogus, unreasonable and downright
crazy ideas. But I believe that the benefit of being able to find new ways of
interpreting reality that will lead to greater understanding of the world we
live in far outweighs this. What we should NOT be doing is to prevent
revolutionary ideas from being heard just because of our unwillingness to relinquish
long established beliefs.
After all, truth is stranger than fiction.
It may be that ultimate reality is a lot different from how you and I are currently
interpreting it. J
I used to believe in the Roman Catholic way
of looking at the world. Then I was able to study on my own and form my own
opinions enough to decide to become an atheist. As new information came in as a
result of my having lived longer on this planet, the evidence led me to become
a Liberal Christian. As I’ve said, if the evidence leads me away from Liberal
Christianity, I don’t think I would hesitate to follow it.
After all, even the Messiah tells me to
“follow the evidence where it leads”.
“When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky
is red,’ and in the morning,
‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to
interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the
times.
(Matthew 16:2-3 NIV)
And:
Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.
(John 7:24 NIV)
As it is, none of the arguments I’ve heard
so far has convinced me enough to relinquish my current method of interpreting
reality.
That being said, I am definitely not
stopping you or anyone else from presenting your own views. I do this with the
end goal of expanding my worldview, and if possible, to make new friends along
the way. J
There is one word that defines the difference between what I am talking about of all scientists accepting the reality of evolution and a few rejecting it, versus what you are talking about in the majority of people accepting something, or putting value in a minority of people questioning something. The word is “evidence”. It all boils down to evidence. The reason the evolution question is closed in science is because all the evidence supports it. If one scientist challenges it, they are not being brave and speaking out, but are rather just ignoring all the evidence.
If 99% of people in the world believe in Santa Claus, it does not increase the chances that he exists. Majority does not rule. However, if 99.9% of people who examine the evidence believe that Santa does not exist say that he likely does not exist, then that is a pretty strong statement of likelihood.
It’s all about evidence.
As for evolution not explaining the beginning of life, you are right. That is called abiogenesis, another field of science. Evolution does not purport to explain the beginnings of life, only how species develop.
There is one word that defines the difference between what I am talking about of all scientists accepting the reality of evolution and a few rejecting it, versus what you are talking about in the majority of people accepting something, or putting value in a minority of people questioning something. The word is “evidence”. It all boils down to evidence. The reason the evolution question is closed in science is because all the evidence supports it. If one scientist challenges it, they are not being brave and speaking out, but are rather just ignoring all the evidence.
If 99% of people in the world believe in Santa Claus, it does not increase the chances that he exists. Majority does not rule. However, if 99.9% of people who examine the evidence believe that Santa does not exist say that he likely does not exist, then that is a pretty strong statement of likelihood.
It’s all about evidence.
As for evolution not explaining the beginning of life, you are right. That is called abiogenesis, another field of science. Evolution does not purport to explain the beginnings of life, only how species develop.
There is one word that defines the difference between what I am talking about of all scientists accepting the reality of evolution and a few rejecting it, versus what you are talking about in the majority of people accepting something, or putting value in a minority of people questioning something. The word is “evidence”. It all boils down to evidence. The reason the evolution question is closed in science is because all the evidence supports it. If one scientist challenges it, they are not being brave and speaking out, but are rather just ignoring all the evidence.
If 99% of people in the world believe in Santa Claus, it does not increase the chances that he exists. Majority does not rule. However, if 99.9% of people who examine the evidence believe that Santa does not exist say that he likely does not exist, then that is a pretty strong statement of likelihood.
It’s all about evidence.
As for evolution not explaining the beginning of life, you are right. That is called abiogenesis, another field of science. Evolution does not purport to explain the beginnings of life, only how species develop.
There is one word that defines the difference between what I am talking about of all scientists accepting the reality of evolution and a few rejecting it, versus what you are talking about in the majority of people accepting something, or putting value in a minority of people questioning something. The word is “evidence”. It all boils down to evidence. The reason the evolution question is closed in science is because all the evidence supports it. If one scientist challenges it, they are not being brave and speaking out, but are rather just ignoring all the evidence.
If 99% of people in the world believe in Santa Claus, it does not increase the chances that he exists. Majority does not rule. However, if 99.9% of people who examine the evidence believe that Santa does not exist say that he likely does not exist, then that is a pretty strong statement of likelihood.
It’s all about evidence.
As for evolution not explaining the beginning of life, you are right. That is called abiogenesis, another field of science. Evolution does not purport to explain the beginnings of life, only how species develop.
There is one word that defines the difference between what I am talking about of all scientists accepting the reality of evolution and a few rejecting it, versus what you are talking about in the majority of people accepting something, or putting value in a minority of people questioning something. The word is “evidence”. It all boils down to evidence. The reason the evolution question is closed in science is because all the evidence supports it. If one scientist challenges it, they are not being brave and speaking out, but are rather just ignoring all the evidence.
If 99% of people in the world believe in Santa Claus, it does not increase the chances that he exists. Majority does not rule. However, if 99.9% of people who examine the evidence believe that Santa does not exist say that he likely does not exist, then that is a pretty strong statement of likelihood.
It’s all about evidence.
As for evolution not explaining the beginning of life, you are right. That is called abiogenesis, another field of science. Evolution does not purport to explain the beginnings of life, only how species develop.
Ah, then we are in agreement then in two
things:
1)
Evidence is important. Even the
Christian worldview supports this (e.g. as a means for determining cases under
the Mosaic Law, and as method for distinguishing false prophets in Matthew
7:20)
2)
Evolution does not account for
the origin of life. It is merely a description of a process that points to how
life developed on our planet.
Now from what I understand, abiogenesis is
that field of study that seeks to explain how organic life may have developed
from inorganic matter through natural processes. There are many theories as to
how this might have come about. But the point is that these are THEORIES and
not axiomatic. Studies have remained inconclusive up to today.
Consider the words of one of the scientists
who signed the Dissent From Darwinism statement:
“As a
chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life.
Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the
same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the
beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of
life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the
reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much.
Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the
synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a
scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions
conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then
it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is
the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and
chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions
(fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges
is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both
woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to
succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current
Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.” – Edward
Peltzer, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps
Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Now that hardly sounds like a person who
has NOT considered evidence to support his claims.
Evidence is indeed important. But there are
times when the evidence is lacking or inconclusive. I believe that as far as
the scientific proof of the origin of life is concerned, this is one of those
times.
1) I could not disagree more with the statement that evidence is important in the worldview. One of the most important words in Christianity is faith (indeed people talk about the Christian faith as a description of the religion). Faith and evidence are in opposition. Faith is the act of beleiving something for which there is no evidence, and goes completely against everything that science stands for.
2) Again, you seem bent on trying to disprove the most commonly held scientific reasons for things. Ask yourself why you are interested in passing off abiogensis as “just a theory” and yet you have no problem accepting other scientific theories like germ theory, because they don’t challenge the concept of a god having a hand in the creation of the world.
Again and again scientists explain the natural world, always being careful not to overstep the evidence. Again and again Christians try to throw out the science and cling to the very small chance that the scientific explanation is not true for everything that challenges their religion. It has happened since the time of Galileo and it continues today, on this very topic thread. When scientists come up with carefully examined explanations for how the world works, Christians are the first to point out: “Yeah, but you can’t prove it” on anything that challenges their faith. Everything else that science produces, that doesn’t challenge their faith, they just accept wihout hesitation. It’s so obviously an agenda to refute the scientific process and stick to the antiquated Bronze Aged version of events.I’ve had this same conversation over and over with Christians, but they never seem to understand science.
1) I could not disagree more with the statement that evidence is important in the worldview. One of the most important words in Christianity is faith (indeed people talk about the Christian faith as a description of the religion). Faith and evidence are in opposition. Faith is the act of beleiving something for which there is no evidence, and goes completely against everything that science stands for.
2) Again, you seem bent on trying to disprove the most commonly held scientific reasons for things. Ask yourself why you are interested in passing off abiogensis as “just a theory” and yet you have no problem accepting other scientific theories like germ theory, because they don’t challenge the concept of a god having a hand in the creation of the world.
Again and again scientists explain the natural world, always being careful not to overstep the evidence. Again and again Christians try to throw out the science and cling to the very small chance that the scientific explanation is not true for everything that challenges their religion. It has happened since the time of Galileo and it continues today, on this very topic thread. When scientists come up with carefully examined explanations for how the world works, Christians are the first to point out: “Yeah, but you can’t prove it” on anything that challenges their faith. Everything else that science produces, that doesn’t challenge their faith, they just accept wihout hesitation. It’s so obviously an agenda to refute the scientific process and stick to the antiquated Bronze Aged version of events.I’ve had this same conversation over and over with Christians, but they never seem to understand science.
My friend, I hope you realize that you are
being unscientific in your responses. What you have written above are clearly statements
of OPINION rather than scientifically verifiable facts.
Let me show my point:
1) You
are presenting YOUR opinion on what YOU think Christians believe, when you are
not even a Christian yourself. You say that in the Christian worldview, faith
is important. You are half correct. While faith is indeed important in the
Christian worldview, it does not mean that the empirical hold no meaning
whatsoever. Consider the words of James:
“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have
faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is
without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you
well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs,
what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
action, is dead.” – (James 2:14-17 NIV)
Is not “action” a measurable
and empirically verifiable indicator? Clearly, for faith to be genuine, there
must be some form of logical outworking for it to be truly present. Otherwise,
ANYONE can claim to have faith. Any “Christian” who claims otherwise is
ignoring what Scripture clearly says.
2) Again,
you are presenting YOUR opinion on what YOU think my agenda is, when we’re not
even talking about agendas. We’re talking about scientific theories for the
origin of life.
Abiogenesis is a field of
study, not an end all explanation for the origin of life. As I said, there are
many theories in this field, but no conclusive evidence. Unless of course you
show me otherwise. With the appropriate evidence of course. J
Finally,
your last statement just reeks of intellectual snobbery and bigotry. I do
respect your position and authority as a practitioner in a field of science.
But that does not in any way mean that you have a monopoly on scientific knowledge,
let alone have the authority to make a sweeping generalization like saying that
Christians “never seem to understand science.”
Because
if that statement were true, then my wife, who is a medical doctor by
profession is unqualified by virtue of her being a Christian. Same goes for my veterinarian
grandfather. Or my Roman Catholic brother who is a neurosurgeon.
As
I’ve said earlier, you’re most welcome to prove my worldview wrong, provided
that you do it in at least a scientific manner. All I’ve gotten from you so far
are sweeping generalizations and unproven conspiracy theories.
Yes, perhaps I made a generalization about Christians and their ability to understand science. And yes, generalizations are often unfair because they don’t recognize individuals. However, I think it is a fairly accurate generalization and I don’t think it is a “sweeping” one as you claim. I was careful to state that Christians never seem to understand science, and that has certainly been my experience. In my career as a scientist, it is exceedingly rare to find a Christian who understands and practices science successfully. No offence to your relatives, but being a physician or a vet does not make one a scientists. Doctors are generally practitioners who rely on the scientific knowledge provided by research scientists, but relatively few practitioners actually conduct experimental research as scientists do. Therefore they are not required to immerse themselves in the scientific method, to question everything, and to only accept evidence.
As for my opinion on the importance of faith in the Christian religion, I think I have a pretty clear grasp of what being a Christian is since I was one for about 30 years. (Please let’s not start the conversation about me not being a “real” Christian at this point). Whether faith is the single most important part of Christianity or not, it is important as you yourself admit. Where there is faith, it is not possible to place evidence of high importance because they are in opposition to each other. The process that most Christians embrace is one of accepting ONLY the evidence that fits their worldview, which is in opposition to the scientific method of accepting the evidence no matter what it says.
This leads me to the point about agendas. What I’m trying to say is that, whether you recognize it or not, most Christians have an agenda. Their agenda is one that starts with something along the lines of “God exists and Jesus is my saviour.” The details may vary. However, when that agenda is non-negotiable, then one has to explain away anything that challenges that agenda rather than simply accepting the evidence for what it says (which in our example, the evidence seems to say that organic life did develop from inorganic chemical reactions and evolution did lead to a wide array of species, without any need for outside guidance or intelligence). You don’t seem to notice that every conversation about science with a Christian ALWAYS leads to these topics that challenge the previously held assumption that God exists. Most Christians never challenge the science of how televisions work, or of how bacteria reproduce, or how microwaves work, or any other scientific fact in their lives. I ASSUME (yes this is an assumption, but I think it is a fair one) this is because these parts of science do not challenge the existence of God whereas what science has to say about evolution and abiogenesis does challenge the existence of God. (Just as the heliocentric model in the time of Galileo challenged the understanding of what God was at that time, leading to his persecution and the church’s rejection of science).
I humbly beg to disagree with your assessment that physicians and veterinarians do not do research or use the scientific method. I’d be in serious doubt about any doctor who did not use the scientific method to diagnose a disease. More so with a veterinarian since their patients cannot tell them what they feel.
I acknowledge your telling me that you’ve been a Christian for 30 years. But I still disagree with your conclusions about faith. In the first place, you simply CANNOT avoid faith even in everyday living. You HAVE to rely on knowledge that previous people have discovered. It would be highly impractical to simply discover how everything works through personal experience. I have never seen an electron. But I rely by faith on the accumulative knowledge began by Benjamin Franklin on the properties of electricity and how to make use of it in everyday living.
Besides, it is impossible for ANY one person to have absolute knowledge (and therefore have absolute certainty) on anything. We are finite. Knowledge is infinite. If you ever meet anyone who claims to have absolute knowledge about anything (and can prove it) then congratulations, you’ve just found key evidence against atheism.
Now about agendas. Since you really insist, then I guess that I cannot deny that the Christian faith has an agenda. But then, who DOESN’T have an agenda? Don’t atheists have an agenda? Your agenda is to prove that God doesn’t exist. Therefore, you look for evidence that supports that agenda. If Christians are guilty of looking for evidence that supports the existence of God, then you are likewise guilty of using that same evidence to disprove God. You see how troublesome it can be when we insist on pointing out agendas? It will only result in finger pointing.
Even scientists have an agenda. They are out to discover knowledge. A hypothesis or theory IS an agenda. It determines how a particular experiment is to be set up. But we now know that the very setting up of an experiment is in itself subjecting the data to interpretation. You set up an experiment to prove light is a particle, then you will prove that light is a particle. You set up an experiment to prove light is a waveform, then you will prove that light is a waveform. That is the limitation of the scientific method. The vey act of choosing to use the scientific method is a subjective agenda.
If you are pointing out that the Christian faith sounds man-made and should be rejected, then my friend, the scientific method is BEYOND A DOUBT man-made. Should we then reject science?
Well, we’ll have to disagree about physicians. As a research scientist I’ve interacted with a lot of physicians over the years and most of the ones I’ve encountered do not engage in much research, nor do they understand the scientific method of discovery very well. What they are good at is applying the discoveries to their patients in practice.
Of course you can avoid faith. I avoid it at all costs. Faith is not the same as knowledge. Faith is the belief in something without evidence with is not the same as accepting that an electron exists or some other piece of knowledge that is passed through evidence-based education.
Of course it is impossible for anyone to have infinite knowledge. And, I would therefore say that your statement is a fabulous argument against an omniscient deity.
I’ll tell you exactly who does not have an agenda: scientists. That is the whole point of the scientific process: to learn to set aside all bias and agenda and investigate the natural world without agenda. That’s the whole point. No scientist is perfect. We are all human and we all come from different cultures with different biases. But, a scientist who does his job properly has set aside any agenda. That is why all scientists around the world find the same results when the conduct the same experiments. In science a hypothesis is not an agenda. An agenda is likely to influence the outcome, but a hypothesis is not.
You have it exactly backwards. As an atheist I am not out to prove there is no god. I have no agenda to show the world that there is no god. There simply is no evidence for a god, therefore I accept that fact. If irrefutable evidence surfaced supporting a god, then I would accept that.
This is the one most strong point about the scientific method: it effectively removes agenda, bias, and preconceived conclusions from the process. That is the whole point.
You do not set up an experiment to prove that light is a particle. You set up an experiment to investigate the nature of light. You may hypothesize that it is a particle, but if the science is conduced properly, then you will discover either that it is a particle or not. If not, you reject your hypothesis and have made a new discovery about light. You don’t stick stubbornly to your hypothesis, and you don’t set up the experiment to end up finding that your hypothesis is true. That is not at all how the scientific method works.
Therefore your statement of “The very act of choosing to use the scientific method is a subjective agenda” could not be more inaccurate. The scientific method is objective, without bias and without agenda. You may not like that or understand it, but that is precisely why science works, regardless of who around the world is conducting it (so long as they conduct the process properly).
Well, I have no problem about agreeing to disagree. As long as it is clear that you are basing your assumptions on the scope of your experiences and not making a generalization that all doctors and veterinarians do not use the scientific method. You are putting forth your opinion, and not an indisputable fact.
Once again you’ll forgive me for disagreeing with your point about faith. Scripture provides a clear description of what constitutes Christian faith:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” – Hebrews 11:1 NKJV
It is true that faith in and by itself is not knowledge. But it IS based on knowledge. You cannot have faith without some kind of preliminary knowledge. You cannot simply believe in something without having first considered SOME knowledge of it. I would not have begun to have faith about Christ if I had not heard or read about Him in the first place.
As it is written in Scripture:
“Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.” – Romans 10:17, NIV
In other words, faith REQUIRES evidence to work (and grow).
Hmm. You’ll have to explain to me how the fact that a finite human being not being able to possess infinite knowledge is an argument against an omniscient deity.
You are correct in stating that scientists themselves are human beings. As human beings, we ALL have our respective agendas. That’s what being human is all about. We have an agenda to grow and survive, to earn a living, to raise a family, to become better at our careers, to serve our governments, to protect loved ones, et.al, et.al, ad infinitum. I do not believe there is a single person alive who does not have some kind of agenda for his/here life.
Therefore, the scientific method itself, being by nature a human-made way of interpreting reality, ALSO serves an agenda. It seeks to discover truth about the world we live in. Even the effort to produce an unbiased, objective result in an experiment IS an agenda in and by itself.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
This is an excellent example of the differences between you and me. You take as truth something because it is written in an old book. I do not. Just because the Bible happens to have a verse that says faith is evidence for things not seen does not mean that it is so. And, I would also disagree that faith is based on knowledge. People have faith that God exists without any knowledge of his existence. It is only faith. No evidence, no knowledge. Simply quoting an old book that says otherwise does not make it true.
I would argue that the scientific method is not necessarily a human way of interpreting reality. It is a process of discovery. That is all. If there is another intelligent species in this universe, then undoubtedly they will have used the scientific method to discover, just as we have. It is not a subjective human experience, that’s the whole point.
I’m coming to a point where I don’t really see a whole lot of point in discussing this anymore. I think we understand one another, and we disagree on everything so far. You will find this to be an arrogant statement, but I think the difference between us is that most of the statements I have made are based in established facts, not opinion. Science is an unbiased process of discovery. That is not my opinion, it is an established fact. Evolution explains the origin and development of the species. That is not my opinion, it is fact. Abiogenesis is not my opinion, it is scientific knowledge. And so on.
This is exactly why I find these sorts of conversations always end futilely. They inevitably end with the Christian person claiming that statements of fact are simply my opinion, and with the Christian person always, always, going back to quoting the Bible in support of their beliefs.
And, this is why I think atheists seem arrogant to Christians. Because we make statements of facts and then when we are told that those facts are just our opinions, then we point out that they are not our opinions but are facts and we are told that we are arrogant and close minded.
As I’ve said before, if someone told you the sky was blue and you told them that was just their opinion, you would not think they were arrogant if they said it was a fact not their opinion. The issues we have discussed including evolution, abiogenesis, and the scientific method are just the same.
So, I wish you well, but I don’t really see any point in my just going over and over the same points about what science is
I’m sorry to hear this. I was really getting a lot from our exchange. I was hoping that we would both continue to benefit from learning where we are both coming from.
My thanks for your time and patience then. It’s been an honor to have had this conversation with you. I wish all my conversations with atheists/non-Christians would be as cordial.
I hope to have the opportunity to converse with you again someday.
Peace be with you.
I’m sorry to hear this. I was really getting a lot from our exchange. I was hoping that we would both continue to benefit from learning where we are both coming from.
My thanks for your time and patience then. It’s been an honor to have had this conversation with you. I wish all my conversations with atheists/non-Christians would be as cordial.
I hope to have the opportunity to converse with you again someday.
Peace be with you.
Hi Bruce,
This is a pretty interesting post. I was chuckling as I read it. I am a liberal who doesn’t believe the bible is in any way “God breathed”. Perhaps, I am a Christian humanist (possibly a contradiction in terms). The humanness of Jesus (in spite of the many mythological aspects in the story) really touches my heart.
Perhaps I am an agnostic who is inspired by the humanity of Jesus and his way of peace.
As I read your post, I wondered what John Shelby Spong would say in response. Have a wonderful day and thanks for this challenging post.
John Arthur
I agree with you on this, John Arthur. I went to a “liberal” Church of England Christian school in the UK and the teaching there was that Jesus was a man, the Virgin birth etc and the resurrection were myths and not to be taken literally, and the Bible as a whole was mostly metaphorical concepts not to be taken literally. I think most Brits today think this way, or are agnostics. There are a few Baptists and evangelicals but they are a small minority group.
I was going to mention Bishop Spong but you beat me to it. There was also the Bishop of Woolwich who wrote “Honest to God” in the 60s along the same lines.
My view is that liberal Christians do not believe in the “superstitious” stuff.
I confess that I too have trouble wrapping my head around liberal Christian beliefs, which can appeal slippery.
Having said that, I prefer the company of liberal Christians much more than that of their fundamentalist cousins. To boot, liberal Christains are often on the front lines of important social justice struggles, so I respect them for that.
I am a really mixed bag. I’ve told you before that the conservative church of my upbringing is way too conservative for me, mostly because of their meddling in the kind of politics that makes me want to scream. While I like liberal churches for their politics and lack of stupid, pointless rules, they are too weak for me in matters of faith. Not everyone who’s faith is genuine can be neatly pigeonholed. Same with politics. I am mostly a liberal, yet I consider myself a moral conservative and lead a pretty conservative life.
then i’m sure this guy will drive ya nuts!:
———-
http://www.patheos.com/Progressive-Christian/Fundamentalism-vs-Contemplation-Carl-McColman-04-25-2012.html
Fundamentalism vs. Contemplation?
Contemplative
Christians, Jews, and Muslims have more in common with each other than
with the fundamentalists who share their respective faiths.
———-
the author was for a while a neopagan, and now catholic.
from the “about” page of his blog:
———-
http://www.anamchara.com/about-carl-2/
Carl sees his work as a response to Karl Rahner’s challenge that “the
Christian of the future will be a mystic or will not exist at all.”
———-
–sgl
Hi Sgl,
Thanks for the link to Carl McColman’s blog. I am very interested in meditiation and contemplation. In the silence, I experience the peaceful and compassionate presence of ‘God’ (if God exists, otherwise it is something just going on in my head and ,heart). Anyone can do this, including atheists and agnostics. I think that if Fundametalists practised it, they might become more tolerant of other views and other religions, but people like Ken Silva and Lighthouse Trails try to scare conservatives off such practices. Liberals are far more tolerant of them.
Shalom,
John Arthur
you might also like the blog of maggie ross, “voice in the wilderness”, at
http://ravenwilderness.blogspot.com/
she’s a solitary in the anglican church, and also author. she spends half the year in remote alaska, and the other half of the year teaching at oxford. i’d put her in the liberal christian category, and she’s quite willing to tackle the abuses in the church hierarchy as well.
re: “Anyone can do this [meditate], including atheists and agnostics.”
sam harris, one of the so-called ‘new atheists’, is actually quite friendly towards mysticism of a rational kind. i found his prespective to be quite interesting and he also has a humorous way of putting things too. you can read about his views in the second half of the following article:
———-
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
“One clue as to how daunting most people would find such a project is
the fact that solitary confinement—which is essentially what we are
talking about—is considered a punishment even inside a prison. Even when
cooped up with homicidal maniacs and rapists, most people still prefer
the company of others to spending any significant amount of time alone
in a box.
And yet, for thousands of years, contemplatives have claimed to find
extraordinary depths of psychological well-being while spending vast
stretches of time in total isolation. It seems to me that, as rational
people, whether we call ourselves “atheists” or not, we have a choice to
make in how we view this whole enterprise. Either the contemplative
literature is a mere catalogue of religious delusion, deliberate fraud,
and psychopathology, or people have been having interesting and even
normative experiences under the name of “spirituality” and “mysticism”
for millennia.” [....]
Most us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to
himself—that is, not able to censor himself in front of other
people—he’s probably mentally ill. But if we talk to ourselves all day
long silently—thinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior
conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didn’t say, what we
should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is going
to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what should have
happened, what may yet happen—but we just know enough to just keep this
conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This is perfectly
compatible with sanity. Well, this is not what the experience of
millions of contemplatives suggests.
———-
lastly, fundamentalism seems to have turned off the young people of today. best i can tell, what they see if the fundamentalists, not the more liberal christians. from a review of the book “unchristian” on amazon, byDaniel B. Clendenin:
———-
http://www.amazon.com/review/R8YIGA2YV38S5/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0801013003&nodeID=283155&store=books
In his book The Heart of Christianity (2003) Marcus Borg of Oregon State
University describes how his university students have a uniformly
negative image of Christianity. “When I ask them to write a short essay
on their impression of Christianity,” says Borg, “they consistently use
five adjectives: Christians are literalistic, anti-intellectual,
self-righteous, judgemental, and bigoted.” [....]
According to Kinnaman’s Barna study, here are the percentages of people
outside the church who think that the following words describe
present-day Christianity:* antihomosexual 91%* judgemental 87%* hypocritical 85%* old-fashioned 78%* too political 75%* out of touch with reality 72%* insensitive to others 70%* boring 68%
———-
so, i don’t think the real issue is fundamentalists vs liberal christians or vs contemplatives. i think it’s up to the liberals/contemplatives to convince the general population that there’s something worthwhile in christianity to begin with, or it will peter out (pun intended!) on it’s own.
–sgl
Interesting conclusion, and one that I completely agree with.
Hi Sgl,
Thanks for these links.
John Arthur
I have some close friends that go to a baptist church. I ask what kind of baptist and their answer (in harmony) is “barely baptist”.
Their church actively seeks ways to support the gay/lesbian community. They participate in gay events in a supportive way. They put on barbeques for such groups to express love and not hate. They don’t consider it a “sin”. They don’t try to turn or convert the gays.
Like I said, barely baptist. But if I were looking to switch churches, that’s the first place I would go. I believe the bible is written by inspired people, but then it was “tweaked” by scribes, copyists, and church leaders to more closely reflect their orthodox (proto-orthodox) beliefs. Therefore I have to temper what the bible says with some skepticism.
My bottom line is to love your neighbor. This is also how you can express your devotion to God. So I must be a liberal christian, and proud of it.
This is a fascinating discussion. I was a liberal christian after I was a fundamentalist. I guess liberalism simply made more sense to me. The god of the Old Testament was neither loving nor kind, so I just left him out of the equation all together and went along with Jesus’s mostly hippie dippy ways. I was a “Jesus People” in the early ’70′s, save for a stint at a strict fundy behavior modification facility. That took a while to undo, believe me! But as I lived in the real world, the dogma just did not wash. I used my brain and emotions and logic. With a little education, I discovered the myths of the Bible were the same as other more ancient religions, but with the characters switched around. I became a pagan, with a hodge podge of beliefs, which fit perfectly well with my Unitarian Universalist church. The Unitarians even have a CUUPS, program, which is Community of Unitarian Universalist Pagans! They have a medicine wheel and a community garden. Some believe in Jesus, others have other beliefs, and some are atheist. They are inclusive of LGBTQ in all aspects.
As I ramble, I guess my point to your post, Bruce, is that liberal christians are just good people who are trying to rectify their faith with their inherent morality. They are just good people, who happen to be Christians. It makes sense to accept the coolness and reject the repugnant, if one is seeking enlightenment, because to focus on the goodness, the kindness, and the beauty is what brings us humans to our best selves.
Thank you so much for this post, Bruce. I just love the way you make my brain smile!
I found conservative Christianity to be immoral and too easily swayed by lies (of the political nature, the scientific nature, environmental nature …). I clung to liberal Christianity for a long time, but there was a part of me that was never comfortable with it — there was no good way of knowing what was true and what was myth, other than my personal determination.
Same here.
Glad I found your blog, Bruce (I have read mostly backwards from your latest post to this one). I am a former Evangelical who’d been in ministry (only a few years in non-senior pastor positions in churches, but various other roles) for most of a good 25 year period also. (Dating from college to about 45–am now 62.) When progressive PhD (theology/psychology) work and then deeper looking into “hard” science and parapsychology eventually nudged me forward, I couldn’t feel comfortable as any “brand” of Christian either. But I wasn’t either agnostic or atheist… the default “spiritual but not religious” seemed the best moniker, and I’ve attended a fair amount with “Centers for Spiritual Living,” and a bit of Unitarian Universalism, both of which are quite comfortable and often helpful.
During the last decade or so, I’ve done a LOT of reading and independent study of Christian origins, NT scholarship, and the first 2-3 centuries (yes, a bit of Ehrman and Spong, Crossan and Borg, but more of lesser-knowns like Paula Frederickson, L. Michael White, Burton Mack, SGF Brandon, Hyam Maccoby, etc., etc.). Now… even with all this, it is still impossible, as you and others have well said, to consistently tell what is myth (or other fabrication, exaggeration, etc.) and what is history. So, indeed, the typical liberal “method” (if there is one) and belief structure is flimsy at best, often muddled. Still, with all this, I have re-discovered Process Theology (never having really forgotten it, since some exposure via Claremont Sch of Theol in the early 90s) and realized either it, or some similar “3rd option” is very important, vaulable!
I say 3rd option after 1) supernaturalism (orthodox Chrisitianity and most religion) and 2) naturalism (of the pure, materialist and 5-senses-only type that requires atheism). Neither of these can make good sense of all the data! By data I mean facts of science plus the evidence coming from the “paranormal” in several well-verified aspects–resonant sensing (or remote viewing), reincarnation (yes, with verifiable/falsifiable data), NDE research, etc.
Process “thought” was first developed seriously by Whitehead, a genius-level mathematician/scientist most of his career, and has been applied within very progressive Christian faith in a way that adequately (to a picky consistency-minded ex-evangelical like me) can account for holes in the evolutionary fossil record, the “specialness” of Jesus without seeing him as God-the-Son, etc. It (or again, something similar like maybe Chardin’s work–the Catholic scientist/philosopher) can ACTUALLY harmonize science and “religion”–perhaps “spirituality” is better here. (Some Evangelicals and others claim this, but I can’t see it in their systems.) I don’t know anything else that can do that….
All that to say, finally, that I have come to where I can imagine some Unitarian or perhaps Process-oriented Progressive Christian church where I may fit–even well enough to minister in education or pastoral care there. (In addition to the pagan groups within UU churches someone mentioned, some congregants there call themselves ”atheists.”) Ken Wilber, in “Integral Spirituality” makes a strong, sensible case for why the maturation of the major religions to higher developmental levels is vital to bringing the majority of humanity up and out of so much warfare and earth-spoiling, etc. (The religions are where the vast majority, worldwide, either participate or are influenced heavily from.)
”Every Christian sect believes that Jesus Christ is God… Every Christian sect believes that
Jesus, while on earth, was God in the human flesh. He came to earth to
become the atonement for humankind’s sin…”
Um, no they don’t. Not the one I belonged to
Mind you, there was always some argument about whether Jesus died for us or not – most said no, some said yes.