On YEC Interpretation of Scripture and Their Use of Technology

When humans should have become as perfect in voluntary obedience as the inanimate creation is in its lifeless obedience, then they will put on its glory, or rather that greater glory of which Nature is only the first sketch. CS Lewis

a storm of comets_NASA picture of the day
A Storm of Comets-NASA

Dee is heading off to help with an annual spring retreat with a Christian medical group and will not be able to post as much. Many of you will remember Old John J who has written a couple of posts for TWW on the issue of creationism here and here. One of them garnered the most comments of any post in 2012! Go John!

John is a TWW reader and describes himself:

Old John J, now retired, received at Ph.D. in experimental physics from Duke in 1967 and made computer science his career."

Old JohnJ says:

I continue to follow TWW but don't comment much because of my lack of experience with the forms of abuse that are discussed. My sympathies are with the victims, not the celebrity pastors who are accused.

Dee says: 

​Before we begin, it might be helpful to new readers to explain a bit about Reformed Baptist culture. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) located in Louisville, KY and is considered by many to be the flagship seminary of the SBC. It is often referred to as The Vatican. The head of the seminary is Dr. Al Mohler is often referred to as the Pope. When he says something is "biblical," it is taken very, very seriously by the Neo-Reformed world. For some, it is as if he speaks "ex cathedra" link

At the end of the post, I left a funny video to contemplate. Are we so entrenched in our tight Christian communities that we no longer know how we sound to outsiders? That goes for creationism as well as our lingo.


The purpose of this little rant is to point out the hypocrisy of organizations that use the fruits of science (basically all the technology that supports our current society) to claim that science is wrong in it's most basic expressions. I refer especially to what is usually referred to as The Creation by the evangelical community. While I'll use examples from the SBC to illustrate my claims of hypocrisy, the general discussion applies to any Young Earth Creationist (YEC) group or organization that uses contemporary computing and communications (the internet) to disseminate their message.

Consider just a single piece, The Theological Costs of Old-Earth Thinking by Al Mohler  link published on the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) web site that includes:

Theological disaster ensues when the book of nature (general revelation) is used to trump God’s special revelation, when science is placed over Scripture as authoritative and compelling. And that is the very heart of this discussion. While some would argue that the Scriptures are not in danger, the current conversation on this subject is leading down a path that will do irrevocable harm to our evangelical affirmation of the accuracy and authority of God’s Word.

The article's concluding paragraph:

In our effort to be most faithful to the Scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the Gospel, an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems, and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and why it matters. The universe is telling the story of the glory of God, the Ancient of Days.

(Note from Dee) For those of you who have not heard about ICR, it is not an organization that is objectively approaching the subject. They only subscribe to young earth creationism.I would suggest that they change their name to The Institute for Young Earth Creation Research Only (ICYERO). Here is a quote from their site link. 

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. 

(Note from Dee) Al Mohler is a dedicated believer in young earth creationism and clearly links it to the Gospel which I believe is unwise and disunifying.

(Back to John) The LifeWay Adult Sunday School publishes a series “Explore the Bible”, Adult Learner Guide. Winter 2007-2008 Genesis 1-27. The first six lessons in this series are based on Genesis 1-11. An unstated but matter-of-fact literal reading of the text is focused on relational and spiritual aspects in the survey of chapters 1-11. The YEC interpretation is accepted and offered without qualification or any indication that there might be alternative ways to interpret the passages.

Pope Mohler has spoken. There is no ambiguity here. There is only one acceptable way in the SBC to interpret the first 11 chapters of Genesis. That it drives numbers of very intelligent people away from our faith is apparently of no concern. Here is a link to a TWW discussion under “Nones" within Musings on Current Topics About the Blogosphere. 

I interpret general revelation as nature telling us about God. As a believer I can see God's hand in many things. However, science speaks only of what it can observe and the interrelations of the various parts of nature. Science talks about the created world, not the Creator. Science, when discussing the creation, is only trumping a misinterpretation of God's word, not the actual words. Using an appropriate interpretive principle (hermeneutic) rather than forcing application of a particular one (literal reading) is a most important aspect of reading scripture. Nature/Bible differences can't be discussed without defining and justifying the Biblical interpretive principle used for a particular passage.

An alternative interpretation of Genesis 1-11, mentioned in an comment to an earlier post, is Dinosaur Religion: On Interpreting and Misinterpreting the Creation Texts, CONRAD HYERS, Department of Religion, Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, MN 56082, From: JASA36 (September 1984): 142-148. After creating the world, Genesis 1:1, God states what is important to Himself. Worship Me. Do not worship things that I made. Do not worship things you make. Early Genesis states His claim for being the only God, monotheism. Polytheism and idolatry are not acceptable. This part of Genesis is about God, not how God created the world. The case for this interpretation is made in a way that is both entertaining and insightful.In Genesis chapters 1-11 science is not being discussed after verse 1:1. Significantly, in its treatment of the OT “Explore The Bible” details how serious a problem idolatry was for the Israelis.

Present science is an approximation to the truth in the sense of currently being the most accurate and comprehensive description of the physical world. It is based on observation and experiment, not any form of revelation. It explicitly does not concern itself with what it cannot measure and observe. Science is likely incomplete in the sense that there may still be theory that can answer open questions and predict observations yet to be made. Any such extensions will have to do as well as existing theories for existing observations. Currently, there are no (physics) observations that are unexplained to the limits of measurements by current theories.

The two basic physical theories that support all of science are quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR). These theories are predictive and have been subject to intense experimental tests with no discrepancies found between their predictions and experiment. QM is the science of the smallest parts of the physical world and its understanding underlies solid state electronics and optical communications. The large scale structure of the universe is described by GR.

Besides experiments designed to directly test them, scientific theories are predictive in another sense. The electronics and communications we rely on for the internet, entertainment and energy are based on a deep understanding of the physical world, the same science that is used to determine the age of earth and the universe. The substantial investment in state-of-the-art computer based audiovisual equipment used in many contemporary worship services also is part of the Christian community's endorsement of current technology and by implication, present science.

The SBC's Baptist Faith and Message 2000 document in Section II includes:

God is all knowing. He knows about all things in the past, present, and future.

Why would He give a description of the creation of the world to a nomadic, prescientific culture using concepts that wouldn't be understood for nearly 4000 years? Rather than waging an unwinnable holy war against science wouldn't it be better to use an interpretative method appropriate to the culture the message was originally given?

The dogmatic insistence that Genesis is describing an alternative to current science gives rise to severe problems of consistency, perhaps better called hypocrisy. The two examples that follow are both from the LifeWay Adult Sunday School series “Explore the Bible”, Adult Learner Guide.

Week of July 31, SUMMER 2011 introduction p 76:

“Technology has changed the way many travelers get directions for driving. One day I was working at the desk in my west-Tennessee campus office. As the noon hour approached, I paused to think about where I might go for lunch, 'Mmm. Pizza would hit the spot,' I convinced myself. So I searched on my computer for pizza restaurants, and in a matter of seconds located the name and directions to a fine pizza establishment – in Bismarck, North Dakota! With a few more keyboard clicks I received a listing of 25 detailed driving instructions to guide me the 1234 miles between the campus parking lot and the restaurant's parking lot. … This data is so precise that a related device, a GPS (Global Positioning System), can literally talk to me telling me where to turn, which direction to take, what street I'm traveling, and when I've arrived at my destination.” This quoted paragraph is interesting because the GPS in addition to using advanced computing and communications hardware is the only consumer electronics system that requires the use of GR geometric concepts in its calculation of positions.

Week of February 3, Winter 2012-2013 introductory paragraph p 84:

The brilliant 17th-century astronomer Galileo challenged the prevailing wisdom of the day with his support for the theory that the sun was stationary and the earth revolved around it. Believing and defending this theory – which ultimately proved correct – took courage. Many in the scientific community rejected the theory. Moreover, papal leaders branded it as heresy. An Inquisition excommunicated Galileo and sentenced him to lifelong house arrest. During this time, however, Galileo continued to write and defend his new understanding of God's universe.

The irony in this first paragraph of the lesson is obvious. In the present, the SBC and other YEC supporting groups should be identified with the 17th century Roman Catholic Church (RCC) as they are arguing against the new science. The present day mainstream evolutionists and cosmologists can be identified with Galileo. Unlike in Galileo's time, burning alleged heretics at the stake is no longer tolerated by our civil authorities. However, refusal to acknowledge the essential correctness of present science is a contributor to the increasingly common viewpoint that religion is irrelevant.

The purpose of the sentence “Many in the scientific community rejected the theory.” is ambiguous. Is it a gentle affirmation of YEC in the present controversies in spite of the overwhelming scientific support for evolution and and an old universe? Science is conservative in the sense that larger changes require more evidence. Thus all new scientific theories, especially the more profound and revolutionary ones, take time to gain acceptance. This was definitely true regarding present theories of evolution, QM and GR. Religious opposition to the heliocentric theory was foremost in Galileo's time while religious opposition to evolution is central our time. Evolution is a very slow process consequently the physics and cosmology based arguments for an old universe also come under religious opposition.

Theological disaster comes from inappropriate hermeneutics and refusal to correct them. It took nearly 400 hundred years for the RCC to acknowledge and apologize for their mistreatment of Galileo. I hope the evangelical community that opposes modern science recants a little quicker.

Explicitly and from their own publications there is severe hypocrisy between SBC interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and its use of technology. Old Order Amish could hold to a YEC interpretation of Genesis 1–11 without being hypocritical. Regarding science they would still be wrong but at least they would not be hypocritical.


Dee thought you might enjoy this humorous video on Christian lingo.

Lydia's Corner: 1 Samuel 14:1-52 John 7:31-53 Psalm 109:1-31 Proverbs 15:5-7

Comments

On YEC Interpretation of Scripture and Their Use of Technology — 462 Comments

  1. (Note from Dee) Al Mohler is a dedicated believer in young earth creationism and clearly links it to the Gospel which I believe is unwise and disunifying.

    i.e. Young Earth Creationism in Seven 24-hour Days is SBC Dogma Ex Cathedra. All that’s missing is the “right of stake and fagots” to Burn All Heretics.

    Isn’t “NO POPERY!” also SBC Dogma Ex Cathedra?

  2. Unlike in Galileo’s time, burning alleged heretics at the stake is no longer tolerated by our civil authorities.

    Joel’s Army of Truly Reformed Culture Warriors, Quiverfull breeding programs, and Christian Reconstructionism will fix that — “GOD HATH SAID!”

  3. Actually, when we insist on reading the Bible in terms of a scientific mindset– when we see Genesis 1 as a scientific text– we are dictating to God that His revelation has to be according to our terms, and we show ourselves to be enslaved to our own cultural norms.

  4. Dee,
    The quote you attributed to Hyers is my all to brief summary of his nuanced presentation. Please use my statement as part of the preceding paragraph.

    Sadly, Conrad Hyers (July 31, 1933 – Mar 23, 2013) died while I was finishing this rant.

  5. This has been said before, but in connection with Islamic fundamentalism/extremism, ie while rejecting all Western values they are happy to use Western-invented technology both to promote their message and in the worst cases attack people.

    I don’t like attacking YEC per se because although I am not a YEC-position believer myself, I have friends who are and I respect their Christian lives, ie I don’t regard them as hypocrites. Nor would I claim to have all the answers myself. Science at the end of the day is tentative, ie it is not written in stone for all time.

    Having said that, the statement “science is tentative” cannot be misused to say “and therefore false because it disagrees with my presuppositions”. Science is only changed by newer science, not by a priori assumptions. Not only Galileo but also the disastrous influence of Lysenko with his Marxist presuppositions on Soviet agriculture show the danger of this.

    My problem with ICR is that I believe members are required to sign a commitment saying they will do nothing that goes against creation. This is presuppositional and not how science is done, surely?

  6. KR Wordgazer wrote:

    we are dictating to God that His revelation has to be according to our terms, and we show ourselves to be enslaved to our own cultural norms.

    Awesome comment. Wish I had thought of it!

  7. dee wrote:

    I just fixed it. Could you let me know if it is OK?

    Dee, it is now what I intended. Thanks for your gracious introduction and your editing.

  8. Dee:

    When folks in the SBC like Mohler speak no one argues with them because it can cost you your job, pension, etc. so most people just follow along whether they agree or not. The Southern Baptist Convention has truly become a sad place.

  9. THE VIDEO ALONE WAS WORTH THE WHOLE KIT AND KABOODLE!

    I was raised on YEC, Dispensationalism, Scofield Bible, King James, of course, Southern Gospel music, in a Southern Baptist context.

    C’mon people . . . is it any wonder I ran to The Episcopal Church?

    Of course, I’m only joking. TEC has its own problems. My entry into Anglicanism had little if anything to do with all of that. Still, ridding myself of those notions, or merely seeing those concepts from a different angle (including a pre-Trib rapture, the relationship of science and religion, etc.) was very difficult for me; that was all second nature to me, having been raised in that environment since childhood.

    This post was very, very helpful! Thank you!

  10. This was just a superb post. I would wholly welcome more posts and comments from John J.

    I have been reading and interacting recently on a heady physics forum. I am humbled by what I have seen and read…the level of intelligence and understanding there is nothing short of prodigious. Christians need to seriously think long and hard before forming contradictory theological opinions to scientifically vetted explanations. If we don’t, then more often than not we show ourselves fools, not faithful.

    My principle interest is determining what is truly observable and what are merely mathematical constructs used to organize and validate the theories. My primary interest is in proving philosophically an utterly object-oriented reality (abstractions as derivatives of the physical universe; not the other way around) so that my belief system is a function of pure, non-contradictory reason. Those people on the physics site have no problem conceding theory from TRUTH; mathematical constructs from tangible objects. They are quick to admit any possible holes or inconsistencies in their understanding. Once again the secular world proves itself more “godly” than the “faithful”.

    Sigh.

  11. @ dabide:I am a fan of John Lennox. He is a great debater and reminds me a bit of CS Lewis in his demeanor. He and I exchanged some emails. I asked him abut his perspective on the creation wars and he was very helpful to me. Thank you for recommending his book.

  12. RJS over at Scot McKnight’s blog often discusses the problems of YEC. She is a professor with a distinctly scientific background. She also has her own blog called Musings on Science. She’s good, but sometimes can get a little deep. There is also Biologos a Christian organization discussing creation and science issues. I mention these because reading Ken Ham and Answers In Genesis can drive you a little nuts. There is no real perspective with Ken (or with Mohler)

    One of my biggest complaints with Evangelical Christian “scholarship” is that it is essentially incestuous. Mohler’s advanced degrees (Masters and PhD) all came from SBTS. His undergrad work was done at Samford University another Baptist school. Essentially, he has never been exposed to anything other than Baptist teaching. In essence, he has never been challenged from a scholarly viewpoint.

  13. I think “Pope” Mohler has been sufficiently challenged by other teaching. His education is not rooted in Baptist belief but in the sufficiency of Scripture itself.

  14. Steve D wrote:

    Samford University another Baptist schoo

    Did you know he has rejected things like egalitarianism that he said was taught him at Samford? I think the comment was that he had to unlearn everything they taught him. Mohler was looking for “rules” and he eventually found them or made them.

  15. I really enjoyed reading Francis Collins’ book The Language of God. It is amazing to me that genetic research has not forced more YECs to toe the line with what they really believe about science. The same research that is leading to major breakthroughs in medicine is also very convincing about evolution. I chuckle at the thought of YEC’s thanking God for the doctors and modern medicine but with the same tongue blasting those “heathen scientists” who believed we evolved from monkeys.

  16. john wrote:

    His education is not rooted in Baptist belief but in the sufficiency of Scripture itself.

    I always find it interesting when people use the term “sufficiency of Scripture” to describe their beliefs on secondary issues. If it was “sufficient” why do people of good will and deep love for the Word come out all over the place on issues like creationism?

  17. Kristin wrote:

    I really enjoyed reading Francis Collins’ book The Language of God

    Ditto.
    Kristin wrote:

    I chuckle at the thought of YEC’s thanking God for the doctors and modern medicine but with the same tongue blasting those “heathen scientists” who believed we evolved from monkeys.

    It is always interesting how quickly some are willing to compromise when it involves their health or wealth.

  18. @ Nicholas: Oh good night! You would think that I would cease being surprised by this stuff! KJVO+YEC.Can you imagine what goes on in his house.

  19. Argo wrote:

    My principle interest is determining what is truly observable and what are merely mathematical constructs used to organize and validate the theories.

    Nikola Tesla had this to say on the subject:

    “…Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality…”

    This is exactly my understanding of what science is. It must lend itself fully to physical replication by others. Coulda’, woulda’, and shoulda’ won’t cut it.

  20. Genesis 1-3 is a beautiful, complex ancient Near Eastern narrative that features a number of different themes.

    It’s pretty widely accepted in evangelical Old Testament scholarship that Gen. 1-3 is best categorized as a polemic against alternate ancient Near Eastern (ANE) creation myths. It is most certainly NOT a scientific analysis or explanation. As one scholar explains it: “The point isn’t how God created. The point is that it was Yahweh and no one else.” I highly recommend, for all Christians, reading a few of the non-biblical ANE myths.* Even if you’re not an expert, you can clearly see some key theological differences between the worldview undergirding Genesis and alternate ANE worldviews.

    There has also been much quality research done regarding the themes of kingship and sacred space in Gen. 1-3. The idea is that God is King and all of creation is his kingdom. Just like ANE kings placed clay or stone statues of themselves along key borders and key sites in their kingdom, the true King fashions images of himself (us!) and places them in his kingdom to serve as his royal representatives. The Garden is the first sacred space – it’s not a coincidence that Adam’s job “to work” it is the same job that the priests are later given in the Tabernacle and then the Temple (Heb. “avad”). And of course the First Temple incorporated a heavy dose of garden imagery.

    Mohler looks pretty silly from the standpoint of Old Testament scholarship. I’m assuming that, as the Pope of SBTS, he is aware of the majority opinion of OT scholarship. And like I said, this is evangelical scholarship – not liberal, mainline, or “secular” (Stuff Christians Say video reference!) scholars – that accepts this view. So he must knowingly reject the expert consensus to hang on to an interpretation derived from a deficient exegetical framework.*

    *Enuma Elish is a good place to start.

    **To be fair, Christians of the past had better excuses for not understanding Gen. 1-3 because scholarship was sorely lacking in the area of ancient Near Eastern literature and creation myths. The work done in comparative ANE religion has removed many of our excuses for not seeing Gen. 1-3 as a polemic.

  21. dee wrote:

    Did you know he has rejected things like egalitarianism that he said was taught him at Samford? I think the comment was that he had to unlearn everything they taught him.

    Apparently the tipping point came as he strolled the campus of Southern Seminary in the cool of the day with Carl Henry back when he was an M.Div student.

  22. @ dee:

    :^) Short Version:

    Really, the major ingredients of attraction to TEC and Anglicanism for me was the Book of Common Prayer and the liturgy. I attended two morning services (Rite I and Rite II) in May 2010 and was hooked. I took the next two years studying Anglicanism, weighing the pros and cons of TEC, and decided last summer that I have far, far more in common with that tradition than not.

    The longer version is on my site: http://theepiscopalian.blogspot.com/p/why-episcopalian.html

    I don’t mind admitting the struggles I had while studying all the issues involved. I’ve read comments from SBC-types (and other Gospel Coalition peeps): they have the tendency to make one feel heretical if not holding to their dogmas. But I came to realize over the last six to eight months that their opinions are just that — their opinions; and opinions are like noses: everybody has one. Jesus saves by grace through faith in Him, not the SBC, the Gospel Coalition, or anyone else. I have decided to refuse to live the rest of my life fearful of the opinions of such a loud yet very visible minority.

  23. @ Muff Potter:

    MP,

    I’m not sure Nikola is entirely correct. While her assertion might be true for a field like theoretical physics, it really isn’t consistent with MOST sciences, as far as I can tell. I think John J.’s assertion that science is primarily concerned with what is actually observable is correct. For example, when you question physicists about what there was “before” the Big Bang, they are happy to concede that since it is not observable, it is not something they concern themselves with (and, as for me, I deny the existence of anything “before” the “beginning” of the universe, as well as after for that matter…and I defend this via a rational, albeit philosophical/metaphysical, understanding of what is the logic of our reality and what is contradiction…so this sort of “shrug” about what is “before”, er…everything is something that I certainly understand. The answer to what was before the big bang will ALWAYS effectively be “nothing”; because it can be nothing other than wholly irrelevant to our universe as we observe it).

    However, I will agree that it is frustrating to see some scientists proceed from the assumption–even if it isn’t a necessarily CONSCIOUS assumption–that what is purely abstract is somehow the “creator” of that which is actual/physical/visceral. I have observed this with the treatment of “spacetime” for example. Without an object in it, or a theoretical reference point, there really can be no such thing as spacetime (meaning, according to the mathematics, the value is zero). This is the truth of our reality. But in order to organize the universe in a predictable way (and it does WORK), General Relativity makes what is technically “unreal”, that is, purely a abstract measurement, a mathematical model of a 4D coordinate system. This has the effect of rendering the universe as “governed” by certain mathematical laws…which are validated by experiment. But the reality is that no tangible object is governed by an abstraction…that is, it is impossible for that which does not exist (in reality) to govern that which does; nor can that which does exist conform to that which does not…this is a logical contradiction. By definition, no law can experimentally “work” until it AFTER it is manifest by an object so that the law can, you know, be measured. So it isn’t a chicken and egg deal…before an experimental physicist can actually experiment, someTHING as to act FIRST; and that something cannot be an abstract “law” (in other words, an object’s action proves the law/theory/hypothesis/thought experiment, it is not the other way around). So while physics is certainly efficacious for predicting/measuring object movement, it by no means can answer philosophical questions (like…what caused the big bang? Which is a VERY good question). The problem is that this fact doesn’t seem to matter to some scientists, like Stephen Hawking for example. And the effect is that some scientists end up looking as foolish as Ken Hamm. They create a mathematical equation and call it “objective reality”. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a Christian, it certainly is annoying to say the least.

  24. “It took nearly 400 hundred years for the RCC to acknowledge and apologize for their mistreatment of Galileo. I hope the evangelical community that opposes modern science recants a little quicker.”

    I really hope so, too!

    Unfortunately, I fear that the more modern science advances, the more the YEC camp will dig their heels in.

    As a homeschooling parent, it is nearly impossible to buy Christian curriculum that does NOT subscribe to a YEC worldview.

    FYI, ICR works with Vision Forum to produce the Jonathan Park Audio Adventure series. This series features Jonathan Park and his family and friends as they go around the world combatting evolutionary ideas and spreading the Creation Message. There are eight volumes of 12 episodes each. I have listened to many of them and written reviews of almost all the episodes.

    One can also listen to the episodes on the Jonathan Park website (as they come up). This week’s episode is Vol. 8, Ep. 1: http://www.jonathanpark.com/

  25. Nicholas wrote:

    Henry Morris (founder of ICR) went on to embrace KJV-Onlyism at some point

    Ken Ham is a big KJVO guy. Or at least he was. I don’t keep up much with his current thoughts. 🙂

  26. John Walton’s book “the Lost World of Genesis One” and his new one (on the first three chapters of Genesis) show that the ANE people didn’t actually care much about physical creation – to them, when someone, or some god, took materials from the natural (they viewed this as chaotic) world and formed them into something useful that that was an act of creation to celebrate.

    So, clay at the bottom of a riverbed was just chaos – no god/dess was assigned to it, however, when someone took that river clay and formed a beautiful pot from it, that was significant and there was a god(dess) of pottery and potters.

    Back to Genesis. In the creation story, the earth is already there – as how it got there meant little to the Ancients – but is chaotic (bad), God’s Spirit hovers over it and “creates” good on it. First he creates light and darkness (the Ancients didn’t know that the Sun provided all our light it was just a glowing ball that circled the daytime sky) and calls the light “day”. Now, this is a huge clue that this text isn’t about material creation. If God were explaining how He made our material universe, He would just say He created light separated it from darkness and that was good. Instead, he is setting light apart from darkness (chaos to the Ancients) and calling it “Day”??? So, if this is about his creation of Light photons, why go on to talk about how it is separate from darkness and he called them night and day? Because he is ordering the material, chaotic universe to suit himself and us. He is making distinct days, periods of time, and then He continues in Genesis 1:14 “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,… he is ordering the “lights in the sky” to serve as calendars – to mark sacred times, days and years.

    What the Ancients understood, when they herd or read this text was; God was building his temple for Himself to dwell in – the materials (our world) was already available – he was using the material (chaotic) world to form or create a Holy Temple to dwell in. Where was this temple? – it was the known universe – the Heavens were the ceiling, the earth the Great Chamber and the centre piece (where the idol would sit in a pagan temple) was made in his own image – us.

    What the Ancients would never read was a material creationist account. They don’t know or care that the moon gives no light of it’s own, and is therefore not a light, they did, however, care where God dwelled. A good analogy would be to look at a house being built (an outline of wood and plywood taking the shape it will later become), that is how we read Genesis One. But to the Ancients, they viewed God moving into an already built house. Making a house (earth) his home/dwelling. Gods always lived in their temples in the Ancient Near East, so having the known universe as one’s temple, meant He was moving into our world – dwelling with us.

    That, as we know, ends badly in Gen. 2 – 3 (the centrepiece gets broken along with the whole temple) so he then has to find a new way to reestablish his presence on our earth. That, of course, will be Jesus. But in Gen. 1 God is doing what he really wanted to do, set up his presence on this earth. Make His built house (world) his Home (his dwelling). Gen. 1 is about God moving into his home. On the 7th day he rested. That doesn’t mean he took a day off, it mentions “rest” in several places in the OT. The idea is to dwell peacefully in one spot (a vineyard for example). In order for a person to eat the fruits of their rest, they would have to have a long time in a spot – move the rocks, till the soil, plant the vines, water the vines, do this for 15 years, then, finally, pick the grapes and press them. To rest, in the OT, means to peacefully live in one spot for a long time. On the 7th day, God rested. He settled in. He planned to dwell with us.

    That is how the text was received by the Ancients. Much light has been shed on this with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is clear that this was a “creation” view. We might look at it as a Home Staging account, God’s house is set up for his arrival.

    Anyways, when you view Gen. 1 this way, then science isn’t a concern.

  27. I know what YEC stands for, but what is TEC? Fascinating post and comments, by the way.

  28. Couple of minor points of interest before I head off to the gym…

    Marge – I believe “TEC” refers to The Episcopal Church. We have them here in Scotland as well, and I know some very good people therein, too.

    Argo wrote:

    I’m not sure Nikola is entirely correct. While her assertion might be true…

    “Nikola” is actually a boy’s name in Serbo-Croat. I have a friend and colleague here who is Croation (though he doesn’t sound it – his accent is perfect BBC “received pronunciation”). He goes by the name Nik; as he has pointed out, calling himself “Nikola” would cause some confusion over here…

  29. FYI – FBC Jax hosted a pastors’ conference in January that was advertised in the Institute for Creation Research website. Why? Because the focus of the conference was Young Earth Creationism.

    http://www.icr.org/event/1061/

    The pastors conference featured these speakers:

    Dr. Henry Morris III

    Dr. Jason Lisle

    Albert Mohler

    Mac Brunson

    Then in early May, Mary Mohler will be speaking at an Answers for Women conference at the Creation Museum. Answers in Genesis is very pleased!

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/02/12/mary-mohler-to-speak-at-aig-womens-conference/

  30. Speaking of Jonathan Park, here’s somebody who’s going through each CD and critiquing them. They seem to be pretty cheesily over-the-top – here’s an excerpt from one of the episode descriptions:

    “The Creation Response Team has been challenged to a ‘Battle of the Worldviews’ on national TV. Their competition is the Explorer’s Society, a group of evolutionary scientists who have become famous for their cutting-edge scientific discoveries. Join these two teams as they contend against one another at Niagara Falls, the Canadian wilderness, Mount St. Helens, the freezing Arctic of Ellesmere Island, the depths of the sea, and a German dinosaur graveyard!”

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I doubt this would happen because, well, frankly, evangelicals seem to be the only people who use the word “worldview” in such a militant way. The “evolutionary scientists” would probably just call it a “debate” and move on.

    But what can I say. It’s Vision Forum.

    http://jonathanparkreviews.wordpress.com

  31. William Birch wrote:

    I don’t mind admitting the struggles I had while studying all the issues involved. I’ve read comments from SBC-types (and other Gospel Coalition peeps): they have the tendency to make one feel heretical if not holding to their dogmas.

    William,

    I am a cradle Episcopalian who spent thirty years in the evangelical world. I returned to TEC a little over five years ago and have never once looked back or been happier. As for TEC’s “troubles”, I wouldn’t trade them for one of the many that are found in the evangelical circus. All the best to you in your journey.

  32. C’mon people . . . is it any wonder I ran to The Episcopal Church?

    I too discovered the Episcopal Church after growing up in the same environment. They truly show the love of God.

    I can see both sides of the creation debate. I had questions in my teens about the literal 7 day creation explanation but was afraid to ask in fear of being called “deceived” by the world. For me, and this is only my feelings on the matter, I don’t think too much about it. God created a beautiful and mysterious world with so much to discover. I’m just happy with that.

  33. @ Clay Crouch:
    Clay,

    That is good news, indeed! Thanks for sharing that. Every denomination (every local body) has its woes. Really, I just traded one set of woes for another, no big whoop. The Lord is still on His throne. If He ain’t biting His fingernails, then I ain’t, either.

  34. @ Scooter’s Mom:
    Scooter’s Mom,

    Welcoming, yes! I’ve had the same experience in TEC. I have visited many different churches over the last six or seven years, when I went away to college in North Carolina: Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Charismatic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian. I visited one Anglican church that had broken away from TEC. The only person who said “hello” to me was the man at the door who handed me the liturgy. Oy!

  35. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Nick…ha ha. Thanks for setting me straight on the name. Sounds feminine to my American ears. My mistake. I should know better. In my defense, it was late and I was nose deep in a glass of fine wine.:-)

  36. Argo/Muff Potter thread: Equations are an abstraction of a physical system. However, they are also the key to quantitative predictions. Thus, a correct physical theory is more than just an abstraction.

    Regarding the Tesla quote by Muff: Tesla’s most productive work came well after Maxwell’s “abstraction” with some help by Oliver Heaviside of all known electromagnetic phenomena into just 4 equations. Maxwell’s equations are both limiting and predictive. Tesla’s quote may be a reaction to these equations.

  37. @ Kristin:
    Regarding its long term understanding Collin’s “Language of God” might be more accurately titled “Alphabet of God”. My guess is that biology/genomics is 30-50 years behind physics/electronics in its impact. The science impact of genomics reinforces the science of evolution. The application of it likely will revolutionize medicine.

  38. @ Argo: How much do you know about Tesla’s work? He invented the AC electrical system without which you and I would not be sitting at our computers but maybe still sitting by the lamp knitting. Tesla was actually the real inventor of the radio. Marconi used 17 of Tesla’s patents in his work. The Supreme Court invalidated Marconi’s patent of the radio and awarded it to Tesla. Unfortunately, this was after Tesla’s death and many people still think Marconi invented the radio. Several of Tesla’s patents were used in the invention of the transistor. Most scientists believe Tesla was a genius and deserves much more credit than he got during his lifetime and for many years afterward. Part of that was due to Thomas Edison, who hated Tesla. As on example, Edison was the head of the government’s R&D during WWI. Tesla brought in his invention of the radar, Edison refused to look at it. Thus, we did not have radar during WWI and for many years after. Also, I think someone else got credit for Tesla’s invention. Tesla invented or did early work on many other of our modern technology. By the way, Tesla wrote a negative obit on Edison. One of points was that if Edison had been paying attention to math he would have been a better scientist. Another point, Edison is frequently credited with inventing electricity, but as from above, our system is actually Tesla’s. Edison only invented the light bulb and many people think one of his lab assistants actually did most of the work.
    OK, rant off.

  39. By the way, I have been an old earth creationist for many years. Like Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, I am not totally convinced about theistic evolution. But if God has evolution as a tool in his tool box I would accept that. I think that science does line up with many things Genesis but science only confirms God’s work it does not supplant it.

  40. yewnique wrote:

    “It took nearly 400 hundred years for the RCC to acknowledge and apologize for their mistreatment of Galileo. I hope the evangelical community that opposes modern science recants a little quicker.”

    Another factor is that the Galileo Affair went down at the peak of the Thirty Years War, the bloodiest of the Reformation Wars. Catholic & Protestant kingdoms were at each others’ throats all across Europe, and EVERYBODY was on a War Footing. And in wartime, you stomp on anything that could weaken your home front. (And Galileo was the type of guy who went out of his way to make enemies.)

    The main difference from Galileo is the YECs are in a “Culture War” instead of an actual shooting war. Still, their war rhetoric is a similarity.

  41. @ William Birch:
    I too struggled with some teachings of the TEC. Infant baptism, etc. I talked to the Rector, I found out she was saved in a SBC and converted to TEC. I found out by talking to her and doing my own research that they believe in salvation as the bible teaches it. Other issues don’t matter to me right now. How we get to heaven is the one that counts. She explained confirmation and in the the BCP, the confirmation questions are MORE specific than any “sinners prayer” that I have heard.

    My church is conservative and the local Bishop is also so the problems with the big guys in the church don’t affect us. I truly believe God has me where I need to be right now in my life. I actually look forward to going to church now, which was never the case at my old IFB church, and a lot of healing is going on inside of me.

  42. Hester wrote:

    Speaking of Jonathan Park, here’s somebody who’s going through each CD and critiquing them. They seem to be pretty cheesily over-the-top – here’s an excerpt from one of the episode descriptions:
    “The Creation Response Team has been challenged to a ‘Battle of the Worldviews’ on national TV. Their competition is the Explorer’s Society, a group of evolutionary scientists who have become famous for their cutting-edge scientific discoveries. Join these two teams as they contend against one another at Niagara Falls, the Canadian wilderness, Mount St. Helens, the freezing Arctic of Ellesmere Island, the depths of the sea, and a German dinosaur graveyard!”
    I don’t know about anyone else, but I doubt this would happen because, well, frankly, evangelicals seem to be the only people who use the word “worldview” in such a militant way. The “evolutionary scientists” would probably just call it a “debate” and move on.
    But what can I say. It’s Vision Forum.
    http://jonathanparkreviews.wordpress.com

    The scientists would actually write papers for journals and present their research at conferences, but that’s not going to make for a flashy TV series.
    And the amount of alcohol that flows at pretty much every academic conference would probably not be very homeschool-kids friendly.

  43. yewnique

    Yeah, and the Girl Talk blog pushed this series showing a link bewteen SGM and Vision Forum. Watch for more of this in the future.

  44. Wisdomchaser wrote:

    Part of that was due to Thomas Edison, who hated Tesla. As on example, Edison was the head of the government’s R&D during WWI. Tesla brought in his invention of the radar, Edison refused to look at it. Thus, we did not have radar during WWI and for many years after. Also, I think someone else got credit for Tesla’s invention.

    Edison appears to have been the type of self-made, self-educated autocratic boss who resents anyone with more “book larnin'” than himself. I understand Henry Ford (FoMoCo) and Ray Kroc (McDonalds) had much the same attitude.

    Edison was the type example of brute-force “let’s try this, let’s try that” hands-on tinkerer; Tesla was almost literally a spaced-out “mad genius” whose brain worked in an “intuitive genius” mode, almost all working in the subconscious with only the finished idea bubbling up into consciousness ex nihilo. You can see the potential for conflict between these two types.

  45. @ Wisdomchaser:
    I’m not sure what you are getting at. Did I say something that you’ve taken to mean that my opinion of Tesla is that he is not a great scientist? I didn’t even know she was a he. So…no, can’t say I know much about him.

    I can say that I do not agree with his assumptions concerning the level of importance scientists give to their math, based on Muff’s quote. I have interacted with many scientists, and as I have said, they are not nearly as dogmatic about their equations as Tesla’s quote seemed to indicate. In my experience.

    I’m assuming he’s been dead awhile. Is it possible his assessment no longer accurately describes scientists?

  46. William

    I am helping to run a medical retreat for the next few days but i think your story would be interesting to feature over here. If you would give us permission to reprint it, could you drop an email to dee@thewartburgwatch.com? Don’t worry if you would rather not.

  47. Hester wrote:

    Speaking of Jonathan Park, here’s somebody who’s going through each CD and critiquing them. They seem to be pretty cheesily over-the-top – here’s an excerpt from one of the episode descriptions:
    “The Creation Response Team has been challenged to a ‘Battle of the Worldviews’ on national TV. Their competition is the Explorer’s Society, a group of evolutionary scientists who have become famous for their cutting-edge scientific discoveries. Join these two teams as they contend against one another at Niagara Falls, the Canadian wilderness, Mount St. Helens, the freezing Arctic of Ellesmere Island, the depths of the sea, and a German dinosaur graveyard!”
    I don’t know about anyone else, but I doubt this would happen because, well, frankly, evangelicals seem to be the only people who use the word “worldview” in such a militant way. The “evolutionary scientists” would probably just call it a “debate” and move on.
    But what can I say. It’s Vision Forum.
    http://jonathanparkreviews.wordpress.com

    That’s my blog also. 🙂 I decided to put all the JP reviews in its own blog.

  48. @ Marge Sweigart: I am sorry. We tend to use our lingo without explaining at times. OEC=Old Earth Creation. TEC:Theistic Evolution Creation. EC=Evolutionary Creationism which is the same as TEC. These three theories all include the belief that God is the Creator-ex nihilo (out of nothing) and is the Author of the process through which man came into being.

  49. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I believe “TEC” refers to The Episcopal Church. We have them here in Scotland as well, and I know some very good people therein, too

    TEC can refer to the Episcopal church but in this context stands for Theistic Evolution Creationism. So many abbreviations, so little time….

  50. Scooter’s Mom wrote:

    , I don’t think too much about it. God created a beautiful and mysterious world with so much to discover. I’m just happy with that.

    Great comment. For many, it does not matter. However, for those of us who are in the scientific community, it is vital since many scientist will not consider Christianity because of the zealots who say one MUST believe in a Young Earth. Science is totally incompatible with this view and so it keeps scientists from exploring the faith.

    So many Christian complaining about “atheist’ scientists. I wonder if they ever consider that they are the ones who have created this? This is why High Ross Started “Reasons to Believe.” It is a outreach to scientist which says one can believe in an ancient earth and be a Christian.

  51. On the Tesla quote, it’s really a reflection of philosophical debates within science on the purpose of science and research. He’d have likely been particularly referencing physics, and to an extent he has a point – theoretical physicists and pure mathematicians are very brilliant people, but aren’t necessarily interested in ‘real world’ applications of their research. It’s the challenge and thrill of knowledge, or problem-solving at a level where only a handful of people understand it. But that’s not to say that such research won’t have ‘practical’ uses – we often don’t know what the later uses of scientific discoveries will be. Computers are the perfect example. It’s not hard to find quotes from even the last few decades along the lines of ‘nobody needs a personal computer’, ‘nobody needs more than 64k memory’, etc.
    So science covers all sorts of things. It can be practical, it can be abstract, it can have clear applications, it can be knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I’d be wary of anyone – even someone as brilliant and influential as Tesla – playing off one ‘type’ of science against another.

  52. Is there any YEC literature out there that addresses genomics? Everything I see is primarily focused on archaeology/geology. If so, I’m curious what they could possibly say. If not, then me thinks this debate won’t really be a “debate” much longer.

    A good one from Biologos: http://biologos.org/blog/the-sorrows-and-joys-of-teaching-evolution

    @ Scooter’s Mom: Not thinking about it too much is a great position to have, in my opinion! It can all be overwhelming. Why not just sit back and enjoy creation and have an open hand about the details of how it came to be?

  53. dee wrote:

    However, for those of us who are in the scientific community, it is vital since many scientist will not consider Christianity because of the zealots who say one MUST believe in a Young Earth. Science is totally incompatible with this view and so it keeps scientists from exploring the faith.

    Dee,

    I did not mean to belittle those that this topic does matter. I apologize if I sounded like that. Since I am not into science other than space travel (since I live in central florida) all this stuff makes my head spin. I have topics that I am passionate about too, so I totally understand where you guys are coming from.

    And you are right, there are too many christians that isolate scientists because of their dogmatic view of creation. Seems to me there is room for both. After all, God designed man’s brain to learn and evolve to where we are today. We have learned so much about the world above and below and have so much more to learn. If God didn’t want us asking questions, he wouldn’t give us minds in which to explore these things.

  54. *Just a note: I’ve only commented once or twice on TWW, although I read daily and truly enjoy the atmosphere of freedom. My first comment was in responso to Turtle’s question about Mr. Mohler’s upbringing. Since I grew up in the same church where he grew up, I felt I could respond, and I chose the name “I Remember” in relation to my memories of that church and of Mr. Mohler’s family. Since reading over at Recovering Grace it has come to my attention that there is a contributor there who goes by the name “I Remember”. So there will be no confusion, I will be Bookbolter from now on.

    A few weeks ago an old friend informed me that Al Mohler’s father has passed away. I remember Dick Mohler, and when I think of him the words of Christ in John 13:34-35 come to mind…”A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” He was the manager of the local Publix grocery store, but lived out the love of Christ every day in such a way that his example touched me far more than his influential son ever will.

    Regarding the creation debates, it is my slightly educated opinion that any discrepancy between science and scripture is because science just hasn’t caught up to God yet. We are finding out more and more about the world around us, and I haven’t read a single thing that disproves scripture. On the contrary, the more that is revealed through science, the more we understand about our limitless Creator. Why are people surprised when we learn that God doesn’t work the way we thought He did??? I thought that was a given.

    “Praise God from whom all blessings flow
    Praise Him, all creatures here below.
    Praise Him above, ye heavenly hosts.
    Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

    Amen.

  55. I don’t have much to say, but felt like chiming in as another fan of Francis Collins’ writings.

    What I’m seeing in my little corner of Baptist conservative evangelical Christendom in the rural Midwest is that “old earth” is ok, but “the E word” is not. For example, the pastor will say without fanfare that the earth is old. Then, he will then thunder from the pulpit that evolution is baseless, scientists change their mind every day (so they’re obviously totally wrong and you shouldn’t listen to them), and you have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve or you’re rejecting “the authoritah of scripture.”

    Seeing this dichotomy between acceptance of geological / old earth evidence and rejection of biological / evolution evidence, I wonder, is this based on more than just the standard “death before sin” sort of objection? Accepting modern biological scientific findings could lead one down a slippery slope to naturalistic explanations for mental illnesses and alternate [rhymes with “lex”]ualities. Chipping away at “Biblical” explanations for depression is controversial enough, and, as for that other area, well, let’s not even go there! (well, we already did, but you know what I mean…).

  56. @ I Remember/Bookbolter:

    And when we limit God (who has no limits) to a bound book that man understands, according to a man’s own interpretations, then we have reduced God to a very small and insignificant being. Please don’t take this wrong, I am not bashing the Bible. The Bible is valuable and informs me immensely of God. I simply don’t believe that God’s knowledge is limited to what is written on the pages of a book, nor to what I (or ancient, or middle ages, or modern man) can conceive of Him. I think the Bible itself would confirm this inability of man to comprehend all of God. At the same time, God never told man stop thinking or learning.

  57. @ Bridget:
    Yes,I agree regarding the limitlessness of God. My understanding is that God gave us, in scripture, everything we need to find Him and begin to follow Him. He did not give us everything there is. That would be ludicrous.

  58. Wisdomchaser wrote:

    By the way, I have been an old earth creationist for many years. Like Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, I am not totally convinced about theistic evolution. But if God has evolution as a tool in his tool box I would accept that. I think that science does line up with many things Genesis but science only confirms God’s work it does not supplant it.

    The irony is, the mapping of the human genome (and then the chimp and then the Neanderthal genomes) uses the same genetics we use for medical interventions/therapy. The same genetics we use to ID criminals and deceased victims. The same genetics we use to find organ donor matches. Yet that genetics points more strongly than the current (and much more complete) fossil record to evolution. Examples: all Apes have a vitamin C deficiency, all mammals have egg yolk making genes (difunctional) but embedded in our genomes – despite the fact the last egg-lay ancestral mammal was a Monerterain (Duck billed platypus’ are Monerterains), no “primitive” non egg-laying creatures have remenants of these genes. We weren’t to different from Neanderthals – in fact we interbred with them and 6% of our DNA is Neanderthal. Anyways, all that to note, genetics very strongly supports Evolution, and saves lives, and brings justice. To say it is all a lie would put us back about a generation in medicine and crime solving.

  59. @ Bob Cleveland:
    Bob,
    That is not the debate. It is not a matter of trusting what God says over what man says. That is a massive over simplification…and it frames the debate gnostically: divine “wisdom” which is immune to human reason (and therefore irrelevant) versus man’s material knowledge which must always be considered mutually exclusive to the divine wisdom (and thus it too is irrelevant). We are then left with nothing: NO truth at all.

    The debate is about what is it exactly that God said. “Because it’s in the Bible” cannot be the plumb line for rational truth. It is called tautological reasoning (it’s in the bible, so it’s true; it’s true so it’s in the bible…nothing not in the bible is then true. This is nonsense.)

    The bible must be interpreted against man’s contextual reality. Reversing this will always lead to human oppression and abuse.

  60. @ Dee:

    “Yeah, and the Girl Talk blog pushed this series showing a link bewteen SGM and Vision Forum.”

    Which should disturb everybody immensely. I wonder how long it will be before people start coming out of patriarchal circles with similar stories of molestation. There’s already plenty of stories of physical abuse.

  61. Val wrote:

    Wisdomchaser wrote:
    Anyways, all that to note, genetics very strongly supports Evolution, and saves lives, and brings justice. To say it is all a lie would put us back about a generation in medicine and crime solving.

    The practical applications of genomics will make it harder for YEC to target the veracity of the evidence. It’s pretty easy to make a strawman argument against the fossil record. It is much harder to make such arguments when the “bogus” evidence is simultaneously curing diseases and solving crimes.

  62. Argo wrote:

    I was nose deep in a glass of fine wine.:-)

    I approve of this. Later this evening I’ll be nose deep in a glass of Co-Op Cava which, if not perhaps “fine” by the connoisseur’s definition, is not at all bad. Oh, and Masterchef will be on.

    🙂

  63. dee wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    I believe “TEC” refers to The Episcopal Church. We have them here in Scotland as well, and I know some very good people therein, too
    TEC can refer to the Episcopal church but in this context stands for Theistic Evolution Creationism. So many abbreviations, so little time….

    {imagine, if you will, a red face graphic}

    I did search through the comment thread for “TEC” to get the context, but I evidently wasn’t quite thorough enough…

    🙁

  64. Val’s comment re the ANE setting of the Creation story rang a bell. Some claim that the Genesis account is just another version of the same Mesopotamian story (Flood, etc) but as Ernest Lucas (a TEC Christian academic) points out, there are important moral differences in the stories, including monotheism vs polytheism and the fact that the Babylonian gods flooded the earth simply because they were apparently irritated by the noise of humanity (if I’m wrong in any of this, someone please correct me).

    It also seems to be a given that again contrary to popular belief, ancient myths seem to treat the cosmos as somehow pre-existing. Certainly I think this was the case with some of the Greek legends. But again I stand open to correction.

    Which reminds me re Argo’s discussion of using maths to make scientific constructs that taken to an extreme this approach also reminds me of Plato’s ideas of the “forms”.

    I have sympathy for Scooter’s Mom’s view. I keep animals, but occasionally I have to remind myself to read a bit less about them and enjoy the animals themselves a bit more 🙂

  65. Kolya wrote:

    the Babylonian gods flooded the earth simply because they were apparently irritated by the noise of humanity

    Perhaps they foresaw the advent of techno music and loud in-car stereos, and decided a pre-emptive strike would be wise.

  66. @ Scooter’s Mom:
    You will find a wide variety of folks in a typical parish of TEC – liberal, conservative, moderate. What you generally won’t find is contentious prying. You want to hear a real “sinners’ prayer”? Wait until you attend a baptism. The renewal of your baptism vows are powerful.

  67. A very good article, and a topic near and dear to my heart. I believe it was the topic of the day when I first posted on TWW (something about Flintstones…but I digress). One thought that I would like offer comes from the following statement in your post:

    “Why would He give a description of the creation of the world to a nomadic, prescientific culture using concepts that wouldn’t be understood for nearly 4000 years? “

    It implies an assumption, that to me makes little sense. We assume that God would speak so as to be understood by a pre-scientific, nomadic culture, when it seems to make more sense that God would speak so as to be understood by the vast majority of the people who would come to read his words over time.

    If God’s existence and knowledge spans time and space, then surely He realizes that overall the vast majority of people who would read his words would come from a scientific and literate culture…not the nomadic one to whom he initially communicated.

    If that’s the case, maybe treating it as scientific treatise or at least viewed as something to be taken literally..isn’t so far off the mark.

  68. Grew up mostly SBC, dispy, Scofield Bible which is actually gap theory old earth, not YEC in the original notes.

    But a Catholic clued me into reading Genesis liturgically, and nothing has been the same since.

    I’ve found an Anglo Catholic UMC and am quite content.

  69. There is a theological and sociological way of reading the Genesis accounts (there are two that are not entirely compatible with each other). First, everything that people around the the Israelites worshiped was created by the God of the Israelites; hence worship the creator not the created. Second,the God who created can protect, discipline, intervene, etc., so don’t mess around. Third, God created for the benefit of his creatures, as a loving God would do. Fourth, man rejected God’s rules and suffered and suffers as a consequence, hence we need to seek reconciliation with him and he seeks if with us.

    BTW the best translation of the Hebrew is not “In the beginning . . .” but rather “In beginning . . .” It refers not to a specific time but to a start of an action or program of action.

  70. Fendrel wrote:

    It implies an assumption, that to me makes little sense. We assume that God would speak so as to be understood by a pre-scientific, nomadic culture, when it seems to make more sense that God would speak so as to be understood by the vast majority of the people who would come to read his words over time.

    Fendrel, I think the unwarranted assumption is that Gen 1-11 has anything to do with science. Hyers’ thesis, is that the Genesis passage is not about science. Rather, it is about God and what He expects of us. The passage you quoted is trying to call into question the use of Genesis 1-11 as any kind of scientific statement.

  71. It’s ironic that an all powerful God could not seem to communicate in a way that was possible for any two people, let alone everyone, to come away with the same or even a similar interpretation of what was meant. Ostensibly, this was one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit but it seem he (or she) is doing a piss poor job and should probably be fired and replaced .. maybe by Dr. Al Mohler!

  72. john wrote:

    I think “Pope” Mohler has been sufficiently challenged by other teaching. His education is not rooted in Baptist belief but in the sufficiency of Scripture itself.

    In most academic circles, Mohler’s PhD wold be considered not worth the sheepskin it was printed on. You may consider him “sufficiently challenged” however, all of his schooling is in one tradition (Baptist). Really, has anyone challenged his beliefs? Now, anyone who challenges him would be “disappeared” from SBTS.

  73. dee wrote:

    Did you know he has rejected things like egalitarianism that he said was taught him at Samford? I think the comment was that he had to unlearn everything they taught him. Mohler was looking for “rules” and he eventually found them or made them.

    No, i didn’t realize that he had disclaimed what he learned at Samford. I still contend that he is still steeped in too much Baptist tradition.

  74. It is for man to rule and subdue. It is for us to organize our surroundings. Does it not seem a contradiction in terms that the Creator explains the science? Why exactly is it possible that God really knows the science? Science is an abstraction ultimately; purely a function of mans reason. The idea that God uses math to create doesn’t seem right. There is no science for God to know. With God, it all just is.

  75. Since Dr. Mohler presided over roughly a 96% turn-over in the faculty at SBTC as part of the CR, he could hardly waffle in any way regarding the first several chapters of Genesis.

    What bothers me about the YEC requirement that the first chapters must be taken absolutely literally is that you can just look anywhere and see things that are way too old. So you constantly have to reassure yourself that what you see is not actually true–despite the fact that you can see and touch it.

  76. What bothers me about the YEC requirement that the first chapters must be taken absolutely literally is that you can just look anywhere and see things that are way too old. So you constantly have to reassure yourself that what you see is not actually true

    Well, unfortunately we can also just look around us and see virgins don’t give birth, water doesn’t become wine, corpses don’t come back from the dead after 3 day…shall I go on…there really is no difference except that the virgin birth and resurrection are as important to your version of history as a young earth is to Mohler’s.

  77. @ Fendrel:

    Fendrel,

    Apples and oranges. Creation is not considered by any Christian I know as a “miracle”; a suspension of nature for specific observers so that they may derive a readily applicable theological point. The Virgin birth is not rationally irrelevant. Young Earth creationism is.

  78. Haggled Acceleration: “Empty Electrons, Perhaps?”

    What?

    A faithful remind? …warn them before God not to argue over words.  Arguing does not do any good but only destroys those who are listening.

    (sadface)

    hmmm…

    Jesus’ offer to all, was not rocket science: Those who believe in Me, shall have ‘eternal life’. Pure & simple. QM  & GR  no matter how eminently wonderful, profoundly useful, and ecstatically thought provoking, can not hold a Quark or a  Lepton to His bountiful offer. Please patiently ponder…Let’s keep the main thing, the main thing, shall we?

    God has already done the math!

    Woopeeee!

    Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved…

    Make da toll-free call today, silly…

    (grin)

    He is listening…

    …and His GPS is working just fine! 

    Sopy

  79. So how did Young Earth Creationism become THE Core Doctrine of Christianity, the Saved-or-Lost Litmus Test?

    (Right now with my rising PSA score and cancer-phobia, “Christus Victor” and Resurrection seem a LOT more important.)

  80. @ Argo:

    I question your definition … you are going to try and sell the point that the creation of the entire universe in 6 days should not be considered a miracle?

  81. @ Kolya:

    “It also seems to be a given that again contrary to popular belief, ancient myths seem to treat the cosmos as somehow pre-existing. Certainly I think this was the case with some of the Greek legends.”

    In the early chapters of The Civilization of the Middle Ages, Norman Cantor said (I’m paraphrasing, hopefully correctly) that the Greeks viewed history as endlessly repeating itself over and over again, as opposed to Hebrew thought which saw it as coming to a climax and “ending” at some point (= the apocalypse when translated into Christianity). So I suppose maybe this could entail a pre-existent world in Greek thought. Unfortunately that’s all I know about the matter so I can’t say for sure.

  82. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Perhaps they foresaw the advent of techno music and loud in-car stereos,

    Or the boom box era of the 80s. What nonsense. Some of us were ready to jump in if the waters started to rise.

  83. @ Fendrel:
    Yes. For one, it had no observer. A miracle without an observer is pointless. Second, it does not fit the description of a miracle because it did not suspend the natural order. There was no natural order until after creation. Thus, there can be nothing miraculous about it.

    To reiterate my first point: If there is no other free consciousness to observe the miracle, who can claim it is miraculous? Only God would have observed it; and it would not have been miraculous to Him.

  84. Kristin wrote:

    The practical applications of genomics will make it harder for YEC to target the veracity of the evidence. It’s pretty easy to make a strawman argument against the fossil record. It is much harder to make such arguments when the “bogus” evidence is simultaneously curing diseases and solving crimes.

    Not really. They (AIG) currently dismiss all the issues with radioactive decay and physics that shows an old earth/universe. “You can’t trust carbon dating”, “God changed the speed of light”, etc… This (genomics) will just be added to the list of things you can’t trust science to get right. All the while using the tech it makes possible.

  85. Also, how can you have 6 literal 24 hour days of creation when the sun was not created until the fourth day? What was the reference point for the rotation of the earth? With no sun, and thus no orbit, how could the earth have been completing a 24 hour rotation in the first place? Is not the earth's rotation on its axis a function of its orbit around the sun…which did not exist until the fourth day?

  86. @ Argo:

    I still disagree..this is the like the tree falling in the woods analogy. A miracle is an event which, in some way, violates natural law.. or is supernatural. Whether or not it is observed, does not impact if it was supernatural. Technically, anytime God intervenes it is by definition “miraculous” since He himself is supernatural and not a part of, nor bound to the natural laws of this universe.

    Now, as to your other argument, namely that the universe did not exist as all prior to it’s creation..you might have a point. I’ll have to give that more thought…but I still think we are getting off track. It was not an apples/oranges comparison.

    Ah, so then you would say that Adam’s creation was not miraculous, but Eve’s was since Adam was there to see it?

  87. @ Argo:

    Again..only if you believe that the earth spun off from the sun then cooled. If you believe each was independently created, there is no reason to suppose that God didn’t make them spinning when he created them.

    Plus, then you must ask .. why does the sun rotate (it does, but at varying rates depending on your position).

  88. Fendrel wrote:

    If you believe each was independently created, there is no reason to suppose that God didn’t make them spinning when he created them.

    This particular debate (the post) isn’t about did God create the universe 6000 years ago as a miracle but does the science prove/allow it?

    I know you don’t agree with the position there is a God. 🙂

  89. @ Fendrel:

    Fendrel,
    Your last question? Well…no, I’m not quite sure again how this violates natural childbirth since there was no such thing prior to Eve. And wasn’t Adam asleep? How much do you observe when you are asleep?:-)

    God intervening with Creation must be done in such a way that free consciousness apprehends it. Otherwise, His intervention is meaningless. And God cannot do anything irrelevant.

  90. @ Lynn:

    I’m not arguing about whether God exists…for the purpose of this conversation…it’s a given. I was simply questioning Argo’s claim about the source of a spinning earth

  91. William Birch wrote:

    Every denomination (every local body) has its woes. Really, I just traded one set of woes for another, no big whoop.

    How much easier it is indeed to process such “woes” in a tradition like the Anglican one, no? “All May, Some Should, None Must” and the Book of Common Prayer (with at least article annotated to show it doesn’t apply) demonstrate one can disagree over worldly doctrine and political praxis and yet remain in the Body of Christ, unmolested- literally and figuratively – by control-freak pastors.

    Heck, even the breakaway American Anglican congregations under the Kenyan (?) archbishop can’t agree on ordination of women. So perhaps the Spirit still has some work to do.

  92. @ Argo:

    That makes no sense Argo .. are you saying that God never intervenes or does anything in our entire universe except in our little corner and only when we are watching?

  93. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Argo/Muff Potter thread: Equations are an abstraction of a physical system. However, they are also the key to quantitative predictions. Thus, a correct physical theory is more than just an abstraction.

    It was never my intention to denigrate mathematics in any way. She is after all, as Gauss would put it, the queen of the sciences.

    I think we can all agree that science is nothing more than a grid we have imposed upon reality in order to make sense of it. Throughout human history good scientists have used meticulous measuring techniques utilizing the best measuring tools of their day to arrive at a grid.

    The grid is never wrong, but on occasion, conclusions derived from the grid can be dreadfully wrong.

    Case in Point:

    From the 2nd cent. until the time of Copernicus and Kepler, Ptolemy’s Almagest reigned supreme in any discussion of astronomy and cosmology. Its mathematical rigor was unassailable and it was the defacto standard for instruction in all of Europe’s great medieval universities.

    Kepler began to notice that Ptolemy’s model could get very complicated and even produce what he felt were absurd results. So he set out to see if there was a simpler model based on observable data and he found one. And the rest is as they say, history.

    Science is and always has been a harsh and fickle mistress who has no qualms whatsoever about cutting both ways.

  94. @ Fendrel:
    My understanding of angar momentum is that it has been experimentally verified. The earth cannot both be spinning due to angular momentum and NOT due to angular momentum at the same time, as you suggest with “God creates them spinning”. Why would God do that in the first place? If you can have light without sun (light of day created on the second(?) day) why do you need an earth that spins?

  95. @ oldJohnJ:

    Agreed,

    I may have misused “abstraction”. I too am not in a position to denigrate mathematical truths; and if i was, i wouldnt. 🙂 My point is simply that they are object derivative, not creative, and do not “govern” as such, but describe and of course predict.

  96. @ Argo:

    You don’t … but when you ask why would god do that if he didn’t need to .. the answer is the same as why did he need to take a rib from Adam to create Eve when he didn’t need to.

    In any case…back to the original point made a long time ago… For Mohler, to not take the Genesis account literally, negatively impacts other areas of theology.

    Secondly, to take parts of scripture and interpret them in a non-literal manner simply because science overwhelmingly indicates that those things just can’t be accepted as written and still be correct…He views that as no different than saying the virgin birth never occurred because science tells us that’s not how humans reproduce.

    Now, if I may be so brave as to try and anticipate Dee’s objection, she will tell you that it is different because in the case of the virgin birth, there is no scientific evidence available that refutes that particular miracle, in other words, we know that in general virgins don’t give birth, but we have no evidence that specifically refutes Mary miraculously giving birth to Jesus. We have no evidence refuting that that particular miracle occurred.

    Whereas, the evidence against this particular earth being 6000 years old and God creating it in 6 literal days is overwhelming. So even though He was capable of performing that miracle..the evidence suggests rather strongly that, for whatever reason, that’s simply not how he chose to do it. Therefore for her, it makes sense to understand the Genesis account in a less literal way which preserves the harmony of God’s ability with his choice not to exercise it.

  97. I see what you are saying. I supposed we won’t really see eye to eye on it. I don’t wholly concede that God can do anything He choses; His actions require a rational (and yes, I do use mans reality as the reference) purpose if Creation can exist as a separate thing from Himself. His behavior cannot be arbitrary, nor can it contradict Himself. However, I realize I have an uphill battle convincing people that God’s “will” is not in fact limitless. It is guided by reason. I appreciate your points.

  98. Scooter’s Mom wrote:

    I did not mean to belittle those that this topic does matter. I

    You didn’t belittle it in the least. I merely wanted to take the opportunity to point out the problems that scientists have. In fact, you are an awesome person and i would never, ever think you would belittle another. I love your comments.

  99. Hester wrote:

    I wonder how long it will be before people start coming out of patriarchal circles with similar stories of molestation. There’s already plenty of stories of physical abuse.

    If stats hold true, hold onto your hat!

  100. Arce wrote:

    BTW the best translation of the Hebrew is not “In the beginning . . .” but rather “In beginning . . .” It refers not to a specific time but to a start of an action or program of action.

    I have often told people to think about it as the beginning of our particular story, not the beginning of God’s story which is far larger and timeless.

  101. I Remember/Bookbolter wrote:

    He was the manager of the local Publix grocery store, but lived out the love of Christ every day in such a way that his example touched me far more than his influential son ever will.

    Thank you for sharing this.

  102. linda wrote:

    ’ve found an Anglo Catholic UMC and am quite content.

    Now this is fascinating. I would love to hear more about it. You all teach me so much!

  103. Steve Dawson wrote:

    Really, has anyone challenged his beliefs? Now, anyone who challenges him would be “disappeared” from SBTS.

    I think it would be great if he allowed challenging comments on his blog. Instead, it is just another treatise and we have far too many of those in the world.

  104. Fendrel wrote:

    any two people, let alone everyone, to come away with the same or even a similar interpretation of what was meant.

    God as Creator, the Cross and Resurrection, and ultimate redemption all have a vast array of support.

  105. Bennett Willis wrote:

    So you constantly have to reassure yourself that what you see is not actually true–despite the fact that you can see and touch it.

    Great comment. My husband refers to this as “God-the Cosmic Trickster” theory.

  106. Argo wrote:

    Also, how can you have 6 literal 24 hour days of creation when the sun was not created until the fourth day?

    The AIG approach? Because He is God so shut up.

  107. @ Argo:

    You view his actions from the perspective of a human being, from your concept of orderliness and rationality .. all of which are human attributes and exist only because we wish them to, and God’s actions “seem” reasoned or orderly, only because we impose a purpose, not because they have any intrinsically.

    To call God’s actions arbitrary, or for that matter, reasoned…implies there is something other to compare them to. But since God is alone in his nature and being…with what would you compare his actions in order to pass judgement on them?

  108. Steve Dawson wrote:

    I still contend that he is still steeped in too much Baptist tradition.

    I concur but a zealot will often remain a zealot no matter where he is placed.

  109. Wisdomchaser wrote:

    Like Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, I am not totally convinced about theistic evolution. But if God has evolution as a tool in his tool box I would accept that. I think that science does line up with many things Genesis but science only confirms God’s work it does not supplant it.

    I too am a skeptic of evolution, theistic or non-theistic. But I’m no friend of Ken Ham either. He would declare me heretic and anathema because I also deny the doctrines of original sin and penal substitution.

    I liked your rant on how Tesla got the crappy end of the history stick whereas Edison to this day gets all the accolades. Edison was a cruel and amoral man who electrocuted dogs, cats, and even an elephant with AC current to try and discredit Tesla’s superior method (AC) of transmitting electrical power over a grid.

  110. Muff

     Check out HUgh Ross of Reasons to Believe. You might find his thinking is more in line with yours.

  111. dee wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Right now with my rising PSA score and cancer-phobia, “Christus Victor” and Resurrection seem a LOT more important

    Darn good comment!

    Yeah. I’m seeing a urologist for an elevated PSA score and the latest blood test (a Free PSA Ratio test) has around a 40% chance of being prostate cancer. (I’ve had an enlarged prostate for years, and DRL has always shown negative.) Urologist is watching and waiting for another three months while I’m contacting my regular physician for a second opinion referral. Add in my cancer-phobia and a lot of bad theology in my youth (some of it Extreme Evangelical, some Weird Reformed) and suddenly the YEC controversy doesn’t seem so important…

  112. @ Fendrel:

    Fendrel,

    I view His actions from the perspective of a human being because that is the only frame of reference I have; by His design, I might add. In order for God to relate to me then, and I Him, in a way that mutual trust can exist and His TRUTH can be established as being precisely that, true, He MUST conform to MY understanding of rational, reasonable, non-contradictory truth, which means He must conform to MY reality. If He operates wholly outside of it, He can be nothing except irrelevant to me, and I to Him.

    Things do not “seem” orderly, they either are or are not. Things either are contradictory or they are consistent. There is NO subjectivity to reason; it is impossible. For we cannot possibly predict anything nor organize our world nor obey God nor love nor relate nor follow nor lead nor choose nor trust nor work nor play nor anything if we can not declare something as actually true or actually false according to our human context as a function of our human understanding. It is this ability to reason that enables us to even know about God in order to debate His attributes…which I find ironic in certain discussions.

    In this case, there certainly IS a standard to which God’s actions can be compared , and that standard is our human frame of reference; more specifically, the reasonable truths which allow us to successfully thrive within it.

    God cannot possibly create a reality from which He is wholly and utterly removed. Man’s context IS God’s context. If it is not, then there is a massive chasm between man and God, which cannot be breached by any power of any kind. And again, man is wholly irrelevant to God, and vice versa. God does not exist in a vacuum. If He exists as God, He is obligated to do so within Creation as a function of our understanding in our world governed by our rational, reasonable, logical truths.

  113. If God’s nature and context is wholly exclusive to humans, then how can the Holy Spirit dwell in US? It would seem that this is an impossible idea. The Holy Spirit, by your definition of God, cannot be anywhere within our own physical reality.

  114. @ Argo:

    lots of leaps in there my friend. Besides, simply because you must think of Him in terms you can comprehend … which I agree with, doesn’t make those perceptions accurate or any more real.

    If you reduce God to what you can understand and cope with, then how is he still god?

  115. Muff Potter wrote:

    Edison was a cruel and amoral man who [cheated in order] to try and discredit Tesla’s superior method

    Tesla did in some small sense get the last laugh, however, in that he has the coolest-sounding SI unit. And a chunky one it is too; one Watt isn’t a great deal of power, one Pascal is practically a vacuum, but one Tesla is a respectable magnetic field.

  116. @ Fendrel:
    Fendrel,
    Are no leaps of any kind. I deny that assertion completely. I am not reducing God to what I understand and cope with, I am reducing God to the only rational way He can possibly relate to man: In man’s context. And that means He must be consistent with the logic of man’s universe (which He designed).

    For example: It is not (metaphysically) inconsistent or irrational for God to do a miracle for me to know and observe, as a miracle. But it is inconsistent and irrational for God to do a miracle beyond any observer; that is, in a vacuum. That being the case, it is, in fact, impossible for God because it contradicts the very rational truths which govern Creation as HE designed it.

  117. Muff Potter wrote:

    I liked your rant on how Tesla got the crappy end of the history stick whereas Edison to this day gets all the accolades. Edison was a cruel and amoral man who electrocuted dogs, cats, and even an elephant with AC current to try and discredit Tesla’s superior method (AC) of transmitting electrical power over a grid.

    Tesla got the bad end of the stick due to him being somewhat more, uh, wacko than Dr Emmett Brown. (Back to the Future)

    As to Edison’s cruelty. This was par for the course in his day. And the first person electrocuted via Tesla’s AC was really cooked as they didn’t use enough voltage/current to shut down his brain.

  118. Fendrel wrote:

    It’s ironic that an all powerful God could not seem to communicate in a way that was possible for any two people, let alone everyone, to come away with the same or even a similar interpretation of what was meant. Ostensibly, this was one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit but it seem he (or she) is doing a piss poor job and should probably be fired and replaced .. maybe by Dr. Al Mohler!

    LOL Fendrel, now you’ve opened a can of worms called “Sola Scriptura” vs. “Sola Fidea” vs. the Catholic church, etc., etc.

    Does God communicate all truth to us through the Bible? Is that our only channel to God? Well, for Mohler’s ilk, it is certainly easier to have a common reference point to control people with. Now, if you look at how Jesus and the early followers of Christianity treated the Old Testament, you would see a lot of liberty taken with those texts, that Mohler would call heresy if we tried it. The church corporate hates this niggly little thing called the Holy Spirit. But that Holy Spirit keeps revivals and renewals going, shedding old ways and adding new ways, traditionalists hate this fact, but Church history shows some of the biggest forward movements come from Holy Spirit revivals in both the Catholic and Protestant churches- and bypass the need to be sola scriptura, sola church-controlled.

  119. @ Argo:

    No, not true. While God may act in a manner in which we can perceive or understand him, that in no way limits him to doing so. What if God wishes to act..to do something which is not for your benefit..isn’t he free to act in whatever manner he wants to accomplish it … if his end goal is not your understanding then why should your understanding or the rules of this universe bind or constrain him?

    Secondly, even if god wanted you to understand everything he does, why should he be constrained to doing it in a manner you can perceive…he could simply “drop” the understanding into your brain at a whim. You’d never know the difference.

  120. @ dee:

    Re zealots (in the negative sense of the word), yes. I knew a woman who was a very zealous evangelical once. She later became an atheist (or at least disavowed her original background). But her character didn’t change – she still remained ornery!

  121. Fendrel, Argo, just some late-night thoughts came into my head, so excuse me if they’re slapdash.

    The animals I keep, although vertebrates, probably have no inkling of my thought processes, what I do a lot of the day, or my motivation for some things. They do understand however that I offer them food, water and shelter, and the other stuff they need to thrive, even though they may not always recognise the last category I provide.

    Is this not analogous in some way to God’s dealings with humanity? We are in a universe attuned to the human race (at least our part of it) but to continue a rather crude analogy, we cannot understand God by exercise of our reason, although we can make reasonable hypotheses about him and as Christians we would furthermore claim that God has given us sufficient information to live by. But God’s thoughts by definition must higher above mine than mine are above my pets (and I do have a reasonably high estimate of animal intelligence).

    However I would also agree with Argo that God cannot be arbitrary, but for the reason that he cannot go against his own character (rather than because he is bound by certain laws, which would then make him somewhat less than omnipotent).

  122. @ Fendrel:

    Fenderel,

    I deny your assertions as false. The idea that God can act contrary to reason is false. He is not free to act redundantly nor arbitrarily according the Creation’s existential definitions of them. It has nothing to do with MY personal understanding. It has to do with acting in a manner consistent with what must be true in order for Creation to exist as NOT God.

    Yes. God does drop understanding into our brains. It is called wisdom. But we are wholly aware of this wisdom (of which we are encouraged to seek). How? Becaus it confirms to our rational truth…that is, it is tangibly and observably efficacious to man’s context. Otherwise, if it ran contrary to it, it would, by definition NOT be wisdom since wisdom is FOR man. Anything God does that is not rational according to our Creation is not from God. Because the only reason for God to act in Creation is FOR man.

  123. God is not free to do something not for our benefit. God is love. Love has man-contextual boundaries to which God must adhere.

  124. It’s been a long busy day. This is the first chance I have had to get back. Looks like there has been an interesting discussion going on while I was off doing other things. Hope I get a chance to read more of it.

  125. I am not going to comment a lot, other than to say I would appreciate a little respect for those that DO believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 – 11. If you do reject these chapters as literal, those in the Biblical community also have a bit of a problem on their hands, in the sense that aspects of Genesis are also discussed by Christ himself, and other places in the new testament. If you reject a literal Genesis, you also reject those other passages, (about Noah, Adam, etc.) I believe Christians of both persuasions can be saved, and greatly used by God, but I do wonder about what passages (then) you accept, reject, or just plain explain away. Usually the best way to interpret Scripture, especially a large number of chapters, is in the (more) literal way. I am not a scientist. My own father, a scientist, disagrees with me on some of these issues,. so we pretty much avoid the argument. But I see an acceptance of any type of evolutionary thought as denying the power of God to create, as He said, the first man, from the dust. He said there was no death before the fall and the first sin. He said He created the earth GOOD…did not say it needed improvement, over time. There are NO – repeat NO – current SOLID examples of transitional forms anywhere in the fossil record, and they would be all over the earth if there were transitional forms. “Punctuated Equilibrium” sounds like a cop – out. At any rate, God bless anyone who disagrees, but I would appreciate a little respect, as I try to show to others who believe in an old earth.

  126. Justabeliever –

    I don’t know that I have read every comment in detail, but I haven’t detected disrespect for those who hold to a literal intepretation of Genesis. Could you be specific about what you are rederring to?

  127. @ Argo:

    So for time eternal God never did anything..presumably since we weren’t there…he just sat on his hands and vegetated? .. sorry I think that’s nonsense…but it’s just my opinion.

    night all!

  128. I am not referring to any specific post or comment, but the blog has discussed this issue many times, and Ken Ham is usually subjected to a good deal of critiscism. I am one of the few (?) commentors who believes in a young earth, so I just like to add my point of view in a discussion that can get pretty heated.

  129. @ Fendrel:
    You and I, I am sure, have fundamental differences in our understanding of time. If you only accept your own presumptions, then yes, it will be hard for you to reconcile my perspectives. But mine are more consistent, I assure you.

    Further, I would not consider BEING God as “sitting on hands”. That is much more nonsensical. And yet, that is your argument.

    Good night.

  130. Val wrote:

    Now, if you look at how Jesus and the early followers of Christianity treated the Old Testament, you would see a lot of liberty taken with those texts, that Mohler would call heresy if we tried it.

    I think this comment is worthy of its own post and discussion. I have never seen anyone address the rather “sloppy” way the New Testament authors seem to use many Old Testament texts. The more literal interpretation method evangelicals use seems far different.

  131. justabeliever wrote:

    Ken Ham is usually subjected to a good deal of critiscism

    I have no trouble with you believing in a young earth. 

    But Ken Ham is deserving of our critique. You do not run a site that purports to be scientific. When someone says they are doing good research in a public arena, they get to be challenged. 

  132. @ HoppyTheToad:

    I wouldn’t agree that the Apostolic use of the OT is “sloppy” (sounds like Pete Enns). The Old Testament contains typology, and the typological reading is not always the same as the historical-grammatical reading. There are multiple layers of meaning in many texts.

  133. @ Fendrel:
    You are misunderstanding and misstating. You equate being God as “sitting on His hands”. That is not my argument; it is yours. My argument is that there is no rational reason for God to act outside of a free willed observer (I am not suggesting this must be in “real time”; I am suggesting that ALL of God’s acts must be FOR man, as He is the only free consciousness able to grasp God’s actions…as far as we know). And there is no rational reason that God would ever do anything besides “be God” absent man’s knowledge of it. And I defy you to name ONE rational reason. And don’t say “because He’s God”…that is precisely why He CANNOT do anything arbitrary.

    You assume that there was a “before” creation “time” of God’s existence. That is impossible. Concepts like “before” cannot apply to God. So there was never a “time” God was sitting on his hands because God is not a function of time.

  134. Arce wrote:

    BTW the best translation of the Hebrew is not “In the beginning . . .” but rather “In beginning . . .” It refers not to a specific time but to a start of an action or program of action.

    Actually, I’d take a step further, modernize the language to account for contemporary idiom, and translate it something like, “First, God created the heavens and the earth.” There is no direct article in the Hebrew, as you insightfully note, which means that this passage isn’t about time but about functional ordering of a process.

  135. @ Argo:

    Yes, it seems that you do not understand what I was saying…

    What I am trying to communicate is that all of your arguments about the nature, being and rationality of God’s actions are, of necessity, constrained by the limitations of human knowledge, experience and imagination…but that does not make them either correct or binding on God.

    It is simply how you imagine God to be…which you are certainly free to do.

    Secondly,

    I did not assume there was a “before” or “that “time” existed before creation…however I would say that arguing for “no time” before creation is a function of mixing current science with theology…and since, by most Christians definition of God, that he exists in some type of “supernatural” world..not of this universe.. it is an assumption to think that “time” in some form didn’t exist before our universe…after all, the science being applied here … can’t be applied to a supernatural realm…might have been time, might not .. absolutely no way to even guess.

  136. Fendrel,

    I will add this and then summarily drop it: if God can act arbitrarily in this universe then He cannot be TRUTH, because TRUTH is never arbitrary; it always points to a logical, knowable purpose. If He is not truth then there can be no such thing as objective reality. And if this is the case there is no way that man can possibly know anything. And it is here where the gnostic mysticism of reformed theology comes to its blasphemous and abusive apex: moral relativism.

  137. @ Argo:

    I’ve never met or seen a Reformed person who believes that God acts arbitrarily. I don’t know of any Christian who does.

  138. Fendrel wrote:

    @ Argo:

    before our universe…after all, the science being applied here … can’t be applied to a supernatural realm…might have been time, might not .. absolutely no way to even guess.

    First, there is NO understanding beyond man’s understanding. If it is not objectively true for MAN it is not true period. This is not an assumption it is a fact. Any other “truth” would be mutually exclusive, and therefore, not true by definition. There is NOTHING to know outside of our universe.

    There can be no supernatural realm that God dwells in. That realm would be irrelevant to this universe; utterly exclusive to it, and it is logically impossible for God to exist as a function of something which is entirely meaningless to His creation. Again, when you hang your hat on the idea that truth for man is DIFFERENT than truth for God, you get moral relativism. And that is exactly why the doctrine is inherently abusive.

  139. For all the good ladies here at TWW, here’s another Tesla quote that was quite prescient. He truly was a man far ahead of his time:

    “…But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress…”

  140. HoppyTheToad wrote:

    Val wrote:
    Now, if you look at how Jesus and the early followers of Christianity treated the Old Testament, you would see a lot of liberty taken with those texts, that Mohler would call heresy if we tried it.

    I think this comment is worthy of its own post and discussion. I have never seen anyone address the rather “sloppy” way the New Testament authors seem to use many Old Testament texts. The more literal interpretation method evangelicals use seems far different.

    Here are some links to get you started, if your into heavy reading N.T. Wright has reams of info on this topic in his numerous books.

    http://www.theopedia.com/New_Testament_use_of_the_Old_Testament

    http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/ntintro/OTinNT.htm

    These are from pretty conservative branches, but just rough overviews for you to get an idea on how the early Christians viewed the Old Testament.

  141. Re the debate about God being “arbitrary”, at the risk of stirring up a further hornets’ nest, I would take note that at least one of the historic confessions (albeit a Reformed one) talks about God’s hidden counsels. (There is also the passage in Deuteronomy 29 (?), “the hidden things belong to the Lord” (writing from memory)). I assume that the idea of “hidden counsels” means that they are hidden to man, not God. In other words, God may have his reasons for doing something which we do not know of. But I would agree with Argo at the same time that God cannot act arbitrarily – he limits his own freedom by his very character (truth, love, holiness, mercy, grace).

  142. Justabeliever, I sympathise with what you are saying. I worked once with a YEC believer and I had the highest respect for him as a Christian brother. I think some of the reasons that Ken Ham is criticised are not to do with YEC per se.

  143. Kolya

    God is always about truth, love, mercy, grace. That does not change. But I totally, absolutely agree that there is much we do not, and cannot understand. One merely has to look up and ponder the universe with its complexities to realize that we are the created and He is the Creator. He gives us enough to help us to find and follow Him. But He is a mystery and I weary of those who put Him in a box to make them feel secure. 

  144. Here’s a comment that sums up the problems:

    Yet that genetics points more strongly than the current (and much more complete) fossil record to evolution. Examples: all Apes have a vitamin C deficiency, all mammals have egg yolk making genes (difunctional) but embedded in our genomes – despite the fact the last egg-lay ancestral mammal was a Monerterain (Duck billed platypus’ are Monerterains), no “primitive” non egg-laying creatures have remenants of these genes. We weren’t to different from Neanderthals – in fact we interbred with them and 6% of our DNA is Neanderthal.

    Notice the presupposition: The similarities point “strongly” to evolution. Really? Why don’t they point to something else? If you assume a lot of things, then this can be made to fit that narrative. But there is no actual evidence that the narrative is true. We all know many things that have some of the same elements and characteristics, but we know they are not related, and one did not descend from another. They were made entirely separately. But when it comes to origins, we suddenly suspend what we commonly know in order to fall in line with a doctrinaire position underlaid by presuppositions about what can or cannot have happened.

    This same “evidence” could equally well point to a Creator. After all, why would not God create things in this manner? And it could, without any denial of the actual evidence, but a sudden and relatively recent creation, given the actual evidence., It actually makes more sense and is much more sustainable as a complete explanation of the world we live in to see this as pointing to a Creator rather than evolution. Only a priori presuppositions would make the above statement.

    And that’s the part that gets missed too often. People operate out of presuppositions. Certain things cannot be true because they don’t fit the worldview. It’s true of evolutionists and creationists, and the sooner we can all admit that, the more productive the conversation will be.

    An evolutionist in today’s straight-jacketed scientific community cannot contradict the received position. He will be run out, lose his position, and be widely mocked. It won’t be because his theories are suspect, but because he dares to be different.

    YEC is well based in actual science, though not all YECs use it equally well, and like the other variations (OEC, EC, etc.) there are dumb statements made by all. But the science points to YEC as a viable alternative, and an alternative that answers questions the others can’t answer.

    Lastly, to claim as several have that using medical advances while denying evolution is somehow contradictory is strange. It confuses two kinds of science. These arguments ought not be tolerated by either side. The reason medical science works is because God created the world with order and predictably. That has no explanation in a godless world.

  145. justabeliever: Criticizing an idea put forth by someone is not the same as criticizing the individual. How best to interpret the early chapters of Genesis is a secondary issue, not a salvic one. Making a biblical passage say something that wasn’t intended is as bad as ignoring something you know was intended. However, when this misinterpretation extends to making demonstrably false statements about science and ignoring efforts to correct such statements the motivation of the individuals doing this can and should be explored. AnswersInGenesis is clearly at this point.

  146. LT wrote:

    But the science points to YEC as a viable alternative, and an alternative that answers questions the others can’t answer.

    You will have to prove that statement.

    I have absolutely no problem when people believe in YEC from a literal Biblical translation point of view. I am most comfortable when people tell me that and I do not argue their point of view except to say I do not believe it is the correct translation.

    However, the moment they step into the scientific realm, they must stand toe to toe with real science and they do not. They refuse true peer review. Every one of the scientific “studies” of YEC, have been debunked. Not one or two-all. I would challenge you to go to Reasons to Believe, Biologos and Answers in Creation and read their stuff.

    Please list all of the studies that “prove” a young earth. Between Old John J and some other scientist friends, we will address them. However, please check some of the sources I have listed first since most of the AIG stuff has been addressed already.

    I will be away most of the weekend so give me time to get responses to any scientific “proof” of a young earth.

  147. @ oldJohnJ:I am on a retreat this weekend. I will leave the science questions in your hands and any of our readers who choose to respond. I love these debates!

  148. Kolya wrote:

    I think some of the reasons that Ken Ham is criticised are not to do with YEC per se.

    You are correct. It has to do with the “science” he promotes.

  149. Mysteries were meant to be solved. It’s okay to admit when we don’t understand completely someone’s perspective. Christians have this awful habit of using God as an excuse for their passive thinking. It is why the complaining goes on and so does the abuse.

  150. oldJohnJ wrote:

    LT wrote:
    YEC is well based in actual science
    Please make reference to such a resource.

    So you have a solid opinion on this and yet you are asking me to provide resources? How can you pretend to know what you are talking about if you don’t know the other side? This is the problem with many … They talk a lot, but they simply spout what they have previously heard. They haven’t spent anytime in critical evaluation, in comparing actual data, or thinking about real issues. And then they have to ask about things they should already know.

    Not acceptable, not even on the comment section of a blog.

  151. I will combine reason with the wisdom of the scriptures. Reason will vet all my interpretations of the Spirit’s leading. Nothing more and certainly nothing less than reason. If Christianity violates reason it violates itself and man. I will never, ever concede contradiction as the truth of any doctrine.

  152. dee wrote:

    LT wrote:
    But the science points to YEC as a viable alternative, and an alternative that answers questions the others can’t answer.
    You will have to prove that statement.

    There are many issues, particularly in the fields of genetics and astronomy that YEC is much more capable of solid explanations. The evolutionary explanations are farfetched (to put it kindly) and rely on numerous unproven assumptions.

    Please list all of the studies that “prove” a young earth.

    You will notice that I never spoke of any study that “proved” a young earth. So I am not sure why you bring this up.

    But conversely, I could ask you to show all the scientific studies that “prove” an old earth and the evolutionary theory, and they too could be disproven or questioned in the same manner because of the issue of presuppositions.

    I think this is where the major problem lies. People such as yourself do not realize (or at least admit) the weight of your presuppositions. And that is a significant failure on your part, and a dissservice to those who you influence.

    Better to acknowledge that we simply don’t know it all. There are too many people who treat conclusions and hypotheses as evidence. That is not a good way to go about it.

    I lean towards a YEC position because it seems to deal with the actual evidence better and certainly with the Scripture better. Evolution requires way too much faith that the very narrow window of possibility actually happened. I don’t have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

  153. Argo wrote:

    I will combine reason with the wisdom of the scriptures. Reason will vet all my interpretations of the Spirit’s leading. Nothing more and certainly nothing less than reason. If Christianity violates reason it violates itself and man. I will never, ever concede contradiction as the truth of any doctrine.

    But how do you know if your reason can be trusted? Have you ever reasoned your way to a conclusion and then later realized that your reasoning was misguided because of (1) evidence you didn’t know at the time you reasoned or (2) faulty reasoning steps? Or other contributing factors as well?

    Depending on your reasoning is circular, or to use your previous word, it’s tautological (though I think you misused that word). Your depend on reason because it seems reasonable to you. That’s no different than your argument about the Bible. The only difference is the thing being trusted.

    From what I reading of your comments here, there isn’t much reasoning going on. It appears very limited and unthinking, like there’s been no reason actually employed.

    All of which is only to say, human reasoning is notoriously untrustworthy. And if you doubt that, just gather a sampling of science texts from the last century and see how much has changed, all in the name of reasoning that we could trust. How many times do we have to be misled before we get skeptical?

  154. LT wrote:

    An evolutionist in today’s straight-jacketed scientific community cannot contradict the received position. He will be run out, lose his position, and be widely mocked. It won’t be because his theories are suspect, but because he dares to be different.

    I guess this is fair, since in the church the eveolutionist would be run out, lose his position, and be widely mocked.

  155. Argo wrote:

    Mysteries were meant to be solved. It’s okay to admit when we don’t understand completely someone’s perspective. Christians have this awful habit of using God as an excuse for their passive thinking. It is why the complaining goes on and so does the abuse.

    LT wrote:

    oldJohnJ wrote:

    I so agree with this. We were created to KNOW God intimately but the fall marred that but since the Resurrection, He promised us the Spirit of Truth to indwell in us. I am not claiming any inside info here but I do think we overcomplicate things. And I am coming to the realization we have allowed “titles” as in leaders in Christendom to complicate things for us. It keeps them in jobs. :o)

    One of the places I think we miss it is in not understanding we are all responsbile for what happens here. Too many believers have handed off all the responsibility to God. One way I see this is in SGM circles where they continue to pray that their leaders will see God is disciplining them. I totally disagree. What is going on now was inevitable because PEOPLE finally too responsibility and responded to the years of spiritual abuse.

  156. Here’s an example of Argo’s reasoning:

    Also, how can you have 6 literal 24 hour days of creation when the sun was not created until the fourth day? What was the reference point for the rotation of the earth? With no sun, and thus no orbit, how could the earth have been completing a 24 hour rotation in the first place? Is not the earth’s rotation on its axis a function of its orbit around the sun…which did not exist until the fourth day?

    So here is someone whose reason says that the sun must exist for there be a twenty-four period. He presumably believes (as an article of faith) that the sun is about 4.5 billion years old, while the universe is more than 13 billion years old. Those 9 or so billion years between the origin of the universe and the origin of the sun were made up of twenty-four hour days (which is what marks a year, multiplied by 9 billion) all measured without benefit of the sun.

    So his very own worldview acknowledges the possibility of twenty-four hours without the sun (else how do you measure the time between the origin of the universe and the origin of the sun), but then he denies that to cast doubt on creation.

    If you deny that twenty-four hours can be measured without the sun, then you cannot measure twenty-fours without the sun. That means you cannot assert that the universe in any older than 4.5 billion years old. Once you assert that the universe is older than 4.5 billion years, you have conceded that twenty-fours can be measured without the sun, and you have conceded that the Genesis account is actually reasonable and possible.

  157. Jeff S wrote:

    I guess this is fair, since in the church the eveolutionist would be run out, lose his position, and be widely mocked.

    And yet they haven’t been. Hugh Ross has been widely accepted for almost two decades now. Pete Enns is being widely accepted, along with BioLogos. John Walton is one of the most highly respected OT scholars in the church. Tim Keller is widely accepted by the church.

    So your premise is demonstrably wrong (unlike creation, BTW).

  158. @ LT:
    No. I have never reasoned my way to an irrational conclusion. Ever. I have THOUGHT I had reason, when I did not. Reason is objective. It is the state on non-contradiction from within and without. Human reason is the only reason. God’s reason cannot be a different kind of reason. That is a metaphysical impossibility.

  159. @ LT:
    Then why do I fear at even having a sympathetic opinion toward Theistic Evolution when I am around Christians? I really don’t care what the church thinks about Tim Keller. I care about my personal relationships and how I am treated.

  160. Argo wrote:

    @ LT:
    No. I have never reasoned my way to an irrational conclusion. Ever. I have THOUGHT I had reason, when I did not.

    Exactly my point. At some points, you thought had you reason, but you didn’t. Which is why I asked about how reasonable it is to trust your reason? Answer: It’s not. You have proven that by the number of times you have been wrong, but thought you were right. The question is, What do you now believe, thinking it is rational, that you will later reject realizing that you reasoned wrongly?

    Reason is objective. It is the state on non-contradiction from within and without. Human reason is the only reason. God’s reason cannot be a different kind of reason. That is a metaphysical impossibility.

    Actually, none of this is true. But that’s probably a discussion for another time. You are confusing logic with reason. And claiming that human reason is the only reason but God’s reason cannot be different is actually backwards. God’s reason is the foundational reason (though Scripture uses the term “wisdom” for it, along with knowledge, understanding, discernment, justice, etc.). Man reasons like God in some fashion, thought the philosophical debate between Clark and Van Til raises up here. Van Til is probably more correct. If you are as interested in philosophy as you claim, surely are you familiar with that debate.

    But at the end of the day, your trust in reason is circular reasoning. You reason in in a circle.

  161. @ LT:
    LT,
    Your logic is based on an assumption which I do not concede. I believe time is merely a HUMAN way to quantify movement. Time is abstract, then. There is no such thing as 24 hours prior to man determining a quantification known as time. Thus, there could be no 24 hours for God to create in, because man was not there and time is purely a function mans ability to measure.

    My primary problem is with the term “day”; another human definition. None of the concepts used to explain Genesis existed before man did. Thus, Genesis must be metaphorical.

    With respect, we need to stop confusing assumptions with reason.

  162. Jeff S wrote:

    @ LT:
    Then why do I fear at even having a sympathetic opinion toward Theistic Evolution when I am around Christians? I really don’t care what the church thinks about Tim Keller. I care about my personal relationships and how I am treated.

    I don’t know, since I don’t know your friends. Maybe you are too sensitive, or maybe your friends are jerks. Maybe you like a good fight when it isn’t face to face (such as here), but don’t like it when it is face to face (a not uncommon thing that I experience myself). There are all kinds of reasons.

    But in the end, as you can read here, the YEC position is the one that takes the most heat from professing Christians. We, on this end, are the ones most likely to be treated roughly.

  163. @ LT:
    LT,
    The roots of all your assumptions are tautological and thus, irrational. To claim that because I once thought I had reason explicitly means that I can never actually attain an objectively reasonable idea is utter nonsense. Your argue that moral relativism and subjective truth are grounds for understanding. That is frightening.

  164. Human reason is the only way real truth can be acknowledged, and objective logic is a merely a component of that reason. Any idea beyond that is moral relativism. Human ABILITY to reason is not the same thing as reason. LT you are confused about the two.

  165. Argo wrote:

    @ LT:
    LT,
    Your logic is based on an assumption which I do not concede.

    So? How is that relevant? If our pursuit is of truth, that what you or I concede could not be less important. Our concern is for what actually is, not what we might concede or not.

    I believe time is merely a HUMAN way to quantify movement. Time is abstract, then. There is no such thing as 24 hours prior to man determining a quantification known as time.

    This is something that actually is objective. Time is measured by the objective movement of physical entities in the solar system. That’s not “merely human.” It applies to all of creation.

    If you say that there is no such thing as twenty-four hours prior to man, then you have no way to say anything about the age of the universe prior to the arrival (through whatever means) of man. So asserting 4.5 billions years for the sun, or 13.5 billion years for the universe has no rational meaning for you.

    None of the concepts used to explain Genesis existed before man did. Thus, Genesis must be metaphorical.

    This is bad reasoning (especially coming from someone who claims allegiance to reason); it is a complete non sequitur. Even if none of these concepts existed before man, that doesn’t mean it “must be” metaphorical. There are other explanations. Take superconductivity for instance. The principles behind it have always existed. Yet the concepts used to explain it did not exist until recently. Yet that doesn’t make it metaphorical. It is actually real.

    With respect, we need to stop confusing assumptions with reason.

    This is exactly why I am participating here this morning. There are a great many assumptions that are being confused with reasons and evidence. Your yourself have demonstrated that, even in this post.

  166. @ LT:

    You believe that my experience is uncommon then? That in most Christian churches a person could say “I believe in Theistic Evolution” and experience no consequence?

  167. The roots of all your assumptions are tautological and thus, irrational.

    Feel free to try to demonstrate both claims. But merely asserting them won’t convince reasonably people.

    To claim that because I once thought I had reason explicitly means that I can never actually attain an objectively reasonable idea is utter nonsense.

    Where did I claim this?

    Your argue that moral relativism and subjective truth are grounds for understanding.

    Where did I argue this? My argument is exactly the opposite. (BTW, “subjective truth” is an irrational proposition.)

    Human reason is the only way real truth can be acknowledged, and objective logic is a merely a component of that reason.

    And how did you determine this? If you say by reason, you have argued in a circle, a tautology, and according to you that is not trustworthy. If you say apart from reason, you have denied your whole premise that human reason is the only way real truth can be acknowledged.

    So how did you determine this?

    Any idea beyond that is moral relativism.

    AGain, bad reasoning, a non sequitur. There are other explanations.

    Human ABILITY to reason is not the same thing as reason. LT you are confused about the two.

    Um, you make my point, and then call me confused? Now, I am confused. My point from the beginning of this exchange with you is that human reasoning is not the as reason. Human reasoning has shown itself time and time again not to be reasonable. And that is why my first comment to you on this regarding the basis for your trust in your reasoning ability.

    Simply put, Argo, you cant’ trust it. And if you had no other proof, the exchange of the last fifteen or so minutes has put the deathknell to your reasoning ability. You are all over the map here, both in terms of philosophy and basic definitions. You have put yourself in a bind from which there is no escape.

  168. Nicholas wrote:

    @ LT:
    Hugh Ross is an old earth creationist, not a theistic evolutionist.

    Yes, And? He is actually a progressive creationist, correct?

  169. Jeff S wrote:

    @ LT:
    You believe that my experience is uncommon then? That in most Christian churches a person could say “I believe in Theistic Evolution” and experience no consequence?

    I have no way of knowing. My suspicion, based on what I read and here, is that yes, I would be much more unwelcome in the church at large than you are.

    And if you doubt that, just read this article and the comments again.

  170. @ LT:

    To lump Dr. Ross together with Peter Enns (who also promotes higher criticism of the Bible) is dishonest and irresponsible.

  171. I messed up the formatting on a previous post from 11:03. I am trying again.

    The roots of all your assumptions are tautological and thus, irrational.

    Feel free to try to demonstrate both claims. But merely asserting them won’t convince reasonably people.

    To claim that because I once thought I had reason explicitly means that I can never actually attain an objectively reasonable idea is utter nonsense.

    Where did I claim this?

    Your argue that moral relativism and subjective truth are grounds for understanding.

    Where did I argue this? My argument is exactly the opposite. (BTW, “subjective truth” is an irrational proposition.)

    Human reason is the only way real truth can be acknowledged, and objective logic is a merely a component of that reason.

    And how did you determine this? If you say by reason, you have argued in a circle, a tautology, and according to you that is not trustworthy. If you say apart from reason, you have denied your whole premise that human reason is the only way real truth can be acknowledged.

    So how did you determine this?

    Any idea beyond that is moral relativism.

    AGain, bad reasoning, a non sequitur. There are other explanations.

    Human ABILITY to reason is not the same thing as reason. LT you are confused about the two.

    Um, you make my point, and then call me confused? Now, I am confused. My point from the beginning of this exchange with you is that human reasoning is not the as reason. Human reasoning has shown itself time and time again not to be reasonable. And that is why my first comment to you on this regarding the basis for your trust in your reasoning ability.

    Simply put, Argo, you cant’ trust it. And if you had no other proof, the exchange of the last fifteen or so minutes has put the deathknell to your reasoning ability. You are all over the map here, both in terms of philosophy and basic definitions. You have put yourself in a bind from which there is no escape.

  172. Nicholas wrote:

    @ LT:
    To lump Dr. Ross together with Peter Enns (who also promotes higher criticism of the Bible) is dishonest and irresponsible.

    Not in this context, which is a broad grouping of people with respect to their views on the age of the earth. Ross and Enns agree on that point (as do Keller, Walton, etc.) So they are in the same category with respect to this issue though they get there different ways.

    If we had been discussing other issues where they differ, you would be correct.

  173. LT wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:
    @ LT:
    You believe that my experience is uncommon then? That in most Christian churches a person could say “I believe in Theistic Evolution” and experience no consequence?
    I have no way of knowing. My suspicion, based on what I read and here, is that yes, I would be much more unwelcome in the church at large than you are.
    And if you doubt that, just read this article and the comments again.

    This article and comments are hardly representative of the evanglical world at large. I am suprised you don’t realize that.

    My experience has been that among my Christian friends it is assumed I am a YEC, they would accept me as old earth with reservations, and become very uncomfortable around me if I started trying to argue Theistic Evolution.

    Theistic Evolution is a no no- even Tim Keller, who as far as I can tell seems to be pretty on board with it, avoids using that term.

  174. @ LT:

    Death knell? Hmm…that is outstanding hyperbole. The “bind” is merely the same “bind” I have been in since I removed myself from false reformation teaching. It is the bind which declares that if I do not accept your interpretive assumptions on anything, I must be wrong. And this is precisely why your argument is tautological. I don’t agree with you so I’m wrong; I’m wrong because I don’t agree with you. “Since I once thought I had reason, but didn’t, I can never have reason” is precisely the argument you made. How can you deny this? Your very argument says that because I was once wrong in what I thought was reasonable (e.g. Calvinism), objective reason cannot exist. That is irrational. Again, purely tautological: Because I was wrong, I can never be right…why can’t I be right, because I was once wrong. And THAT, LT, is moral relativism. By this argument of yours, there is NO such thing as right or wrong in your “philosophy”. Right and wrong are meaningless…subjective, irrelevant. I can’t be right, because I was once wrong means that the only real truth that I can grasp will ALWAYS be wrong because the whole of my ability to reason is merely the ability to be wrong.

    Try as you might your entire argument is rooted in the idea that reason is ultimately subjective because it is rooted in MAN’S ability to reason (which is NOT the same thing as reason itself (is the ability to drive the same thing as driving? Of course not…you may be able to drive, but if it manifests itself into willfully driving into a ditch, then the outcome of that ABILITY is irrational; the ability to drive CAN lead to actual rational driving, but it doesn’t always, but that doesn’t change that their is a separation between the ABILITY to drive and actually driving). This is the functional idea of saying man can never know anything at all; a root premise of Calvinism. It is why Calvinism is destructive and irrational and gnostic; all truth is God’s truth. Since man is not God, then man can, by definition never have truth.

    You want to see a bind: there it is.

  175. LT, the real issue I have is that preachers, not scientists, mock science and tell us the age of the earth without any real knowledge of the science involved. I have NO problem at all with YEC scientists making the case- but there is definitely a shaming attitude from non-scientists who see you holding a different opinion. They don’t motivate you to change your opinion with reason, but with fear tactics.

    I do think that “old earth” positions are for the most part accetable within the evangelical church, but once you get into Theistic Evolution, then you’ve crossed a boundary that puts you on the outside.

    You know, I really have very little opinion on the subject because I haven’t studied the science, but I’m more inclined to trust a scientist than a preacher to tell me the age of the earth. And predominatly the scientists tell us that evolution is true.

  176. Argo wrote:

    @ Jeff S:
    JeffS,
    Are you an I actually on the same side of an argument? LOL

    You’d be surprised 🙂

    I mostly object to other people telling me what I must believe.

    I’m not necessarily against YEC- but I feel the most compelling reason I have to believe it has nothing to do with reason or logic, but avoiding shame. That’s a crummy reason to beleive anything.

    I did that for too long- no more.

  177. LT,

    Dee is unable to participate in this conversation because she is on her way to a conference featuring Hugh Ross as the keynote speaker. Is there a particular question you would like her to ask him on your behalf?

  178. @ LT:
    Human ABILITY to reason is not the same thing as reason. LT you are confused about the two.

    Yes, I said that, and I fully stand by it. You are confused about the two. You are attempting to declare there is such thing as human reason (what seems reasonable to humans) and reason in general. That is false. there is only human ability to know what he knows and believes, and there is reason; that is, what can be shown and verified as objectively true according to the existential realities of man. As a function of man’s ability to reason (to believe what he believes, or know what he knows), he may assume something is true when it is not.

    There is NO such thing as human reason. There is man’s ability to think, chose, will, and decide, and this is rooted in his ability to process and organize his reality via the senses; and there is what is objectively true. The same ability to reason by which man can believe that which is false is the same ability by which he can believe and apprehend that which is TRUTH.

    That is what I mean by all truth is a function of MAN’S frame of reference. If truth falls outside of man’s ability to apprehend it (his frame of reference; his ability to reason; or, to know and understand), as you seem to suggest, then it cannot BE truth to him at all, because it is irrelevant to his frame of reference and thus to him, and God is a hypocrite.

  179. LT,

    Yes. Subjective truth is an oxymoron. You got me there. Er…I guess?

    You know what I meant. I use that term to illustrate the absurdity of Clavinism. They claim truth when by their own theology there can be no truth that man can know.

  180. I don’t agree with you so I’m wrong; I’m wrong because I don’t agree with you.

    It appears that you aren’t even reading what I am saying. I am not saying anything with respect to my beliefs at this point. I am merely questioning whether you can live with your own beliefs. And you seem desperately to be avoiding any answers to the questions I have asked. Forget what I believe. Think about what you believe. Justify it.

    “Since I once thought I had reason, but didn’t, I can never have reason” is precisely the argument you made. How can you deny this?

    Because I know what I said, and it wasn’t this. Go back and read. My question wasn’t whether you could have reason. You can, both actual reason (the noun) and reasoning ability (the verb). The question is whether you can trust it, and why you can trust it.

    Your very argument says that because I was once wrong in what I thought was reasonable (e.g. Calvinism), objective reason cannot exist.

    I said nothing of the sort. And that’s why your charges of moral relativism are wrong, and more evidence of why you can’t trust your reason. You have read the evidence (my words) and inferred something 100% wrong. Yet your reasoning convinces you you are right. And when the author (me) tells you that you are wrongly understanding, you insist you are right

    This is the functional idea of saying man can never know anything at all; a root premise of Calvinism. It is why Calvinism is destructive and irrational and gnostic; all truth is God’s truth. Since man is not God, then man can, by definition never have truth.

    Wow. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your description of Calvinism is dead wrong (not to mention completely off topic), and every Calvinist I know believes man can have the truth, and in fact, can have a reason to trust it. But that’s a red herring. It’s irrelevant here. We are not talking about what you believed and now don’t believe. We are talking about why you believed it (reason) and why you now disbelieve it (reason), and how trustworthy it is.

    But I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer my question. So I ask again: How did you determine that “Human reason is the only way real truth can be acknowledged, and objective logic is a merely a component of that reason.”

  181. According to Calvinism, man is at his root depraved; totally. Any vacillations in man’s behavior that any Calvinist would call a function of “truth” or “free will”, is a logical fallacy. There is no such thing as irrelevant truth. There is no such thing as irrelevant free will. If the objective outcome of YOU is always a function of NOT you (your “sin nature” or “God’s will/control/sovereign grace”), then there is no such thing as truth to man.

    That is the contradiction which I once accepted, which I know understand, by the same ability, is false. It is NOT reasonable.

    LT, you said “my reason is untrustworthy”. The logical extension of that, the implicit idea is that, because of this fact, I can never rely on my ability to reason (my human reason) to declare that I can know anything true. This IS the logical extension of your argument; whether you “said” it or not is irrelevant. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. IF I cannot trust my reason because I concede I was wrong in the past, it is impossible to ever have truth. If ALL human ability to reason is suspect because humans can be wrong, the extension of your argument is that the categorical sum of man’s ability to reason is simply to perpetually assume that he is WRONG. In this case, man can never have truth since all of man’s knowledge is defined by being wrong. He can never trust anything he knows, because the root of his understanding purely his ability to be WRONG.

    You need to go back and read what you wrote. This is precisely your point.

    This is a root premise of Calvinism; I know it; I’ve lived it; and Calvinism is extremely relevant to this discussion because Calvinism is the most cohesive form of reformation philosophy, and at its root it is destructive and the greatest perpetrator of the abuse discussed on this blog.

  182. The end of my first paragraph up there should read: then their is no such thing as free will, there is no such thing as real understanding, no such thing as truth because there is no such thing as man. Man is always a function of something ELSE.

    Deb,
    I will dial it back, too. I apologize.

  183. Dee is unable to participate in this conversation because she is on her way to a conference featuring Hugh Ross as the keynote speaker. Is there a particular question you would like her to ask him on your behalf?

    Not really. I have read virtually everything Hugh Ross has written. I simply find it unconvincing.

    Would you please dial it back a notch? Thanks.

    I am not sure what you are objecting to or asking me to do. I have tried to be exceedingly gracious and kind, particularly to Argo who has consistently and repeatedly misrepresented what I have said. Please don’t mistake my directness with any sort of anger or angst. I have none at all. I think Argo has some significant problems with his epistemology that deserve careful thought and interaction.

    I will continue to try to exhibit grace towards those who disagree with me, and only ask that they do the same.

  184. LT, with respect, I feel that earlier you side-stepped the query re the evidence for or against a young earth. You earlier said “YEC is well based in actual science”. If so we would like to see a scientific study that proves a young earth, for example, or that the stars are not in fact millions or even billions of years old.

    You also said:

    “An evolutionist in today’s straight-jacketed scientific community cannot contradict the received position. He will be run out, lose his position, and be widely mocked. It won’t be because his theories are suspect, but because he dares to be different”.

    In fact Kurt Wise, an openly YEC scientist, received his PhD under Stephen Gould, the well-known evolutionist. Andy McIntosh in the UK has still held his post as Professor of Thermodynamics despite being openly YEC as well, although the university have asked him to state on his articles that YEC is his personal opinion rather than that of the university.

  185. Human ABILITY to reason is not the same thing as reason. LT you are confused about the two.

    This is what I said from the beginning. So how I am confused?

    You are attempting to declare there is such thing as human reason (what seems reasonable to humans) and reason in general. That is false.

    This was be an interesting proposition to defend, though again, this is probably not the place for it. But yes, there are things that seem reasonable to humans (as you admitted with your Calvinism) that you later reasoned not to be reasonable. The human ability to know what he knows and believes is, at some level, connected with his ability to reason, as you acknowledge when you say, “As a function of man’s ability to reason (to believe what he believes, or know what he knows), he may assume something is true when it is not.” And with that, you have identified my primary point.
    There is NO such thing as human reason.

    This contradictions your statement at 10:37 where you said, ‘Human reason is the only reason.”

    It seems to me you are confusing the ability to reason (to think, process, understand, etc.) with objective reason. My point is that humans can reason (think, process, understand, correlate, etc.) but sometimes they do it wrongly and end up with unreasonable conclusions.

    That is what I mean by all truth is a function of MAN’S frame of reference. If truth falls outside of man’s ability to apprehend it (his frame of reference; his ability to reason; or, to know and understand), as you seem to suggest, then it cannot BE truth to him at all, because it is irrelevant to his frame of reference and thus to him, and God is a hypocrite.

    I think this is a major fallacy because it limits truth only to what is understood. Which means that either (1) there is no more truth than what man understands or (2) there are things that are not false which will later be true when man does understand them. You have embarked on the error of existentialism, that truth is only true when a person understands or apprehends it. Yet all the time we participate and trust in things that we do not understand, but we know them to be true by experience. So I think you have raised the wrong standard here and I would encourage you to go back and take a look at it.

    It is better to say, IMO, that there is truth, some of which we understand and some of which we do not.

    In the end, I am fine that you (or anyone else) disagrees with me on the age of the earth, science, or whatever. But we all need to examine our epistemology. Our knowledge has to be justified by something.

  186. LT wrote:

    YEC is well based in actual science,

    Ignoring the debate between that statement and now…

    Ah, not it’s not. I and many others have dug into this. Some of us are technically literate. Some are deeply into the science involved. Some are PHDs. What AIG promotes is not science to anyone but AIG fans. So I guess if you get to define your terms differently than everyone else you can claim anything you want.

  187. @ Muff Potter:

    “…But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress…”
    ********

    I like this Tesla person.

  188. If so we would like to see a scientific study that proves a young earth, for example, or that the stars are not in fact millions or even billions of years old.

    As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know of any that “proves a young earth.” Just as you don’t know of any that “prove” an old earth. There are simply evidences that point one way or another, that are either consistent or inconsistent with the reality and theories.

    The actual evidence of astronomy does not lend itself to an old earth. The size, age, star formation, fields, etc. all have significant problems with an old earth.

    In fact Kurt Wise, an openly YEC scientist, received his PhD under Stephen Gould, the well-known evolutionist. Andy McIntosh in the UK has still held his post as Professor of Thermodynamics despite being openly YEC as well, although the university have asked him to state on his articles that YEC is his personal opinion rather than that of the university.

    But you surely acknowledge that these are exceptions right? And consider your last example, of being asked to put a disclaimer on his articles. Can you imagine that being asked of an evolutionist? I can’t. And I think that proves the point.

    All, I need to move on. So unless there is some direct question to me, I am going to try to withdraw from this conversation. Thanks for the exchange. I have enjoyed it, and perhaps we will interact again sometime.

  189. What AIG promotes is not science to anyone but AIG fans. So I guess if you get to define your terms differently than everyone else you can claim anything you want.

    So is it your view that AIG doesn’t get anything scientifically correct and that AIG is the only YEC scientific organization or group?

  190. LT,

    I will concede that “human reason is the only reason”, given my argument is confusing. I apologize. When I say “human reason” in that sentence, I mean this: There is NO objective truth outside of man’s context, and thus there is no relevant objective truth (pertaining to his relationship with God, specifically here) that man cannot apprehend by the “ability to reason” God has given him to know and organize his world NOW. That is, there is no “reason”, or “truth”, or “rational doctrine” that can exist outside of man’s context; his universe, his environment. This is because EVERYTHING occurs, by definition, where man is (his universe). There is functionally NO frame of reference beyond that of man which can be anything but wholly irrelevant to him. It may very well be that there is “truth” (beyond which man can understand) “somewhere” else…but that truth is of no use to man, and never will be, since man is inexorably and wholly a function of his contextual reality; his universe. There may be something “before” the big bang, but as physicists rightly point out, it is irrelevant to OUR universe here. There is little use in “looking” for it because by definition it cannot be observed. It cannot be observed because it is not a part of THIS universe. If it cannot be observed because it is not a part of our universe then it cannot now, nor ever,be relevant. The same holds true for things we might “later” understand. If they are not a product of our frame of reference in THIS life, so that they can be apprehended NOW, then they will never become relevant or meaningful, even if and ESPECIALLY if they are a function of some OTHER frame of reference. This is my point.

    Again, I see and concede that my wording above was confusing. I will make attempts to correct that. Also, I feel that I have offended you or that you are upset with me. I realize that my affect can be bullish; believe me you are not the first to notice this. I am working on it.

  191. @ HoppyTheToad

    Val wrote:

    Now, if you look at how Jesus and the early followers of Christianity treated the Old Testament, you would see a lot of liberty taken with those texts, that Mohler would call heresy if we tried it.

    Hoppy wrote:
    I think this comment is worthy of its own post and discussion. I have never seen anyone address the rather “sloppy” way the New Testament authors seem to use many Old Testament texts. The more literal interpretation method evangelicals use seems far different.

    *******
    Totally interesting! Haven’t looked into this at all (so my thoughts may be, like, “duh”) — but as to them thoughts:

    *I doubt the general jewish person had their own personal set of “scriptures” (although that’s pure speculation — of course the clerics had easy access to the scriptures, but perhaps not Joe & Joanne Schmoe).

    Perhaps Jesus didn’t, either (which is VERY interesting — aside from understanding the point and significance, was mastery of every jot & tittle of scripture essential to being God incarnate?)

    If true (that non-clerics didn’t have their own copy of scriptures to pore over), then perhaps the general understanding/thinking was more from a birdseye view, than having the luxury of poring over it all word by word. The main point is what would have stayed in their minds, not the specifics & details. Kind of like how when the Joseph story comes to my mind it is interesting and encouraging and moving — without ever having to consult “the scriptures”.

    *perhaps 21st century Christians too easily miss the forest for the trees since we have the luxuries of both our own personal copies of scriptures and leisure to pore over them.

    Perhaps this would account for what seems to be “sloppiness”??

    All pure speculation.

  192. @ elastigirl:

    *I doubt the general jewish person had their own personal set of “scriptures” …
    Perhaps Jesus didn’t, either (which is VERY interesting — aside from understanding the point and significance, was mastery of every jot & tittle of scripture essential to being God incarnate?)”
    **********

    Or, to put it another way, have modern theologians amassed tons more head knowledge than Jesus ever had (or needed)? And are they tripped up by it?

  193. I know I said I was done, but alas, I am a pathetic person with no self-control. And I wanted to address two quick things from Argo.

    There may be something “before” the big bang, but as physicists rightly point out, it is irrelevant to OUR universe here. There is little use in “looking” for it because by definition it cannot be observed. It cannot be observed because it is not a part of THIS universe. If it cannot be observed because it is not a part of our universe then it cannot now, nor ever,be relevant.

    First, this is precisely the point that is problematic. Physicists rule out the possibility that God matters simply because they can’t see him (yet). They call him irrelevant. That’s a serious problem. If God exists (and I think the evidence is undeniable), then he does matter. It’s a game changer. Furthermore, what happens when these physicists do see God? All of the sudden everything changes and everything they declared to be irrelevant suddenly becomes relevant. Yet millions were mislead by what was a faulty argument to begin with.

    Physicists have, in effect, defined the problem out of existence declaring that anything we can’t observe is irrelevant. And yet they like to appeal to things we cannot observe, such as the unseen laws of logic, an unseen big bang, and an unseen process of evolution, unseen star creation, unseen universe formation, etc. Declaring that we see the effects and therefore can assert the unseen is the same argument they reject when it comes to the existence of God. It seems to me hard to be a scientists when you have ruled certain possible explanations as irrelevant because they don’t fit your presuppositions.

    So I, for one, find the “we can’t see it and therefore we can’t use it” to be an vacuous argument.I find it to be an intellectually empty approach.

    Argo, you haven’t offended me or bothered or upset me. I think it is a healthy conversation to have. I feel like you did misread me and misunderstand what I was saying and I wanted to take time to correct that, at least for the sake of others.

  194. LT wrote:

    So is it your view that AIG doesn’t get anything scientifically correct and that AIG is the only YEC scientific organization or group?

    LT in an earlier comment to this post (Apr 25 at 4:19 PM) I pointed out a complete and total contradiction between AIG claims about YEC and radiometric dating data they present. Please help me understand and reconcile these discordant claims.

  195. Re studies proving an old earth, so far the consensus of opinion is that radiometric dating has established this. Attempts by such projects as RATES to disprove it have not met with much success. I believe that astronomers date the universe by (among other things) how long it would take light to travel from the stars, but I am not an expert in astronomy.

    LT, thanks for your comments – I know we are probably going to disagree in this issue, but it’s good to be challenged. “As iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs) etc. Have a good weekend 🙂

  196. @ LT:

    If God does exist and even if He created, in an instant of time, all life in the universe, we remain incapable of subjecting God’s existence to a battery of scientific tests, nor can we falsify God’s existence or disprove his participation in the creative process. Therefore we must look to a natural explanation for what we observe.

    Any other “truths” that may be out there, are outside the domain of science and must remain in the realm of religious or philosophical thought.

    So in that sense, His existence is irrelevant, in that it is not a proper part of science’s domain, the domain of the falsifiable. That is not the same thing as saying it’s unimportant as a question.

  197. @ elastigirl:

    Jesus and the Apostles had access to the Old Testament Scriptures. Most often they quoted the Greek translation of the OT known as the Septuagint. Other times the NT writers make their own Greek translation of a quoted passage:

    http://bible-researcher.com/quote01.html

    http://bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

    Jesus himself, being fully Man *and* fully God, was Omniscient. For example, He knew the thoughts of others (Matthew 9:4 and Luke 11:17).

  198. @ LT:

    LT,

    I think you may be taking the word “observable” a bit too literally. It is my understanding (though I could be wrong; I’m not a physicist myself) that what is meant is not necessarily something which can be seen (it has been verified that there are subatomic particles which cannot be seen, or observed per se; I believe the recently discovered Higgs boson is one), but rather, things or phenomenon which can be verified by either mathematical equations or by experiment (in which certain effects are seen which give verification of the existence of such a thing or phenomenon).

    I think “observable” then, is merely stating what I think is pretty obvious: nothing (relevantly or rationally) exists except that which is a function of the universe. The implicit extension of this then would be: anything which has not yet been discovered but might be in the future is part of the observable universe, whether we actually observe it now or not.

    I’m forced to agree somewhat with physicists (many of whom are not atheist, by the way…wrap your head around that :-)). If there is a God (which, of course, I believe), then He IS a function of this universe. I know that seems counter intuitive, but for me, it is the only conclusion I can comfortably accept. So, the more we study the universe, the better we understand HOW God works. I do not believe you can make a logical separation between God and Creation…again, I know that sounds like apostasy, but I have what I feel are solid rational reasons on which to base this conclusion. I will not attempt to define them here. We may disagree, but I don’t want to actually torture you. LOL!

    Just a bit of advice, LT. Calling a different idea “intellectually empty” is simply not good form. I have reacted this way myself in the past. But accusations like that are never constructive.

  199. @ elastigirl:

    🙂

    Maybe about 5% of the population was literate at the time Jesus walked the earth. It’s possible that the Israelite population was more literate than the population at large. The Israelite scriptures were kept at the temple where men would go to learn of God and memorize the sacred writings.

    First century Christians were mainly gentiles, who were illiterate, and few Jews. I’d guess that 99.9% of early Christians had never seen writing, much less scriptures.

    On the other hand, God seemed to want the law written on our hearts and not be used as a thing to only memorize in order to dictate what everyone must do or not do. To me, Jesus is the example of what God intended those made in His image to be like. Jesus came to seek and save the lost, and make disciples.

    He didn’t come to make more Pharisees.

  200. @ Nicholas:

    I wonder if he had omniscience in his time on earth. I have my doubts.

    He gave up much of his Godness in order to be a flesh and blood human being who got hangnails, burped, sneezed, had a runny nose from time to time, had to get splinters out of his hand or foot, told a joke and the punch line fell flat, maybe had an occasion of social awkwardness.

    I think we can be so theologically-minded that we miss the fact that Jesus is a full-fledged human being (of course, God, too). in his time on earth, he didn’t have the “glorified” substance he has now.

  201. LT wrote:

    What AIG promotes is not science to anyone but AIG fans. So I guess if you get to define your terms differently than everyone else you can claim anything you want.

    So is it your view that AIG doesn’t get anything scientifically correct and that AIG is the only YEC scientific organization or group?

    I know there are other groups than AIG but AIG is the big dog on this subject and the other groups, when I have looked into them, basically say the same things when it comes to their “science”.

    As to AIG and others doing ANYTHING that is scientifically correct. Not that I and others who have studied the matter seen. If they are they are hiding it. But everything they start wiping out THEIR SCIENCE they get it wrong. In many ways. The most important two are:

    1. In some of their statements/theories they state that the fundamental laws of physics have changed. I.E. a miracle. This is a theological train of thought but not science. Once you introduce a miracle you are no longer doing science.

    2. They tend to throw out any data that points in a direction they don’t like. Which in almost every case means tossing 99.99%+ of the data and saying the 0.01% or less they are using is the only valid data that counts. This is not science. In any way shape for form.

  202. @ LT:

    Just a note. If someone wants to believe the earth (and maybe universe) is 6000 years old because they believe that is what Genesis says and that it must be a miracle, well OK. I disagree but OK lets sit down, grab a hymnal and start the service.

    Now if they start telling me science backs up the 6000 year old earth and we must teach your kids this as a part of the Christian faith and if you don’t believe it you must not believe the Bible and ….. Well you’re just flat out wrong.

  203. @ Bridget:

    hi, Bridget.

    I wonder, though — they memorized sacred writings. but not all of them. not everything. don’t how that would have been feasible. we 21st century-ites have at our disposal EVERYTHING, at all times of day, for as long as we want, with all sorts of ways to do word-searches, word-studies, cross-referencing….

    I suspect they had time to isolate & memorize the most important things. But not all the minutiae we use to put together complex systems of making sense of the data.

    To sum up the thought that’s wafting around in my brain (& try to grab it & stop it from floating around so much), I have a feeling theologians (professional, amateur) can get quite sidetracked by overfocussing on minutiae simply because it’s there, along with the luxury of leisure of time to plumb its depths. (and discovering depths that are more figments of imagination than are actually there, or were ever intended by the mind[s] who catalogued the ideas in the scripture[s]).

  204. LT wrote:

    Physicists rule out the possibility that God matters simply because they can’t see him (yet). They call him irrelevant. That’s a serious problem.

    LT, I think you misunderstand the fundamentals of good science. It works from what can be perceived, building knowledge via series’ of perceptions/tests. That is the extent of it and no good scientist will claim otherwise or more than that.

    The problem with the YEC people is that they think good science works from presuppositions (different than the scourge of individual bias). Therefore YECers can’t be understood to be scientists; they are essentially theologians, or perhaps philosophers. And it is from that framework that they must be evaluated.

  205. elastigirl wrote:

    He gave up much of his Godness in order to be a flesh and blood human being who got hangnails, burped, sneezed, had a runny nose from time to time, had to get splinters out of his hand or foot…I think we can be so theologically-minded that we miss the fact that Jesus is a full-fledged human being (of course, God, too). in his time on earth, he didn’t have the “glorified” substance he has now.

    Indeed, as the Carmen Christi begins: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (Philippians 2:5-7)

  206. Lynn wrote:

    Now if they start telling me science backs up the 6000 year old earth and we must teach your kids this as a part of the Christian faith and if you don’t believe it you must not believe the Bible and ….. Well you’re just flat out wrong.

    Preach it! (and tack that one to the SBTS door where the “pope” might see it)

  207. @ Patrice:
    And as theologians/philosophers, YECers are limited because they do not respect that which has been discovered by science. A solid philosophy/theology takes into account all the universe and the God who created it.

    But YEC people have narrowed their lens to a compendium of ancient texts, and they sift everything in the universe through it. They make interesting extrapolations about the information/knowledge contained in the Bible but when they try to force the universe and God through it, everything comes up looking distorted.

    Those are two fundamental reasons why YEC is not useful.

  208. Well, this is a good post, but I think it sort of slides past the real issue. The Mohler quotes above is not argument but an assertion. An argument contains at least two sentences: an assertion and a reason to accept the assertion. The real problem here is with rhetoric, logic, and argumentation. The reason I can’t accept the YEC position is that it is incoherent. What really needs to happen is not an appeal to evidence, but a deconstruction of language that is designed to ignore input and dismiss inquiry. If YECers were honest, I would pay them more attention. For the most part they are not, and their constructs lack substance. You can’t dialogue with an ideologue.

  209. Muff Potter wrote:

    For all the good ladies here at TWW, here’s another Tesla quote that was quite prescient. He truly was a man far ahead of his time:
    “…But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress…”

    Muff Potter, I already had a huge geek crush on Tesla, posting quotes from him like this isn’t going to reduce my fascination with him at all! 😉

  210. LT wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:
    I guess this is fair, since in the church the eveolutionist would be run out, lose his position, and be widely mocked.
    And yet they haven’t been. Hugh Ross has been widely accepted for almost two decades now. Pete Enns is being widely accepted, along with BioLogos. John Walton is one of the most highly respected OT scholars in the church. Tim Keller is widely accepted by the church.
    So your premise is demonstrably wrong (unlike creation, BTW).

    Except that Hugh Ross is a physicist and the rest (Enns, Walton, and Keller) aren’t even scientists, rather OT scholars and a pastor. The true genetic Ph.D’s who are christian are much more unwelcome in their churches and Christian Higher Educational institutions, where they teach.

  211. @ LT:
    You say “This same “evidence” could equally well point to a Creator. After all, why would not God create things in this manner? And it could, without any denial of the actual evidence, but a sudden and relatively recent creation, given the actual evidence., It actually makes more sense and is much more sustainable as a complete explanation of the world we live in to see this as pointing to a Creator rather than evolution. Only a priori presuppositions would make the above statement.”

    Well, let’s look at the DNA without any presuppositions then. You and I have a human gene that is not functional, it lies between two neighbouring genes that are the same as the a chicken’s functioning vitogellen producing gene is, and it has almost the same amino acid base pairs as a Chicken’s functioning vitogellen gene, except a few deletions and/or switches, making it non-functioning – or what is scientifically called a pseudogene. These pseudogenes show up by the thousands in humans (as well as other species).

    There are different types of pseudogenes – some inserted from mRNA (processed pseudogenes) but most lack a protein coding ability but otherwise show remarkable similarities to other species’ functioning protein-making gene. The reasons they no longer code can be due to a variety of disabling mutations (e.g. premature stop codons or frameshifts), a lack of transcription, or their inability to encode RNA (such as with rRNA pseudogenes). *see wikipedia for further info on pseudogenes*.

    The majority of these pseudogenes are basically disfunctional genes, so let’s look at why we have reams of DNA that with a switch or two of base pair would give us a gene that makes egg yolk (vitagellen). Possibility A) it is a defunt gene left over from a time when our ancestoral species was an egg-laying mammal (like a duck-billed platypus). Note all mammals have this pseudogene, yet the only mammals laying eggs are the longest existing mammals in both the fossil record and the genetic palaeontology record. Possibility B) This “junk DNA” as pseudogenes are known were inserted there by a creative force when the species was created about 6,000 years ago. For no conceivable purpose – you can remove the disfunctional genes and splice in replacement junk DNA and the animal is still the same (yes, science is doing this to prove the uselessness of pseudogenes). So, no provable purpose to the junk DNA. It also puts the animal at a greater risk of deadly genetic mutations – more genes, more screw ups. Less genes, less screw ups while coping of DNA for the next generation.

    Of those two explanations, B is more unlikely than A because it makes large chunks of our created material pointless, and slightly more risky.

  212. Patrice wrote:

    LT, I think you misunderstand the fundamentals of good science. It works from what can be perceived, building knowledge via series’ of perceptions/tests. That is the extent of it and no good scientist will claim otherwise or more than that.

    It’s funny though, one of the most stellar intellects of the Enlightenment, Isaac Newton had no problem with an Almighty and supernatural God who is behind everything, and yet nowadays there’s a problem with that. Bernhard Riemann (late 19th cent.) had the mathematical moxie of a titan, and helped lay the foundations of modern physics. He was the son of a Lutheran Pastor and remained a fervent believer throughout his academic career.

    In my opinion, it’s only over the last 75 yrs. or so that the idea of a supernatural and Almighty designer has become inadmissible and yet highly speculative models of cosmology are allowed.

  213. @ Muff Potter:

    Muff,

    I think that’s because those people understood the distinction and did not try to “prove” God through science, nor did they insist that science conform to scripture. The had the integrity to look at the world and took it for what it was…where the evidence led them, and I will assume that where it appeared there were contradictions..they relegated understanding to the next life .. but they never subverted science by trying to make it conform to religious ideology as they have in the last 20-50 years or so.

  214. Searching wrote:

    “…But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress…”

    Ok, Now I have a crush on him, too.

  215. LT wrote:

    The actual evidence of astronomy does not lend itself to an old earth. The size, age, star formation, fields, etc. all have significant problems with an old earth.

    This makes no sense. To me or anyone else with much knowledge of astronomy. What are some of these problems?

  216. @ Lynn:LT will not answer you with any specifics. this has been a bit of a game. Trash talk with no substance. One of the more bizarre conversations on the subject I have ever seen.

  217. @ Muff Potter:
    Good morn, Muff. I agree with Fendrel.

    The valuable idea of worldview (does that label remain current?) is especially limited in the sciences and journalism. Part of a scientist’s job is to keep that observing eye on one’s own work, to root out assumptions. In journalism, one needs to be both upfront about one’s viewpoint/stance and work as hard as one can to tell the whole truth. In these fields, worldview is called bias, with criticism.

    Those who taught me about worldview (back in the day) missed that very few people are meticulous. Most of the time, one’s underlying stance is a mishmash of this/that, largely a combo of “what my parents said” and “what I think of what my parents said” overlaid by whatever one accepts as an adult. Not saying this is great but it’s generally so and gets everyone. Look at Darwin’s internal conflicts/conclusions re Christianity, for eg.

    It’s useful for the academic to pull out general cultural strands but those strands will always be generalizations. Yet, when I learned about worldview, the generalizations had been turned into stereotypes (or maybe my profs started with them, I don’t know.) I think this is why Shaeffer et al were able to completely sidestep 20th cent art.

    Stereotypes “otherize”. It is easy to “them thar over yonder” when a person believes that he has the whole truth and that it’s available to everyone and that it’s only others’ folly that keeps them from recognizing/accepting it. A person like this has to work very hard *not* to slide into broad-swath discounting and caricature. The only way to avoid it, really, is by standing in the center of love. Good thing that’s a central tenet of Christianity, hah /s

    Stereotyping is a process flaw so one who indulges it generally ends up stereotyping his own belief system too. I suspect this is also partly why the last 40 years has been a long wretched pursuit for doctrinal purity. Believing that one can track/tack down the Complete Absolutely Correct turns the world into a comic book with leaders wearing super-hero costumes.

  218. dee wrote:

    I love these debates!

    Dee, not much of a debate really. More like the blogging equivalent of a drive by shooting. DL was not the least bit interested in justifying his claims.

  219. Fendrel wrote:

    Muff,
    I think that’s because those people understood the distinction and did not try to “prove” God through science, nor did they insist that science conform to scripture.

    I appreciate this insightful comment to Muff. In light of the LT “debate” I would also hold this comment up as an example of how we can be gracious in our responses to each other even when we disagree about some things.

    To Muff’s list I would add the membership roll of the American Scientific Affiliation, asa3.org .

  220. @ Muff Potter:
    I don’t think honest science drew our society from God. Truly, how could looking at “what is” and building theories from those observations, send us away from the God who made it all (including our capacity to use various forms of logic for meaningful results)?

    I think the church holds a portion of the blame. Frightened leaders and parishioners could not handle the idea that God’s world was that huge and complex and mysterious, so they became skeptical of science.

    At the same time, western civ found itself in a century of global wars that killed millions while discovering techniques to destroy ourselves several times over. And we burgeoned in population until God’s command that we be stewards of the earth smacked us in the face. But the church did the same thing regarding these crises–it withdrew and became judgmental.

    Humanity has obtained great power but remains the same broken souls. To every person who faces it, horrification! But when a group who says it knows God (and the truth/answer), does not work en masse, in love, at the ground of these crises, it becomes apparent that the group doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

    “Culture wars”? Who would frame the works of love as war?

    I’m talking extremely broadly—-there have been amazing Christians all along. But too few and theirs was not the message sent into broader culture for the last century.

    Do I appear ungracious in my responses? I do not feel that way. If so, I can alter wording. I realize that the methods vary depending on group. I also know I do go on sometimes, so I comment infrequently, to try to make up for it. ack

  221. Patrice wrote:

    @ Muff Potter:
    I don’t think honest science drew our society from God. Truly, how could looking at “what is” and building theories from those observations, send us away from the God who made it all (including our capacity to use various forms of logic for meaningful results)?
    I think the church holds a portion of the blame. Frightened leaders and parishioners could not handle the idea that God’s world was that huge and complex and mysterious, so they became skeptical of science.

    I think the church holds the majority of the blame…

    How could it not, with all the dysfunction we observe daily in almost every area of the church?

    People tend to remove themselves from corrupt systems, and the modern church is the very definition of a corrupt system, through and through.

    I was recently reading through an inch thick church “gospel guide” (AKA, their book of this is what you shall believe to join our church) from a church I am currently attending.

    Within, it contains a three page epic on ‘giving to the church’ where it states clearly that not only will the elders carefully track how much you, personally, give to the church and keep a running total of the amount but that they will also send your a quarterly statement telling you whether you are giving more OR LESS than you are supposed to! (Giving less eventually results in a meeting to ‘discuss’ the situation, lol)

    This is not a small, out of the way church in the area either. It’s one of those Acts 29 campus style churches.

    It’s those things that drive people away from the church, and then subsequently God. The blatant denial of fact, both in science and in other areas. The sexism. The legalism. The greed. The dogma. The hypocrisy. The list is endless.

  222. @ Patrice:

    Patrice,

    I liked your post. A general word of caution (from what I think you were saying at the end of your post…I apologize if I misinterpreted); I would not eschew the pursuit of truth because of a belief in a “transcendent” God. Logically, for man, the universe can be all there is. There can be no relevant reality outside of our universe. Declaring God transcendent and thus a mystery is fine; but we must understand that those transcendent properties and mysteries are for Him ALONE. They are for God, not for man. Thus, as far as man is concerned they are irrelevant “truths”. Practically speaking, they are not real…because they can never conform, by definition, to man’s frame of reference; man’s context, which is man’s universe. Anything at all falling outside of man’s universe can never apply to him…you cannot qualify that which cannot, by definition, actually be qualified because it does not functionally or efficaciously exist.

    I would declare “existence” as a thing which cannot be qualified. Existence later in heaven, if you will, can only be an extension of existence NOW. Existence cannot both be existence and NON-existence at the same time. Meaning, there can be no gaps in existence. Strictly speaking, existence itself is a theoretical concept (as are spacetime, inerrancy, determinism, and so on) which, once qualified in ANY way (other than, in the case of spacetime, a mathematical grid/coordinate system so that a value other than infinity (which is 0) can be applied to objects in it), becomes a contradiction.

    All that is to say that what is part of the observable, tangible universe is really the only reality there IS; anything else is theoretical. That being said, we must, I feel concede that there is real, actual TRUTH to be known, because all real truth must stem from what actually IS in the universe. Put simply, there are things that are true, and things that are false. They are knowable because they actually exist. It is only a matter of looking for them, not giving up, and not conceding that contradiction is actually the root of “truth”; which is, of course, impossible, both metaphysically and physically; scientifically and philosophically. Contradiction is nothing more than a fancy word for nonsense.

    Incidentally, this is why I LIKE science as the ROOT of TRUE philosophy AND my faith in Christ; because science will tell you what cannot POSSIBLY be true in the real, knowable, observable universe (apart from metaphysical truth, rooted in logic, and based on the assumption that God is omnipotent). We are then obligated to extend that understanding to whatever THEORETICAL truths we have. I’m not saying we cannot hold that theories are in fact TRUE, but they can only be rooted in what actually IS; and what is, is the physical universe. Period.

    Er…I might have opened a can of worms here. Really didn’t me to do that. 🙂

  223. JustSomeGuy wrote I was recently reading through an inch thick church “gospel guide” (AKA, their book of this is what you shall believe to join our church) from a church I am currently attending. Within, it contains a three page epic on ‘giving to the church’ where it states clearly that not only will the elders carefully track how much you, personally, give to the church and keep a running total of the amount but that they will also send your a quarterly statement telling you whether you are giving more OR LESS than you are supposed to! (Giving less eventually results in a meeting to ‘discuss’ the situation, lol) This is not a small, out of the way church in the area either. It’s one of those Acts 29 campus style churches.

    Just Some Guy,

    I find this extremely disturbing! Would you consider writing a guest post about it?  You don't have to name the church.

  224. @Deb

    No thanks… I wouldn’t really feel comfortable doing an article or anything on it. But I appreciate the offer 🙂

    The church itself isn’t all that bad, it’s actually quite enjoyable. But usually you find all sorts of crazy in those church statement of faith/new member/this is what we believe books(In my experience :p) and unfortunately this church is no exception.

    And as I am not a member of it, or really deeply involved in it I don’t really have any stories to tell :p

    I have to confess, I have been scarred in the past by truly crazy churches, so ever since then I have been somewhat distant towards churches, as many here also seem.

  225. @ Argo:
    Here’s a quote from a numerical analysis book that I have used for decades. I even taught a course using it as a textbook:
    Pg 609, Chapter 14. Statistical Description of Data, in Numerical Recipes in C, Second Edition, W. H. Press et al, Cambridge, 1992
    “That is the curse of statistics, that you can never prove things, only disprove them. At best you can substantiate a hypothesis by ruling out, statistically, a whole long list of competing hypothesis, every one that has ever been proposed. After a while your adversaries and competitors will give up trying to think of alternative hypothesis, or else they will grow old and die, and then your hypothesis will become accepted. Sounds crazy, we know, but that’s how science works.”

    I think this is a very practical expression of how science works at all but the most profound levels. It certainly doesn’t account for the Newtons and Einsteins. Your last paragraph can be thought of as alluding to this kind of statement.

  226. @ oldJohnJ:

    Do you mind giving me your interpretation of that quote you cited? As you may have guessed, I am VERY interested in what physicists have to say on these matters. At the risk of being obsequious, I hold physicists in high esteem.

  227. @ Argo:
    That’s so interesting, Argo. I read what you wrote earlier to LT and wondered what you meant. Observations:

    I agree that we humans can only know what we can perceive/deduce and that is an honorable, glorious pursuit, best done with passion and a cherry on top.

    You wrote: “…what is part of the observable tangible universe is really the only reality there IS; anything else is theoretical.” Do you mean that is our position as humans? If so, I agree. But I think there’s more reality than I can deduce because there are many loose ends. But yes, it remains theoretical extrapolation and imagination.

    As far as what we don’t know, I have no idea what does or doesn’t come back and affect/effect us. I imagine there’s quite a bit that does, though, because what we know doesn’t always make good sense. I see it like that old metaphor of living on the underside of the weaving, seeing all the knots and loose threads and not the finished picture. Or the simile of seeing in a mirror darkly.

    I agree that after death we’ll be privileged with a renewed earth and selves, not something altogether different. It would not be in the nature of God’s exhibited profound love for His/Her creation, to dump it and replace it with something else altogether. I think this is a faith extrapolation, though.

    “Put simply, there are things that are true, and things that are false. They are knowable because they actually exist.” Yes. Being an artist rather than a scientist, I say that God’s genius runs through creation and can be delved into, known and understood and celebrated. Anything we perceive as contradiction is merely incomplete knowledge.

    Science is a wonderful field but I will disagree that it is the root of philosophy. I see it as one field in humanity’s pursuit of truth and every field has it’s own methods (including philosophy). There’re the soft sciences, which blend science with the humanities. There’re the arts, not scientific at all—ooooh the lovely things I have learned! The Bible is not science, yet offers profundity.

    I hear you saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that we need to approach the world with humility, recognizing that we can know only what we perceive (a frail thing) even while we hold firmly to the conviction that a great deal of truth is, in fact, at hand. If that’s what you are saying, yes yes and again yes. And I think that basic premise is required for any acquisition of trustworthy knowledge, scientific or otherwise.

  228. JustSomeGuy wrote:

    Within, it contains a three page epic on ‘giving to the church’ where it states clearly that not only will the elders carefully track how much you, personally, give to the church and keep a running total of the amount but that they will also send your a quarterly statement telling you whether you are giving more OR LESS than you are supposed to! (Giving less eventually results in a meeting to ‘discuss’ the situation, lol)

    How can they know what you should be giving if they do not know household income? See, the whole concept is very scary. Big Brother. Sounds more like the church of Diotrephes. Not Body of Christ.

    Contrast this with a church that very much welcomes those who cannot give at all such as single moms with low wages, elderly on fixed incomes, tec. They have a vote, too, since there is congregational polity as the Body of Christ. They are part of the Body.

  229. @ Patrice:

    Oh Patrice — I think I would so enjoy sitting around with just the right beverage, a candle, and talking substance with you and a number of others here. What a fascinating and eclectic community is this. Maybe we can have a wartburg event somewhere, sometime, somehow… Face-to-face would certainly turbo-boost the dynamics — change them. Could be jarring at first.

  230. Anon 1 wrote:

    JustSomeGuy wrote:
    Within, it contains a three page epic on ‘giving to the church’ where it states clearly that not only will the elders carefully track how much you, personally, give to the church and keep a running total of the amount but that they will also send your a quarterly statement telling you whether you are giving more OR LESS than you are supposed to! (Giving less eventually results in a meeting to ‘discuss’ the situation, lol)
    How can they know what you should be giving if they do not know household income? See, the whole concept is very scary. Big Brother. Sounds more like the church of Diotrephes. Not Body of Christ.

    Well they do know. Because according to the book, you have to have a meeting with the elders to discuss what your giving level should be.

  231. JustSomeGuy wrote:

    I think the church holds the majority of the blame…

    I was trying to be nice. But yes, best to look at one’s beams/planks rather than others’ dust/specks, especially when we’re talking actual planks, not just specks seen close up. lol

  232. Argo wrote:

    Do you mind giving me your interpretation of that quote you cited?

    Evidence in the hard sciences is the result of measurements, not an artifact. Measurements are characterized by a value and an estimate of the error in the value. Accumulating evidence means reducing error by combining the results of multiple, independent measurements. There are well defined methods for estimating the error when combining multiple measurements. The quote alludes to competing theories with essentially the one theory best matching the measurements being the accepted theory.

    For the age of the earth there are multiple independent ways of estimating this that are in good agreement. DL’s claiming evidence is equally in favor of YEC and an ancient universe without being willing to cite proper numerical evidence is a particularly egregious violation of scientific practice.

    Perhaps this helps a little.

  233. @ Argo:
    Good! You know what’s truly brilliant? That we can go exploring, and learn stuff and be amazed and satisfied and goaded by further curiosity, all of us next to the other with respective gifts/hearts/characters. Whoever invented this adventure is sheer genius. 🙂

  234. Patrice wrote:

    Do I appear ungracious in my responses? I do not feel that way. If so, I can alter wording. I realize that the methods vary depending on group. I also know I do go on sometimes, so I comment infrequently, to try to make up for it.

    Quite the contrary Patrice! I sincerely enjoy your responses because they challenge and augment my own thinking. But I must confess, I still find it odd that the whole academic world will fawn and gush over Hawking’s latest pronouncements on how the whole shebang came into being all by itself and yet snicker at the superstitious faith of the mental titans who came before. I still cannot sign on to the notion that the observed processes and mathematical models that predict and validate them are in and of themselves a first cause.

  235. Patrice wrote:

    Being an artist rather than a scientist, I say that God’s genius runs through creation and can be delved into, known and understood and celebrated. Anything we perceive as contradiction is merely incomplete knowledge.

    I have always thought of the Almighty as BOTH scientist AND artist. You might enjoy David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas, it’s one of the best reads I’ve had in a long time.

  236. @ Muff Potter: Very much agreed on scientist + artist.

    I tried reading Cloud Atlas some time ago, but wasn’t really able to get into it – perhaps it wasn’t the right time for the book? Will try again!

  237. @ Muff Potter:
    Muff,

    Blatant self promotion in response. I agree with you. Read my latest post on the logical fallacy of theoretical concepts like determinism, which I believe Hawking accepts (scientific determinism… I’m not 100 % sure on that).

    I also include a brief description of a similar problem with spacetime.

    If you want/have time

  238. @ Muff Potter:
    I don’t know that book, thanks–I’ll track it down.

    Re Hawkings—regarding the science, I am an artist looking in, so I cannot critique the integrity of his. For me, he is like reading sci-fi. I’ll try anything just to see what kind of world it delivers. And his is a vast world, although far too cold/hard for me.

    When religion becomes weak, a vacuum is created and people come up with all kinds of stuff to fill it. That is why people fawn over Hawkings—he provides a sophisticated alternative. Most people’s theories try to get at something. They grab a perspective and bring it somewhere else and the fun is the ride they us on, and also tracking down where we split off from them and why. Sometimes following someone down a blind alley simply reminds me how lovely is my path.

    There is a lot of dingbattiness, too, of course. And dishonesty. Dishonesty is *never* a fun ride (in or out of the faith) and there’s lots of it, which is quite different than being mistaken, flawed, or simply narrow. I do become enraged by dishonesty. I haven’t noticed dishonesty in Hawkings, but Hitchens, for eg, was full of it. They are/were both arrogant.

    I’m glad that I present ok in comments here. I don’t want to be annoying but God knows I have an opinion about nearly everything. My only virtue, really, is that I am willing to change them, and have done, many times lol

  239. Elastigirl wrote:

    @ Patrice:

    Oh Patrice — I think I would so enjoy sitting around with just the right beverage, a candle, and talking substance with you and a number of others here. What a fascinating and eclectic community is this. Maybe we can have a wartburg event somewhere, sometime, somehow… Face-to-face would certainly turbo-boost the dynamics — change them. Could be jarring at first.

    I second this! A “wartburg event” would be so wonderful. Sometimes I so long to put faces to all the amazing minds I see represented here.

  240. numo,
    Mitchell’s style can be a hard to follow at times. But once you fiddle with the keyring so to speak and unlock a frame of reference, it’s well worth it. Cloud Atlas spans many centuries and happenings in the lives of various characters and how we’re all connected in one way or another as humans.

  241. Going back to Muff’s earlier comment, a Christian TEC scientist pointed out in one of his books that there is a difference between “scientific materialism” (the view that one should only base science on the empirically testable or verifiable without invoking metaphysical reasons which cannot be tested in the same way) and “philosophical materialism” which is the a priori assumption that nothing else *can* exist beyond what is empirically verifiable. Unfortunately some people confuse the two, or worse still, invoke a sleight of hand to try to do so.

    Or as someone else said, science is the “how” and does not concern itself with the “why” (i.e. the ultimate cause).

    Re the earlier remark about Newton’s faith, this reminded me of something that Kenneth Miller said in his book “Finding Darwin’s God”. After invoking evidence for evolution he noted that some of his colleagues were still surprised that much of the public did not accept it, and wryly added that they could not see that they (or some of them, possibly even the vocal minority) were part of the problem, ie by doing the “bait and switch” thing with philosophical materialism.

  242. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    … or the vanity of a religious scholar
    P.S. I should clarify: this point cannot be made often or forcefully enough. These religious scholars always claim, of course, that it is not they but the Infallible Word of God that is the origin of their laws. It is not; it merely provides the “ore” from which they mine the goods they want. Although they pretend the Bible is their master, in truth it is their slave.

    This comment under the Gothard Umbrella article is equally applicable to our YEC discussions.

  243. Simply pointing out that early Genesis, chapters 1-11, is not science will not change very many opinions about YEC. An alternate interpretation of early Genesis must be accepted instead. In the post I referenced Conrad Hyers’ work contending polytheism and idolatry of Israel’s contemporaries was the purpose of Genesis relegating the science content to simply Genes 1:1 . Current cosmology recognizes the universe had a beginning, the big bang. I’m comfortable with this interpretation. What other viable interpretations of early Genesis have been made?

  244. YEC stems from a misguided mindset. Pretty much all the YECers I’ve come across(including myself, when I used to believe it) have little to no knowledge of the actual science, they mostly just repeat talking points from AIG and the like.

    And if perchance they have reviewed the science or are presented with it, they choose to simply dismiss it as either irrelevant or a global conspiracy or a massive error in method.

    This is why YEC vs evolution arguments (I refuse to refer to them as creation vs evolution arguments because that is a false dichotomy) are pretty pointless, since no matter what is said it will be countered with either “you are a fool because IT IS WRITTEN!!!!!11111111″(And if you protest that it can be interpreted an alternate way, you will be told that alternate interpretations were just invented as a scapegoat by christians who really want to be atheists and hate God) or some variation of “all science is bull**** and wrong”

    It takes a complete paradigm shift to get someone to stop believing YEC, because lots of times it is the foundation rock their entire Christian faith is built on, sadly. If they abandon it they believe the only other choice is to become an atheist.

  245. oldJohnJ wrote:

    What other viable interpretations of early Genesis have been made?

    Just spent a weekend where Hugh Ross gave some talks plus got a chance to talk with him for a while around a table. Interesting way to view Gen 1. Not sure I can agree with him on everything or even most of the ReasonsToBelieve points. But they KNOW their science. Cold. Unlike most YEC people.

    And Hugh is unbelievably polite when you disagree with them. No name calling or disparaging remarks. (Well they will point out remarks by others that disparage the person making the remark. 🙂 )

    Anyway, at least with the R2B crowd you are not debating junk science. Just how to interpret the data. ALL the data.

  246. I have listened to Hugh Ross defend his positions using objective measurements. The very fact that speed of light is constant means that the universe could not possibly be as young as the YEC crowd thinks. The speed of light has shown itself to be constant in every (I believe) experiment and in every medium it has been measured. As Hugh points out, without a constant speed of light the earth either burns up or becomes the planet Hoth; plants don’t grow and Adam doesn’t eat. The fact that they have measured the distance of the farthest stars out to, what, about 1% standard deviation accuracy proves that the universe is as old as a CJ Mahaney sermon.

    The only way I can view Genesis is strictly allegorical. I believe that God indeed is the author of Creation, but I do not accept that it happened in the manner Genesis details. I also accept that the devil had something to do with the ultimate deception of man; tempting him to forsake his physical goodness for a false and mystic, theoretical moral dichotomy whereby he becomes a function of BOTH good and evil so that each one gives meaning to the other. In short, he accepts the theoretical understanding of goodness which cannot actually BE good outside of the other side of the moralistic coin, “evil”, rather than accepting his entire body and mind, as creations of God, are, in fact “good”…in a sense, beyond any theoretical morality. Much like God. By definition, God is an I AM. There is nothing dualistic about his morality. He is GOOD, but that GOOD is not a function of evil. Everything God does is GOOD because HE is the utter and complete sum of moral perfection. His is not a theoretical goodness, it is a goodness inexorably bound to his physical being. This was the goodness of man until he exchanged the truth for a lie. I believe this really is the root man’s problem…defining himself as a function of a slew theoretical truths instead of the physical universe. And, here we are back at Genesis. Demanding that TRUTH be a function of what could not possibly be true, namely, junk science, and endless illogical appeals to the nonsense that is “biblical inerrancy”.

    And I don’t really care that Jesus refers to events in Genesis. This does not prove that Genesis is literal. Jesus would have had no more understanding of the science behind Genesis than anyone else at the time. His context was 2000 years ago; He did not “foreknow” the Higgs boson or quantum physics. And I’m sure that as far as He knew, the sun revolved around the Earth. His points were always theological, and that is where His TRUTH was found. He used Genesis not as a science text book, but as the root of his comprehensive divine philosophy, of which He, Himself was the cornerstone.

  247. Argo wrote:

    Jesus would have had no more understanding of the science behind Genesis than anyone else at the time. His context was 2000 years ago; He did not “foreknow” the Higgs boson or quantum physics. And I’m sure that as far as He knew, the sun revolved around the Earth.

    Respectfully Argo,
    Sure you want to paint with a brush that broad? While I agree that Genesis One is like bowling balls, ball bearings and marbles embedded in an obdurate matrix, it might just be that it’s both literal and allegory. To say that Messiah knew nothing of the elliptical path the Earth traces about the sun is like saying that a first class bridge designer knows nothing of the mathematics of parabolas or of the conic sections in general.

  248. @ Muff Potter:

    You may be right, Muff. I just don’t see it when I read the New Testament text. I mean, people are referred to as having a “spirit” of sickness. I may not be grasping the Greek translations right, but it seems like Jesus was very much a man of that time. Bearing in mind also that his perfection is not necessarily predicated on how much science He understands. Moral purity, the Bible tells us, is distinctly NOT a function of puffy knowledge.

  249. Muff Potter wrote:

    While I agree that Genesis One is like bowling balls, ball bearings and marbles embedded in an obdurate matrix..

    Muff, awesome simile! I don’t agree, but it made me smile. 🙂

  250. Argo –

    Jesus seemed a man of his time to me as well. But I wonder if that was because he was born into the world at that time with the world as it was then. He interacted with life as it was and mankind as it was functioning, except when he chose to display the abilities of his Godness. He didn’t have to display or reveal “all” of his glorious attributes at one time to man, did he? Who could have dealt with that anyway?

    P.S. I’m still of the mind that free moral agents (man) are responsible for their own actions, and that God can have foreknowledge of events without being blamed for them. What a delight when man chooses good over evil!

  251. @ Argo:

    …and Muff, Bridge…
    ********

    I enjoy pondering these ideas.

    I have a feeling Jesus made some clumsy human mistakes (like all of us) as he learned and grew and lived life. Not sins. But, perhaps saying the wrong thing at the wrong time (due to lack of experience — I mean, he wasn’t born knowing everything, factually/socially — he may have been precocious and advanced in his understanding of things, but he had to have somewhat age-appropriate cognitive limitations due to lack of experience.)

    Just like all human beings, his understanding deepened along with his experience in life. And I’m sure this is an understatement.

  252. @ Bridget:

    Hi Bridget,

    We’ve had this discussion before; I wasn’t able to convince you then, so I’ll try again. LOL! 🙂 If it doesn’t work, really, no hard feelings.

    There can be no “future” for God. God is I AM; He is not I was, or I will be. His name is I AM. If there is a future (which I deny…time is a theoretical construct man uses to measure movement and distance, nothing more), then He is there. If there is a past (again, deny) then He is there. Which means that the past and future are all NOW to Him. So if there is a future where He is and we are not then He must have directly ordained it; which means there can be NO free will at all. In fact, this means that all of Creation is merely an extension of God; which means that Creation IS God. And that? Is blasphemy.

    I maintain that God cannot know the “future” any more than we can because it is impossible, even for God, to know of anything that is, by definition, NON-existent. Simply put, there is nothing THERE for God to foreknow. Not even God can declare something both existing and not existing at the same time (meaning, it is impossible for an object to contradict its own existence BY its very existence). If the future does exist, then He created it exactly as it is, and again, free will is a lie. And further, Creation cannot have been created, because Creation would BE GOD, and God cannot possibly create Himself.

    I hate to sound arrogant, but my logic is impeccable. You cannot disagree with me unless you are willing to concede that God and Creation are purely functions of impossible contradiction, In which case, it is hard to argue that we as Christians have any better TRUTH than any other religion. If our religion is not superior because it is not more metaphysically and logically rational, then by what can we claim to have a superior understanding?

    My most recent post on my blog deals with the contradiction of time outside of the theoretical. More of a cohesive argument there.

  253. It’s why I hate the phrase “Sovereign Grace”, because this implies that ALL that happens in the universe is by God’s design (or, as RC Sproul puts it: God’s full control). But it is impossible to concede this without making Creation GOD itself. God’s control IS perfect control, full control; and perfect and full control, outside of any context by which control is “limited” must be total, which means Creation must be nothing more than an extension of God.

    Of course, no Christian concedes this, not even the “Sovereign Grace” crowd. Why? Because it makes God a rank liar when He separates Himself from Creation. It is why “Sovereign Grace” is a very dangerous, if not outright evil, concept.

    But think about “control”. Again, it is merely a theoretical/abstract idea, thus, when applying it to real physical life we must understand and proceed from the knowledge that it is GOING to be logically contradictory. There is no such thing as categorical “control” in the universe. Any control which is exhibited in the universe must be LIMITED to a specific context. And if that is the case, then what you really have is practically speaking “limited control”. But this automatically contradicts control because there can be no such thing as a “limited” absolute. Control, as an abstraction is absolute. If we say that God’s reality is a manifestation of FULL control, that is, the absolute nature of the abstraction, then Creation IS God. (Same thing as time; if we limit it by saying it has a “beginning” we have contradicted it: a limited absolute is an impossible idea; but if it has no beginning nor end, then it is static, and there is no such thing as “static time”. Again, time is a theoretical absolute; it doesn’t really “work” in “real” life, per se.)

    We must, must, must be careful in how we apply theoretical ideas/abstractions to our actual existence. It WILL lead to false understanding of God and us. And that will always be destructive.

  254. @ Argo:

    Creation is by definition created, by God. Creation cannot *be* God under any circumstances.

    God knows the future because He created it. I don’t know where in the Bible you are getting this all-encompassing idea of human “free will” that your entire theology seems to be based on. (And no, I am not a Calvinist.) What you are presenting here is Open Theism (the idea that God doesn’t know the future).

    I noticed earlier in this thread you rejected the concept of “election” altogether. Election and predestination are Biblical concepts (even the words themselves are in the Bible). What orthodox Christians have disagreed on down through the centuries is merely the specifics of things such as predestination and election (eg. the Arminian vs. Calvinist debate).

    And it is not only arrogant to say “my logic is impeccable”, it is foolish.

  255. @ Nicholas:

    Hi Nicholas,

    I’m not sure if you read my posts right or if I was somehow unclear. But, to be sure, I fully deny that Creation IS God. My point is that if you believe that there is an actual future for God to know, and we are, by definition, not “there” yet, then He must have created it. And if it already IS before it has a chance to freely do on its own, the the only logical possibility is that Creation must be merely an extension of God. Fully ordained is no different than saying, essentially, fully God.

    If I’m foolish, you’ll have no problem with these questions:

    1. At what point does God “knowing the future” deviate from God ordaining (creating) the future to be exactly what it is? Where is there room for Creation to actually exist as a function of itself if there is no logical difference between God knowing the future and God creating the future?

    2. Assuming that the “future” exists as a time that is wholly removed from God (which it is logically impossible to assume, by the way) of what practical purpose can this knowledge be to a God who has the power to create? Does God’s power to create or act or His will somehow depend on any knowledge of “future” events outside of Himself?

    I didn’t know what Open Theism is. Had to look it up, but yeah, I’d accept at least in part what I’ve read so far. Is that a problem? I mean, Augustinian Christianity hasn’t exactly done a bang up job with their “orthodoxy”…covering up the rape of children and whatnot, burning people at the stake, starting bloody holy wars. You think I care if reformed orthodoxy thinks I’m a heretic? That makes me laugh.

  256. And by the way, I do not think that God “cannot know the future”. That is a misrepresentation of my perspective. I deny that their is any future for God TO KNOW. Not even God can know what He didn’t create.

  257. @ Argo:

    I apologize for saying “foolish.” I sometimes still get carried away when commenting on the Internet. We’ll have to agree to disagree (and I actually don’t like debating theology in blog comments).

  258. @ Argo:

    ” If the future does exist, then He created it exactly as it is, and again, free will is a lie.”
    *************

    Argo,

    I’m sure you’ve addressed this already at least in part, but here goes–

    What about this statement:

    If the future does exist, it was not created by one mind (God) but rather is the result of a combination of forces:

    1. choices human beings make, in combination with

    2. spiritual influences, good or evil, anywhere from .00000001 to 99.99999% (can there be 0% and 100% spiritual influence? don’t know), alongside

    3. intervention from God, apart from human agency of any kind (things in the physical world)

  259. Argo wrote:

    We must, must, must be careful in how we apply theoretical ideas/abstractions to our actual existence. It WILL lead to false understanding of God and us. And that will always be destructive.

    I agree but will turn it back on you. I don’t think impeccable human logic can tell us everything because we don’t have all the information. We don’t live everywhere that God exists and for whatever reasons, He/She hasn’t told us what it’s like around Her/Him. (I suspect our limited minds contributes.) So we use what we have available.

    What’s available will either be very narrowly constructed, as you state, or it will appear sometimes contradictory. I think it’s best to lightly hold the constructs we make.

    If we know where to be tentative and where to be firm with what we have available, we can be confident that eventual full knowledge will not oppose what we have already learned but will merely deepen and broaden it, since it will be put into the larger context in which it actually resides.

    I recently read that a better translation of “I am who I am” is “I will be that which I will become”. If this is so, movement forward of some kind occurs with God, although we don’t know what kind/shape. This translation would lend credibility to the idea that God isn’t a petrified being and that things change.

    It is interesting that people’s views of God are derived from how they construct the world. In this you are absolutely correct—God isn’t known except through what we discover. I have sometimes asked a person what he/she thinks God is like, and from there have decided whether I would want to hang around the person or not lol

  260. @ elastigirl:

    i mean, choices human beings make, which are spiritually influenced — and is it possible to have 0% spiritual influence as well as 100% spiritual influence?

  261. @ Nicholas:

    Nicholas,
    It’s not a problem. I wasn’t offended. I realized a while back that my ideas rub people the wrong way. I’m not exactly a blogging saint.

  262. @ Patrice:
    Well, I have no problem trusting God because He may be doing things or working in my life in a way I don’t understand; but the the reason to trust Him has to be rooted in non-contradictory logic that I CAN understand from my frame of reference. It can’t be rooted in false ideas like “God is in control”.

  263. elastigirl wrote:

    he may have been precocious and advanced in his understanding of things, but he had to have somewhat age-appropriate cognitive limitations due to lack of experience.)

    Luke’s Gospel records this very thing. He was in the temple listening and asking questions of the learned men there. They were amazed at his acumen for one so young.

  264. @ Argo:
    Do you think, from what you know, that God will make good out of it all eventually? That God will somehow make the BS we endure here worthwhile, sometime (maybe now, maybe later?

    I struggled over those questions for quite a while.

  265. This must be what it’s like to sit in a room full of screen or TV writers when they are passionately debating the characteristics of some fictional character. Everyone trying to spin a coherent tale that sits well with their version of the story.

    Christian storyboarding at its best.

  266. @ Fendrel:
    Life is one fool story after another.

    “Think left and think right.
    Think low and think high.
    Oh the things you can think
    If only once you try.”
    Dr Seuss

    “It isn’t what you know that counts,
    It’s what you think of in time.”
    Leo Aikman

  267. @ Patrice:

    All other reasons aside, Christian theology requires far to many “spins” and explanations and interpretations, not to mention an endless series of excuses or “reasons why” in order to present the appearance of anything remotely resembling truth.

    IMHO

  268. @ Fendrel:
    Yep, religion is a human construct that tries to make sense of the incomprehensible by use of the comprehensible. It IS a series of stories!

    Those who are agnostic/atheist have decided that making stories about the incomprehensible is absurd. The main problem with many Christians is that they think they know the Absolute and Full Truth on Everything. Which is hugely arrogant and it is inevitable that their form of religion would look like them (how else?) Thus they become unbelievable because every honest human knows that large parts of religious thought is extrapolation.

    If extrapolations are to work at all, they need to be lightly held with a sense of humor. And made into stories. I think Argo’s doing a fascinating job on his version and I quite like my own too lol

    IMO, the best possible religion is based in love for “what is”. That is why I remain in Christianity. Even Buddhism wants us to remove ourselves from “what is”, even if benevolently.

    Two cents’ worth.

  269. Argo,
    Many years ago I sat in a great lecture hall under Dr. McMurran. She was also a woman of faith and had this to say: “…The only thing proofs prove is the internal consistency of Mathematics, they may or may not have an analogue in every day reality…even when they do, the connection is only shadowy, much like a Taylor polynomial in approximating another function…”

    Fendrel,
    Good to see you again! And yes, I still believe in ruby slippers, and somewhere over the rainbow ===> (smiley face goes here)

  270. @ Muff Potter:
    The present physical theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, are expressed mathematically. The consistency that comes from this mathematical expression is crucial. If you can derive a result that isn’t supported by experiment or observation the entire theory collapses. At present there are no observations in conflict with these theories. Getting to the next level of sophistication in the description of nature requires that such discrepancies be found.

    The Taylor series analogy is a good description of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Eventually too many epicycles were needed to accurately describe the solar system leading to a much more accurate abstraction by Newton’s gravitational theory.

  271. To be clear, I have no reason to, nor would it be rational for me to deny GR. denying GR (general relativity) is to deny direct experimental proof and verification of the theory which has occurred for the past 100 plus years or so. In short, I have no doubt that GR accurately describes and predicts the interaction of objects within space and time.

    My only concern is the aparent disconnect in the world in general between the theoretical MODEL and the actual thing being observed. Logically, space time cannot exist apart from the objects in it because there is simply no way to either a. observe it nor b. quantify it. What you CAN observe is object movement. Thus, it is the object you are measuring. What you can do is generate a coordinate system so that objects can actually have a value of space time. So, this being the case, it seems to me that spacetime (the coordinate system) is a DIRECT function of physical objects. It is not a separate “thing”.

    This of course makes gravity a function of spacetime mathematically only. Which I find very interesting.

  272. @ Patrice:

    A slight adjustment if I may…I don’t think it’s the making of stories or mythologies that is absurd..quite the contrary…I think those stories can have great value…however, i think to commit one’s life to something which is unlikely, at best, and which has little or no supporting evidence, obviously produces or is prone to produce harm as a philosophy or worldview (as evidenced in part by the need for this and other blogs to provide a place of refuge and expose those crazies) and to do so to the extent that you think it’s good and fitting that other people should alter their lives in pursuit of the same story…is a bit much….don’t you think?

  273. @ Fendrel:
    It’s all about the quality of the story, I think. The best stories are based in the essential issues of life and help us echo them back into our own lives, deeper, richer, healthier, clearer.

    To be an awful storyteller but think your stories are the best ever, to live them out personally and then make others listen to the shabby tales over and over until they submit out of sheer weariness or nervous collapse…well…it’s enough to make people stop writing/reading stories altogether, which is a shame.

    Which is why I’m glad to have found the people here at TWW. I’d left the christian community because the tales I was told were downright wretched. But I can start to put them back in my life with help of the others here, and I am delighted.

  274. @ Patrice:

    Yes, there are some wonderful people at TWW…and it’s good that you can find value or a sense of enrichment from a story…as long as we don’t lose sight of the fact that they’re just stories and don’t start confusing them with what’s important…humanity.

  275. @ Fendrel:

    Christianity is not just “a story,” it is true.

    You speak of humanity. The most vile hatred for other human beings that I’ve seen on the internet has come from atheists. Not all of it from them, but very much of it. It is often directed at Christians, as well as Muslims and Jews. NOT just the religions, but the people.

    A man who hates other people hates God (1 John 4:20). Likewise, those who hate God hate humanity. And we have seen the results of that in every officially atheist regime that has existed (mass murder and genocide).

    Here is a sampling of how people behave when the moral restraints are removed:

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/?itemid=3779

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/richard-dawkins-receives-rabid-response-from-his-faithful-followers/

  276. Fendrel wrote:

    Oh boy..omniscience is coming back…finally I can drag my theodicy arguments out of the closet again

    I assume they go along the lines of “why would a just God allow ABC…”

    Here is the answer:

    “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:20-24).

    You do not get to determine what makes God righteous or just. You do not pass judgement on God. Rather, He judges you. And you do not get to ask such questions of Him.

    And as for your “little or no supporting evidence” nonsense, I’m sure you’ve convinced yourself of that. But it is only because you are willfully blind. You are wise only in your own eyes.

  277. Fendrel wrote:

    e making of stories or mythologies that is absurd..

    It is not a myth but you are welcome to say so. I like Herman Mehta. Do you?

  278. To build upon my comment which is still in moderation, here is another example of what is quite common among internet misotheists: http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2010/09/cts-common-lies-christians-tell.html?showComment=1343678508357#c1860132108004395543

    You’ll notice in the anonymous comment the atheist threatens actual genocide against Christians:

    “Dude, take your medicine and stop listening to the voices in your head…
    Seriously, the sooner we Anti-theists take over the world, the better. We’ll burn your churches, bibles and even your bodies in the name of curing the mental sickness you have inflicted upon humanity.”

    And this is just what happened in Russia and the Ukraine after they were taken over by a militant atheist regime.

  279. Here’s the comment that got stuck in moderation:

    @ Fendrel:

    Christianity is not just “a story,” it is true.
    You speak of humanity. The most vile hatred for other human beings that I’ve seen on the internet has come from atheists. Not all of it from them, but very much of it. It is often directed at Christians, as well as Muslims and Jews. NOT just the religions, but the people.

    A man who hates other people hates God (1 John 4:20). Likewise, those who hate God hate humanity. And we have seen the results of that in every officially atheist regime that has existed (mass murder and genocide).
    Here is a sampling of how people behave when the moral restraints are removed:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/richard-dawkins-receives-rabid-response-from-his-faithful-followers/

  280. @ Nicholas:

    What some moron says in an internet conversation, atheist or Christian or anyone else, isn’t at all relevant.

    Secondly, I think you are equating atheism with humanism .. they are not the same, and atheism is not connected with any particular moral code, unlike humanism.

    Saying something is true, doesn’t make it so. In order for something to reasonably be considered as true it must have supporting evidence. Without that evidence it’s a wish or desire at best.

    You ask who am I to question God? I am precisely the right person for the job, as are you. If it can be shown that God has attributes or properties that are contrary to the definition which Christendom has provided…then logically, there’s a problem.

  281. The best stories are never “just” stories but our eccentric selves moving through time/space, explained. And theology, like philosophy, is an overarching tale that sets our small selves into largest context.

    Fendrel, make what story you like but make it big enough to embrace the universe. Make it with lots of dancing and do it with love. What’s your problem with extrapolations, wishes, and desire? It is part/parcel of every human’s existence and to live without either is a dreariness.

    Nicholas, vile hatreds have been spawned in every corner where humans have existed. It is no respecter of ideology. Why? Because that frickin’ line of evil runs through every human heart.

  282. Patrice wrote:

    Nicholas, vile hatreds have been spawned in every corner where humans have existed. It is no respecter of ideology. Why? Because that frickin’ line of evil runs through every human heart

    This is true, and that is due to original sin and the fallen nature of humanity.

    I was pointing the link between atheist misotheism (hatred of God) and misanthropy (hatred of humanity), in contrast to claims that atheists have humanity’s best interests at heart, and in contrast to false atheist claims that Christianity is misanthropic.

    Of course there are ‘Christians’ who do these things. We know from the Scriptures (God’s revelation) that ‘Christians’ who hate other people are false Christians (1 John 4:20, Matthew 7:17-18, John 14:15).

    And not all atheists behave like those I cited. But just read the comment sections at sites like CNN Belief Blog, Christian Post, the Guardian, etc. and you’ll see what I mean.

    @ Fendrel:

    Secular Humanism’s “moral code” is only based on the mere opinion and consensus of the Humanists themselves, which is subject to change and changes quite frequently. You have no consistent basis for considering anything good or evil at all, if there is no absolute right and wrong.

    To give an example, Humanists deny the humanity and personhood of unborn children in order to allow for the ‘convenience’ of abortion. In many circles this denial of humanity is being extended to include already born children, and the mentally and physically handicapped. And if humanity and personhood do not begin when life begins, then it is left up to human opinion again, with no consistent starting point for human life. Peter Singer’s ideas have only gained traction with time, and he is not on the fringe. He is a highly honored man.

    And if you, Fendrel, support abortion but oppose killing born babies, then you are inconsistent and a hypocrite. There is no difference.

  283. @ Nicholas:
    My main point was that it’s important to make accurate comparisons.

    If you look at the worst of atheism and the worst of religionists, they are the same. They are both small groups, and they both spit/spew. A few among that small group would be glad to go beyond rancor into violence. No matter which bunch, it is revolting. There are far fewer atheists with this foulness than there are Christians for the simple reason that there are millions more Christians than there are atheists. Both are kept in check via the community around them.

    I’ve been face-to-face spewed at by both Christians and atheists, and I prefer the atheist spitters because they have no pretensions of belonging to a loving God.

    If you look at the best of humanism (a group of *many* different ideologies) and the best of Christianity, similar profound claims for morality are made. This is because all humans derive their ethical systems from the world-as-it-is. Both see ethics as the way to health, in the broadest sense of the term.

    Christians add the God-dimension, and use that to start. Among other things, it allows: 1. An extra capacity for emotional/spiritual meaning. 2. A clearer way to understand the conundrum of evil. 3. A stable system that runs across generations. 4. A built-in inclination to meet/work together

    But the biggest flaws in Christianity comes out of those things too. There are tendencies: to feel smug, to be judgemental, to petrify, to separate. The way to avoid these tendencies is to stay with the essentials of the faith: 1. It is God, not the Bible, that is our source 2. We live by love. 3. God made everything and it is good

    It is not helpful to paint with a large brush the ideologies of humanists. There is too much variation. Moreover, to pick abortion to argue, of all the issues out there, is to guarantee failure of discussion. That issue has been ridden to death several times over. It has become so polarized that no one hears each other anymore. People now only argue caricatures of each other’s points-of-view.

  284. @ Nicholas:

    First…Atheists do not hate God…by definition the word refers to a lack of belief, which is different from a belief in non-existence. I, for example, as an atheist, will never say that I know God doesn’t exist…He very well may exist. There isn’t any evidence either way. All that I will affirm, as an atheist, is that in the absence of evidence it is unreasonable to assert his existence…and anything that flows from that assertion.

    Regarding morals, even in the bible, morality is not absolute. For example…is stoning someone to death for planting two different crops side by side a moral act? Before you counter with that was OT, keep in mind that changing between OT and NT is the very definition of not being absolute…either it is moral for all time or it isn’t.

    In addition, it isn’t difficult to juxtapose two situations in which the “moral” thing to do would shift depending on the situations. Making moral decisions is rarely about a single course of action that has no consequences other than the decision itself.

    God’s omniscience places him in a precarious situation in terms of theodicy. If I knew, for example, that if my wife ever learned to use a gun she would kill our neighbor whom she hates…and on her next birthday I bought her a gun….even though she made the decision to go kill our neighbor with it, am I not also responsible..since I knew what the outcome would be and yet bought her the gun anyway? I think any reasonable person would agree that both I and my wife are responsible for that death. Then how is God, who knew us far better than I knew my wife, not responsible for the sin that flowed from us being given free will, when He knew that we would misuse it in order to sin, yet gave it to us anyway. If I share the blame in my neighbor’s death..surely God must share the blame in humanities sin…and therefore…He is as sinful as we are.

    There are many more examples that could be given to make the same point.

  285. Fendrel wrote:

    For example…is stoning someone to death for planting two different crops side by side a moral act?

    Where does the Bible say to stone someone to death for that?

  286. @ Fendrel:

    Fendrel,
    There are some logical flaws in your examples that must be addressed; if for nothing else than you tweaking your analogies so that they are more consistent.

    First, you cannot “know” your wife will use the gun to shoot your neighbor. By definition, you cannot know something which does not exist. If there is nothing there, it is impossible to know it…it cannot both be and not be at the same time.

    Her free will can have no boundaries beyond herself. You cannot be culpable for an act which is categorically a function of her will, and hers alone. Now, does this mean that you cannot exercise wisdom and love for the sake of both your wife and neighbor and not buy her the gun. Of course…because morality is NOT absolute; it is contextual (thus, it is moral NOT to buy her the gun), but FREE will IS. You cannot claim responsibility for her will; only your responsibility in exercising poor judgement by YOUR will.

    And this brings me to my next point. Atheists love to do this: hold God responsible for our free will actions because He “gave” us free will. It is so ironic that atheists do not see the amount of rational larceny and “faith” it takes to make these kinds of arguments. God cannot GIVE man free will…you do not understand God, and that is a problem common among atheists; that is, you have the same metaphysically irrational ideas of Him that the Calvinists do. If God gives man free will, then the will is not from man, it is, by definition, from God. It is God’s will, not man’s. And if it is God’s will, then man does not exist, but he is God, because possession of Creation’s ability to do, be, and act makes Creation God, and nothing more. Therefore free will can only be a product of MAN, not God. Man’s ability to do and will is decidedly NOT of God; rationally speaking. If it is FREE, then it cannot be LIMITED by being created or given to him by God.

    I know this will draw hoots and cat calls from many Christians, but it is the truth. In this sense, though, Fendrel, you are right. If God did indeed CREATE man’s “free will”, then man’s will is really God’s will, and God is culpable for sin.

  287. Fendrel wrote:

    God’s omniscience places him in a precarious situation in terms of theodicy. If I knew, for example, that if my wife ever learned to use a gun she would kill our neighbor whom she hates…and on her next birthday I bought her a gun….even though she made the decision to go kill our neighbor with it, am I not also responsible..since I knew what the outcome would be and yet bought her the gun anyway? I think any reasonable person would agree that both I and my wife are responsible for that death. Then how is God, who knew us far better than I knew my wife, not responsible for the sin that flowed from us being given free will, when He knew that we would misuse it in order to sin, yet gave it to us anyway. If I share the blame in my neighbor’s death..surely God must share the blame in humanities sin…and therefore…He is as sinful as we are.

    God by definition cannot sin. We alone are guilty for our sins.

    As expected, this theodicy argument has already been answered by Romans 9:20-24.

  288. Fendrel wrote:

    First…Atheists do not hate God…

    God (and His Word) know atheists (and all people) better than they know themselves. The natural man is at enmity with God (Romans 8:7). Atheists are simply more open about it.

  289. Fendrel wrote:

    He very well may exist. There isn’t any evidence either way

    There is plenty of evidence, from both nature and history, for example. For the natural evidence, visit Dr. Hugh Ross’ Reasons to Believe, which is on TWW’s blogroll.

    The historical claims of the New Testament are very specific, and there were many witnesses to confirm or deny them in the first century. If the events (both natural and supernatural) had not occurred as the NT describes, the NT would have been easily falsified in the first century and Christianity would never have gotten off the ground.

  290. @ Nicholas:

    Nicholas, I apologize..you are correct the command for breaking that particular law of God as mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, is not specified directly. Let me offer a better example .. stoning for adultery…moral?

    Argo…

    I disagree…in what way did God create us “in his image” if not by giving free will. Secondly, while I cannot know 100% what my wife will do…I certainly can predict some actions with relative certainty. Anyone who’d been married for a length of time can pretty well predict that certain action will evoke the wrath of their spouse!

    God is in worse position because of His omniscience…where I only can be reasonably certain…He, by definition, is 100% certain and thus logically must also be responsible for the sin. Trying to define Him out of the problem is circular. We can only understand his nature and personality be observation of his actions…not because someone else tells us what he must be like.

  291. Fendrel wrote:

    Nicholas, I apologize..you are correct the command for breaking that particular law of God as mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, is not specified directly. Let me offer a better example .. stoning for adultery…moral?

    Yes, it was moral and a command from God under the OT economy to stone to death those who committed adultery.

    And under the NT economy, God Moral (as opposed to Civil and Ceremonial) Law hasn’t changed. Such sins are still make one worthy of death (Romans 1:32). But God is saving and bringing to repentance today people guilty of such things (1 Corinthians 6:11). That is why most Christians do not advise secular governments (which the church is not) to require capital punishment for all the crimes for which it was required in OT Israel. Secular governments have the authority to make such decisions (Romans 13:3-4). It remains most logical to execute murderers, however:

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/12/15/mike-huckabee%c2%a0-meet-the-newly-saved-maurice%c2%a0glen-and-wayne%c2%a0/

    This is not to say that God doesn’t bring murderers to genuine repentance.

  292. @ Fendrel:
    Fendrel,

    Well…I have some idea of how He created us which does not violate his metaphysical truth, nor destroy his just commendation or condemnation of action’s which man is culpable for. Nevertheless, you may disagree. That is fine. However, there is no rational way that God can directly “create” free will. As I said, free is an absolute. If it is of God, it cannot be free. You need to find a better metaphysic…it is that simple. You, and us Christians. Otherwise, you are basing your opinions on contradiction.

    Also, “reasonable prediction” is not knowledge. It is prediction. You cannot argue your way around it. It is not circular. The problem is that there is no logical response. It IS impossible to know anything that does not exist, period. If it is NOT yet, then it is NOT. Not even God can foreknow what He has yet to create; thus, I seriously doubt that you or I can.

  293. @ Argo:
    You wrote: “If God did indeed CREATE man’s “free will”, then man’s will is really God’s will, and God is culpable for sin.” Yes, you can see why Calvinists believe the way they do from how Fendrel presents his argument. That is because they are as rational as they can manage to be without giving up the idea of God.

    I don’t think it is generous to say that atheists “love to do this….” I think the better among them merely point out a genuine conundrum at the center of our faith, a conundrum they can’t get past. The issue of free will, like that of a good God who allows evil, causes huge conflict inside the faith too. These things are at the core of human struggle for meaning.

    You write: “If God gives man free will, then the will is not from man, it is, by definition, from God. It is God’s will, not man’s. And if it is God’s will, then man does not exist, but he is God…” I do not see that when a gift is given, it remains owned by the giver, or that when it is used by the receiver, it means that they have become the giver. Perhaps you define “free” more broadly than I do?

    In “People of the Lie” Scott Peck gave a haunting example of evil: a woman had a husband who had committed suicide. This woman also had a son, and on his 21st bday, she baked into his bday cake, the very gun with which the father shot himself. Now, if that son killed himself with that gun, he would be responsible for the act, but that woman would also carry responsibility (in fact, she carried a great deal of it regarding her husband). This is the nature of humanity, that we are defined in relationship as much as in the intact self, and when blame is measured out, it is often proportional. Blame-portioning doesn’t indicate situational ethics. The ethic here is that murder is rotten, and the recognition is that it plays out differently among the actors in specific circumstance.

    Do you often receive hoots and catcalls from Christians? That’s nasty. I hope you don’t think I am rude. I don’t always comprehend and sometimes disagree but find it interesting to go back/forth with you.

  294. @ Patrice:
    How can man accept a gift of “free will” without a will of his own to accept it? Without a will of his own, the same will man accepts with is the same will which is given. That will can only then be, not man’s, but God’s. for that is the only will “in play”. This is a key problem with the current Christian metaphysical construct.

  295. I just want to point out that Fendral here is making the case I’ve been trying to state for a while: Arminianism and Calvinism are not all that different in terms of the problem of evil. I doubt to someone on the outside there is much difference.

    I do understand that Argo has a completely different perspective on trying to answer the problem of evil question, but it is based on ideas that I (and most Christians I know) can’t agree with- one being that God does not have foreknowledge (When I say most Christians disagree, I’m not tryign to put Argo on “the outside” or trying to shame, but to say that I’m in reasonable company for not being able to agree).

    My contention is both the Arminian AND the Calvinist (and all flavors in between) have to chalk God’s goodness and the existence of evil up to a mystery we don’t understand- it’s wrong to assume this is only a problem for the Calvinist.

  296. @ Nicholas:
    Oy, Nicholas, you’ve just lost me. Whatever those texts meant in that ancient time, the only thing we draw from them now is to observe that without love, that is how law occurs. If we believe that Christ restored love to the world (thereby restoring the world to itself), then we also recognize that those awful laws have been superceded. In fact, he made them moot, not because they never existed or because they were not so, but because we now (again) have the ability to live as our originally created selves, not perfectly but capably.

    With his love, Christ rebuild the world. It will be complete only when the new earth is eventually trotted out, but it exists here, now. And therefore, we are not under that wretched law but are free, being (as at the beginning) bound only by the strictures of love.

  297. @ Jeff S:

    It’s nice to have company 🙂

    Actually, I’ve been playing a bit of devil’s advocate, as I actually believe there is no such thing as free will at all .. that we are, in terms of “will” mearly an expression of our own chemical and biological connections and the laws that govern the movement of electricity across synapses. That we have no control at all, and what appears as control, is just that..a perception, nothing more. By analogy, that we are no more than a player piano…faithfully reproducing the notes indicated on the paper of our brains.

    In which case, then God is once again in trouble…for how can one claim that any form of punishment is “just”, when the person being held guilty had no option of behaving any differently than his creator designed him.

  298. Jeff S wrote:

    My contention is both the Arminian AND the Calvinist (and all flavors in between) have to chalk God’s goodness and the existence of evil up to a mystery we don’t understand- it’s wrong to assume this is only a problem for the Calvinist.

    Yes and I would further suggest the mystery doesn’t lie only inside the Christian community but has been a mystery humans have debated throughout cultures and religions.

  299. @ Fendrel:
    I am sympathetic to your argument- as far as my logic and mind can comprehend this problem, I agree with you. Without faith, I would also not believe in free will.

    However, I believe there is more beyond what my finite mind can grasp. I believe that God does give us free will, and how it works is something that I will accept in faith as part of the mystery.

    I am OK accepting some things on faith because I’ve already determined that there is no way of looking at life in which all the mysteries are solved to my satisfaction. As I’ve said before, the atheist view also contains mysteries that I would have to accept on faith, so I’ve just gotten comfortable with not having all of the answers.

  300. @ Fendrel:

    I disagree that there’s little difference between Arminians and Calvinists. I think that spit represents a division at the heart of the debate engaged by all humans. On this thread, Fendrel confesses a viewpoint that falls on the same end as the most stringent of Calvinists. Nicholas falls somewhere on that side too because of his views of law. Argo redefines the nature of God to deal with it. I am for the maximum fun which means that I fall more on the Arminian side. 🙂

    My garden calls.

  301. @ Patrice:
    To be clear, I think there are large differences between Arminians and Calvinists. I just don’t think either one is better at providing an answer to the question of evil.

  302. To all,

    I really enjoy these discussions. I really appreciate the level of civility we are showing each other. I for one have learned a great deal about how to communicate ideas better; without rancor or malice. That is a big step for me in my sanctification.

    A couple of quick things. First, I do not concede that I redefine the “nature” of God; I simply reject Catholic and reformed interpretations of “omnipotence”. I do not view “mystery”, or “being above reason” as necessary components of an all powerful God. I have already declared that I do not consider God as able to function on a different level of metaphysical truth than we can. If it is, His existence becomes contradictory relative to us, and we can really profit nothing by Him. Not to mention that if God is above reason, we as Christians have nothing to offer the world as proof that we have “truth”; for truth must always be rational in this universe. There is not truth beyond rational truth.

    For example, take “foreknowledge”. By OUR OWN reformed, protestant doctrines, we concede that God is eternal, and yet we insist on the idea that God can know something which, BY DEFINITION, must be OUTSIDE of Him in order to be foreknown. This contradicts “eternal”. If God is eternal, there can be NO where or when which exists as a “not yet” OUTSIDE of Him. If that is the case, there can be no future for God to know…because the future must exist outside of Him; but we already reject this idea because we concede He is eternal. I really struggle to understand just why people will not concede me this point. There is no rational alternative. If we concede God can for know events which have not yet happened, we concede He is not in fact eternal. If we concede He is eternal, then we must concede that there is not such thing as a future to Him. With no future to God, there is nothing to “foreknow”. “Fore” means, BEfore. A function of time, and time is meaningless to God. My view hardly runs contrary to orthodox views of God’s eternal nature. If anything, my view is MORE consistent with common orthodox views of God’s nature.

    I reject that our beliefs must be rooted in mystery. That is mysticism, not the faith that I know. The only reason we concede mystery is because we need a better metaphysical construct to define our beliefs. One which is above rational argument; which cannot be refuted either philosophically or scientifically. IF we have the right God, the must be a way to consistently explain His truth. Again, there IS NOT TRUTH that is not rational truth in THIS universe.

    Finally, Fendrel. The argument that we are merely determined reactions to some hidden/unseen laws of chemistry, biology and physics is a belief which is utterly untenable. For several reasons, but the most salient one is that, if this is true, then by your own definition you cannot possibly believe anything at all. You cannot hold an opinion of what is true because you cannot have an opinion. There is no YOU to think or believe. YOU are merely a determined function of some “law” that you cannot possibly be aware of. Your very life and the reality by which you judge laws of nature is merely an illusion. You are a non-entity, entity.

    That was long. Sorry.

  303. @ Nicholas:

    Yes, that is quite correct. But the problem I have with my own philosophy, is..like much of science, based on what I currently accept as being true in the realm of science, biology and the like. There is no guarantee that in the long run we won’t learn more which may necessitate a change in what I currently accept as true.

    That said, I choose to act in a manner that is consistent with having free will, if only because, if I am correct…I have no choice in doing so. 🙂

  304. @ Argo:

    FWIW, I really do my best not to mischaracterize your position- to be honest I really just don’t understand it, and it’s not for lack of trying. I’m not saying the fault is with your ability to communicate- but there are just too many assumptions/observations about the way the world works that I’d have to reject in order to even start to agree with you- it’s too much for me.

    And yes, I DO believe in mysteries. In fact, most of the way creation works is a mystery to me. I don’t think a mystery is something that is contradictory, just something that I don’t yet understand. There are tons of apparently contradictory things that we observe all the time that we’ve found explinations for, so I’m comfortble not being able to explain everything.

  305. @ Jeff S:

    And that is exactly what God most likely is .. nothing more than an attempt by humans to provide an explanation for what they don’t understand…nothing more. He gets smaller by the moment 🙂

  306. Patrice wrote:

    Nicholas, vile hatreds have been spawned in every corner where humans have existed. It is no respecter of ideology. Why? Because that frickin’ line of evil runs through every human heart.

    Nicholas wrote:

    This is true, and that is due to original sin and the fallen nature of humanity.

    In my view, humans are also born with a divine nature, which one we choose to cultivate, is entirely our own affair. In my own Native American spirituality, there is the parable of the two wolves fighting within each of us. One is kind and good and the other is… well,… you get he picture. Which one wins? The one you feed.

    In that regard I guess I can be called a Pelagian, indeed in some circles I am considered both heretic and anathema.

  307. @ Jeff S:

    JeffS,

    I’m sorry. I don’t understand your perspective any more than you understand mine, I suppose. I mean, how do you define eternal? Do we have different understandings of the word? If God is eternal, then where in relation to Him is the future He knows? I mean, unless we are defining eternal differently, I cannot understand how this is so incomprehensible. If God is everywhere, does not this include the future? And if He is there, then to Him, it isn’t the future.

    Really…I’m not being passive aggressive. I really don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp.

  308. @ Argo:
    I know you are not being passive agressive. As for “why” I can’t grasp it, who knows. Maybe I’m not intelligent enough, maybe I have too much invested in my own ideas, or maybe you are wrong. There are lots of possibilities.

  309. @ Jeff S:
    Well, yes. Fair enough. I accept that. But if I am wrong I wish somebody could explain how and WHY I’m wrong without appealing to “mystery”; without having to accept that the answers to my questions are merely euphemisms for shrugs. If it is a mystery, what makes mystery reasonable? How can Gods truth rest upon a shrugging pair of shoulders? It seems to me that having truth is directly proportional with how comfortable one is with the idea that there is really no such thing.

    Peace out. Uncle.

  310. Argo wrote:

    I love Pelagius. I feel like I’m in good company with you.

    This is one of the reasons why I love TWW. It’s like Al-Andalus of old (before the inquisition took over). We are a community of believers, non-believers, and free thinkers on both sides of the aisle We value our humanity and realize what’s important, namely that we laugh the same laughs, bleed the same blood, and cry the same tears. Long live TWW!

  311. @ Argo:

    Just as you say, Argo, God isn’t confined to time and space but we are. Doesn’t it make sense that God interacts with man where man exists — within time and space? I don’t understand why man should be able to comprehend “entirely” how God funtions. And if we don’t, or can’t, are we then somehow blaspheming God? I am limited. God is not. How can I expect to comprehend “everything” about God, try though I may? I’m not shrugging or asking someone else to appeal to a mystery. At times, me, myself, and I are simply mystified at the functionings of God.

  312. @ Nicholas:
    Nicholas, I read through your links. It is the theology on which I was raised. It tends to forget that the original world was centered on a grand relationship between God and His/Her creation. Instead, it focuses on the law,, seeing it as the perfect but unattainable goal. But when sin entered, it was the relationship that became unattainable, which the law only pointed out, and it is that relationship which has been restored, not completely but more profoundly than Steven et al understand.

    “Not yet made whole” doesn’t mean continued and total brokenness. Restoration has commenced. The Holy Spirit doesn’t take over my denied self in order that good can occur in/through my life. He/She comes alongside, supporting and clarifying my troubles/joys as I slowly mature, in shaky awe, back to Eden, towards the new earth ahead. In all this, the law fades, not gone but made impotent in my life.

    One person in Steven’s comments, Larry–KY, snarked about the “victorious life”, but I felt sad when he wrote: “It does not recognize that when I “do good”, I’m sinning as much if not more than when I do evil.”

    If this man truly believed this, he’d stop living. He tries to be faithful, though, and turns his life into a virtue of hopelessness so as to manage the unbearable burden of the law. In this way, abject failure can be turned into a perverse arrogance.

    Steven writes, “What Do We Do? Nothing. Anything we try to do is a sin. Why? When we try to add to our salvation, we are rejecting the complete work of Christ on the Cross…”

    Why does Steven think that when we act, we are trying to add to salvation? It is certainly not true for me. I suspect that Steven is stopped at the cross, still focusing on that work-now-done, still under the law, and seeing no other relationship with God until the new earth comes. And I suspect he is paralyzed by over-fastidiousness. When a person stays under the law, every action is another opportunity for mistakes and condemnation. Distress!

    The crux is that law has been made impotent and it recedes in importance as we live ever more freely in love. It is not so much “the victorious life” that I live as a deepening companionship with God. In that kind of relationship, what need is there for laws? I am loved and I love and that becomes my governor.

  313. Argo wrote:

    I do not concede that I redefine the “nature” of God; I simply reject Catholic and reformed interpretations of “omnipotence”. I do not view “mystery”, or “being above reason” as necessary components of an all powerful God.

    Ok, yes, I see what you mean. I do not understand your reasoning, but I would like to. I hope you will continue to bat away with us over time, finding different words to explain what it is you are getting at. You don’t think in usual patterns and so it is more work to get it across and also harder for us to grasp.

    Your thoughts seem to me a blend of libertarianism, Platonism, and empiricism, yet you believe in an all-powerful god. That’s confusing to me. So I have a couple of questions.
    1. What do you think God is like?
    2. Do you understand eternal to be unchanging as well as having no end, or without both beginning and end?
    3. Do you understand freedom to be a state without any confines, complete exemption? What is the relationship of freedom to chaos?

  314. @ Jeff S:
    Yes, neither are satisfactory which is why the debate rages on, I suppose. I prefer one over the other because of my personality, which feels more comfortable in openness, in that which provides most latitude for omni-directional movement lol

  315. @ Patrice:

    I think you have misunderstood. Those who are in Christ are not under the burden of the Law. The primary purpose of the Law is simply to show us our sin and our need for the Saviour, Jesus Christ. That is what the Apostle Paul means when he says “the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive.”

  316. @ Patrice:

    Well, it is an uphill battle for anyone interested in challenging 2000 years of Augustinian/Platonic interpretations of the faith. My situation is not unique. I count myself lucky though, and I mean this in all seriousness: I can’t imagine a worse struggle than to attempt to defend the abused and the tyrannized while at the same time conceding the very root doctrines that drive the abuse. That is my deep-set feeling, and I mean no disrespect. I know that I’ve had little success in convincing people that ecclesiastical “leadership” acts in SERVICE to its theological assumptions, not contrary to them. That is a massive failure on my part.

    All powerful, God, you say? Hmm…yes, but I think we just assume that if God is all powerful, then He is utterly beyond the realm of human reason; meaning, there is no such thing as truth because the very foundations of truth which we understand as humans are an anathema to God, apparently.

    My contention is that God and man cannot have a different metaphysical reality without God being utterly outside man’s empirical and rational existence. In short, if He is above objective reason, because to God there is not such thing, then there is no TRUTH to Him. In other words, He must be a function of our reality, because if there is a separate human reality and a divine reality, then they can only be mutually exclusive. What is true in one IS NOT true in the other. This mutual exclusion we tend to call “mystery”.

    Of course, this makes any rational argument against abuse in the church impossible because we have conceded that the very way we define “abuse” is, ultimately meaningless, since we have conceded that “man’s truth is not God’s truth”. Ultimately, by jettisoning reason and consistent metaphysics in favor of mystic interpretations of God as “mystery”, the arguments about what constitutes abuse is merely a matter of opinion. If SGM Ministries says they did not abuse, no amount of evidence to the contrary is admissible by our own standards. Evidence is subjective, because evidence is dependent on a foundation of reason. If reason is wholly unreasonable because “who are you O man, to talk back to God?” then we are left to concede that covering up the rape of a child is good and condemnation of your pastors “in the stead” is evil. Evil and Good are meaningless if God’s metaphysical reality is utterly different from ours.

    Our appeals to “God is a mystery” is precisely the kind of thinking that fuels the abuse. If we cannot rationally defend our moral standards, then who are we to judge?

    The answer: hypocrites

    And this is the hard truth that “good Christians” do not want to hear and reformed Christians will NEVER concede.

  317. @ Argo:
    I confess I have difficulty following your reasoning at times… which is ok, because I suspect that people have a similar time with mine. 🙂

    Do me a favor, if you’re so inclined. State for me, your basis for the most basic of beliefs…namely that some type of supreme being exists. Let’s not delve into God’s properties quite yet. I am just curious what fuels your belief in any type of supreme being.

  318. Nicholas wrote:

    Those who are in Christ are not under the burden of the Law.

    Nicholas, I agree with this, and thought I said so with baroque bells&whistles because Steven is saying more (or is it less?) than that. He has not yet emancipated.

  319. Argo wrote:

    God and man cannot have a different metaphysical reality without God being utterly outside man’s empirical and rational existence.

    So how was God able to make this world? I make a painting and pour my understanding and skill into it, but I do not exist solely as that painting. What is in it is in me (tho’ not specifically the paint/canvas) and we exist under the same principles, but my existence is much more than the painting’s. Similarly, God the Artist is much more than what I, His/Her art piece, can obtain or understand. While I may not understand all that God is, I can be sure that the same principles apply and that whatever the Artist does inside His/Her artpiece, it will be from within those principles. What do you think of my use of that metaphor?

    Or take time/space, in which we exist but understand only partially. Our lack of full comprehension is simply because we’ve not yet worked it all out. Is it similar to our incomplete understanding of God?

    This begs the question of sin. I see it as brokenness, merely derivative, a failure of “what is”. In this way, I agree that it is also within the parameters of reason.

    I sense that your thought is driven by the horrors of a gigantic capricious god, a kind of ultimate sociopath who plans abuse, torture, and death for his small creatures, and who additionally demands that those creatures constantly tell him he is glorious. I have that horror.

    To excuse abuse or make it moot by saying that “man’s truth is not God’s truth” is plain evil. We may agree on this: that God is ethically limited in the same way we are. I would say that He/She isn’t limited so much as it is God’s character to love, and He/She would never want to go outside the ethics that promote/maintain all things in wholeness. I have found, in my time spent with God, that He/She is completely reliable in this way.

    “That is a massive failure on my part.”
    Self-flagellation is no fun and I do not recommend it. 🙂

  320. Fendrel wrote:

    Funny when I found this .. but it sooo seems to sum things up regarding creationism that I wanted to share it.

    I agree this is funny but sadly, all too true from the YEC community. I’d like to recall a conversation we had some months ago in: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/11/08/is-the-sovereign-grace-ministries-pyramid-collapsing/ in particular an exchange of comments starting at 3:20P on Nov 11, 2012. They are relevent to the present discussion and you have still not adequately addressed them.

  321. @ Patrice: Thank you for stating the whole “creative” thing so clearly, Patrice – I’m with you on that.

    It’s similar to having children, I’m thinking… they have the parents’ DNA, and some inherited traits, but they are individuals, and not an inseparable, intrinsic part of their parents.

    I think any creative process, whether natural (biological, chemical – whatever) or that of individuals acting with intention (from beavers building dams to humans making cloth or houses or writing books) means that something new comes into being.

    Just my rambling thoughts…

    Argo – I’ll ‘fess up to having difficulty following your reasoning at times, which might just be me, or might be that you and I start from very different premises, or… ??? In any case, I’ll second Fendrel’s request for more info.

    Cool? 🙂

  322. Patrice wrote:

    I sense that your thought is driven by the horrors of a gigantic capricious god, a kind of ultimate sociopath who plans abuse, torture, and death for his small creatures, and who additionally demands that those creatures constantly tell him he is glorious. I have that horror.

    You are not alone Patrice. I used to sign on to this view with no questions asked because I believed what others have said, and who also assured me that this is what Holy Writ teaches. Over the last decade or so and after doing my own homework on the subject, I no longer come up with the same conclusions they do. I now reject large swaths of Western/Augustinian theology and am now in the process of crafting my own theology.

  323. @ Fendrel:

    My philosophy rests on this assumption: that there is no thing which exists, either theoretical nor physical, which is not a derivation of the PHYSICAL universe (and yes, you would be right to assume that I believe God is a physical being). For example, I would deny claims that “laws precede objects”; or ideas like “laws of physics which govern”; I think that is putting the cart before the horse. Laws are descriptive and predictive. But theoretical laws are not causal.

    Therefore, I believe that all that we see manifest in our reality today is inherent in the most primordial of particles; the end of all physical reality in whatever particle form we want to recognized–discovered or as yet undiscovered–has inherent within it a form of whatever IS now. For whatever IS not can only be a direct manifestation of what is ALREADY present in the most “basic” form.

    This brings us to consciousness. You can see where I’m going. You cannot derive consciousness from unconsciousness anymore than you can get physical matter from nothing–most obviously because consciousness IS inexorably a function of physical matter (i.e. your brain). If we are conscious now, we must have evolved from consciousness. That is my premise for God. I don’t care how many particles you stack together, you do not get consciousness if it is not already inherent in the building blocks. You don’t get a body without mass, and you don’t get a mind without thought. The ABILITY to BE CONSCIOUS must be inherent in the particle blocks of the physical reality.

    Put simply, the only way to deny God is to deny your own ability to think; which means you are forced to deny that you exist because, by definition, there is no YOU by which you can see, know, or believe anything. There is no proof of you that you can offer…for consciousness is how you know, well…anything.

  324. @ Patrice:

    Capricious is a good word for the god of the Calvinists. The only plumb line for truth is pain in that peculiar theology. It is merely a form of gnostic dualism…man (flesh)bad/God good. This of course generates the very epitome of moral relativism, for there is no separation between goodness and badness if they are both fundamental absolutes which derive their meaning solely from themselves. This is a hard concept, I know…but the point is that man is as EVIL as God is GOOD; and this is a metaphysical concept which makes it impossible to define which is “better”, per se; GOOD and EVIL are their own ends, neither can be defined according to a third party standard…you see? For none exists (remember the ONLY construct is: God (and his overlords-in-the-stead) is GOOD, and YOU are EVIL…period; so the only real determination of which is “better” belongs to whomever has the most FORCE; and this is why tyranny, abuse, lording, and oppression are inherent in reformed theology; violence and intimidation is the only REAL source of “good” or “rightness”. And this being the case, you can see just why the church “authority” are so capricious. They can and will do ANYTHING to secure their power, which, again, can be the only objective standard for their authority. They cannot appeal to truth because by definition, it is impossible to objectively define (there is no third party standard by which to know it). Truth is merely whatever they say or need to say to secure their power over the barbarian masses; which of course is their Divine mandate (they could KILL you in the old days based on capricious judgements; this is why Calvinism is a culture of death). They are the gnostic divines (the good) and you are the totally depraved (the evil). Good is whatever they say it is, and it can and does change from day to day. Truly, these are dangerous men; it is impossible for them to love human beings. In the gnostic dichotomy, humans are the problem. Their very EXISTENCE is what is sin about humans.

    It is an evil theology.

  325. @ Argo:
    But see, the problem with Calvinists is that they will never concede this truth. That human existence is the root of evil, and thus, destroying humans is the apogee of “good”. They always equivocate, willing to concede that their ideas are perhaps contradictory because–all together now–God is a mystery, and who are you o man, and God’s ways are not my ways, and but for the grace of God go I, and the bible is infallible and that’s the end of it and whatever other prooftext or witty ism; but they will never, ever concede that the doctrine means what it says; that what Calvin wrote and Luther wrote are actually what they mean.

  326. Argo: While not yet completely understanding, from what I can tell, I agree that we derive all we know from the world in which we live, that the world is a place of comprehensible order under its lively chaos, and that we understand goodness because of it.

    But I will disagree that a god must bound by the principles of the known universe in order that he/she be either good or god. My reasons come from the left field and are not a debate-response to your proposals. It’s simply that I love creative imagination so very much. I’ve learned as much as I can about “what is” and then have gone speculating on “what if” in a continual looping spiral, things falling off the sides as I go.

    This is how I’ve lived from early childhood because of abuse (dissociation and stories). In order for me to enter the meticulous world that you are setting up, I would need to give that up and I simply can’t. It’s the reason I can be happy in my current very narrow life. It’s been my saving grace, showing me a wild god who governs by love and laughter. There’s no sociopathic god in my world because I understand better the reality of this world and have come to see that such a creature is actually small and impotent, a sniveling monster living under a lonely bridge.

    I suspect we’ve taken opposite tactics against systemic abuse. You are carefully building a system out of the pieces that you know, that you can touch/see as reliable. I think that is honorable and that it can be a cool way to live. And like mine at the opposite end of the spectrum, it has inherent weaknesses that need to be understood and shored up. I hope there are people in your life (here and elsewhere), who think more as you do and who can help you hone your ideas into ever-increasing clarity.

  327. @ Argo:

    You sound more and more like Deepak, every time I read one of your posts 🙂

    you said, “Finally, Fendrel. The argument that we are merely determined reactions to some hidden/unseen laws of chemistry, biology and physics is a belief which is utterly untenable. For several reasons, but the most salient one is that, if this is true, then by your own definition you cannot possibly believe anything at all. You cannot hold an opinion of what is true because you cannot have an opinion. There is no YOU to think or believe. YOU are merely a determined function of some “law” that you cannot possibly be aware of. Your very life and the reality by which you judge laws of nature is merely an illusion. You are a non-entity, entity.”

    This is exactly what I do not understand about your “reasoning”. Just because you can’t deal with a conclusion does not mean it’s not the way that the universe exists. Show me some concrete evidence that it is something else, and I’ll be persuaded, but just by saying “it couldn’t be” doesn’t get you anywhere.

    Secondly, you mention earlier that you believe that everything that exists…must exist in the smallest particles of the universe (if my paraphrase is inaccurate, please correct me). If that were true..then you leave no room for emergent properties. Properties which are the result of a combination of things but that do not exists in any one of the things individually. A simple example might be fire … “fire” doesn’t exist in a piece of paper, nor in oxygen, nor in heat for that matter .. but it is no less real.

  328. @ Fendrel:

    Fendrel,

    And you are starting to sound more like a fundamentalist baptist preacher every time I read your posts. You expect me to accept your premises simply because you believe them by faith. I have no problem with conclusions that are rational and logically consistent. Yours are not. You have yet to offer a rational premise for your atheism. The closest you’ve gotten is “we are all just predetermined biological reactions”. And for the third time (you have yet to answer me on this) all this does is cede the fact that BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION you can’t possibly know anything; so any opinion you have is contradicted before it leaves your brain. If this is your perspective, it is useless for you to debate. Again, you can’t possibly know anything if YOU don’t really exist. You can’t even THINK you exist because even your thinking is merely the manifestation of some predetermined act. And this predetermined act is what? You cannot define it. You cannot point to a beginning of “determined acts” and say “there it is!”…so you admit that by definition there is no “where” you can possibly exist. Your existence is a functional value of 0.

    Yes, you have misrepresented my point entirely. My point is that you don’t get something from nothing. By definition this is not logically possible. All that IS is a function of the inherent ability of whatever exists in primordial state to become that. You do not get a wholly separate entity from two or more objects interacting. Emergent properties I accept; but those properties are always a quantifiable derivative of the objects which produces them.

    Your example of fire is perfect. Fire is not a measurable THING itself…it’s like spacetime. If you cannot quantify the thing wholly apart from the objects which generate it, then it is NOT its own thing, but merely an extension of that which produces it. Fire does not exist in a vacuum; ergo, it is NOT its own actual object. Consciousness does not exist in a vacuum; you said it yourself: it is a property which emerges. Emerges from where, Fendrel? According to your “reasoning”, I’m supposed to accept that it exists in a vacuum…that it pops into existence out of LITERALLY nothing. And you have the temerity to the question the logic of YECers? Again, you sound more fundamentalist every time you post. As someone else said, you are an evangelist for atheism.

    Again, the reasoning is simple: you don’t get something from nothing.

  329. Answer the question, Fendrel. If your thoughts are just biological reactions which are predetermined (by what?) to do whatever it is they do, then who are you? How do you know anything you think you know? On what concrete “truth” do you base your opinions that are not mere extensions of a predetermined biological reaction in your brain? Apparently it is observable; but observable to who, exactly? To you?

    Well…who are you?

    If you have no answer for this, it is irrational for you to continue this discussion; and more so, you make insane anyone who speaks with you. It is insane to talk to walls.

  330. @ Patrice:
    You are a light and a joy. I would much rather you be joyful and happy and as sweet as you are than for you to agree with me. Of course, I cannot concede that my ideas are mutually exclusive to joy and happiness! LOL

    Anyway, please keep posting on TWW. Love what you have to say!

  331. @ Argo:

    Argo, Argo .. I have answered you multiple times, and I have also addressed why I believe that introducing a god into a person’s understanding of the universe is not only not necessary but also not rational and in fact is counter productive to our understanding of the universe.

    I have also addressed why I think that faith does have value, I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Lastly, there is no empirical evidence which supports any other method for what we perceive as consciousness other than the physical operation of our brains (electro-chemical) combined with physical connectivity. Certainly not for any spirits, ghosts, or goblins. While I agree with you, that such a position leaves all of us…as mere robots, or as I like to think of it, like a biological player pianos…and that isn’t a pleasant thought…in the absence of evidence to the contrary … what choice is there but to accept it … other than self-imposed delusion.

    Now, that said, I still behave as if it’s not true…how else could I behave? Such are the ironies of life.

  332. @ Argo:

    One added thought. I would like to believe that I have free will as much as the next person. I want to believe that my life is the result of the sum of the decisions I have made, both good and bad. I simply do not see any evidence to support the idea of free will and thus I must reject the concept.

    I would gladly change my position if someone could provide me empirical evidence of some other method for free choice to exist, but I do not see how that’s possible in a brain where every single thought which occurs is the result of a biochemical-electrical action. In other words, I see no way for a “choice” to happen independently of an electrical impulse which is outside of our control…there is no machine outside of the machine.

  333. @ Fendrel:
    Here’s the thing- you do not behave rationally according to what you actually believe. You admit this. It seems to me this is a tacit acknowledgment that there is a part of you that hasn’t quite made sense of everything. There’s a part of you that at least hopes that your ideas are wrong- your behavior not aligning with your beliefs indicates this hope.

    I think we ALL struggle with these things (ok, all except Argo because he has it all worked out! 😉 )- there are areas where we act based on hope rather than what we understand. In my mind, these are the mysteries of faith. You may describe these struggles differently, but I think we are not so different.

    For me, when faced with irrelevance due to pre-programming, I choose instead to believe that I AM relevant and there is a God who has made it happen, even if I don’t understand how he has. But it is not an arbitarary choice- I believe that God must exist for anything to exist (the uncaused cause) and I believe through experience and study that the Bible is generally reliable enough for me to trust it regarding who Jesus is and what he did for me.

  334. @ Fendrel:
    Yep, as long as you remain exclusive to the empirical, your perspective will only be able to grow as it does. And it does grow, so who knows where it might eventually lead? It’s awfully slow, though, and requires a severe faith. I think it’s needlessly severe, but then, I would.

    Your view carries fewer obvious contradictions than mine, but the ones it carries are more profound (perhaps partly because I allow for them?). Take for eg, your desire for free will. You allow it no import and thus negate an existing aspect of self. Yet you can’t deny all (equally as intangible and existing) aspects of yourself or you wouldn’t be able to wander through life as you do.

    Keeping multiple overlapping tales running at the same time makes me sloppy. But it’s also likely why I don’t mind when some of the stories collapse from incapacity.

    I hope that you enjoy the process, the daily getting-on, and that it remains awash in affectionate humor. If you do, I am confident that your ideas will lead you where you need to go.

  335. JeffS,

    Man…you guys are brutal LOL! 🙂

    It isn’t a matter of having all the answers; all I’m saying is that our metaphysics can in fact be rationally consistent and not based on ideas that we know cannot logically be true. We understand, for example, that a thing cannot contradict itself by its very existence (meaning, because it is, it is NOT). This is why I deny Fendrel’s argument. At his root, he is saying that his very existence as a biological set of predetermined actions PROVES that HE really doesn’t exist (meaning, his awareness of self is an illusion). As you so brilliantly pointed out, He, like many Christians, functions from the same metaphysically impossible idea that you can both be and NOT BE at the same time. This is precisely the argument the “predestination” and “election” crowd have. They say that somehow everything you do is preplanned, and yet, at the same time, you are still justly culpable for your sin..in other words, there is a YOU somewhere in a metaphysic where God controls EVERYTHING (sovereign grace). This is impossible and this is the irony I’m hoping Fendrel will see. His metaphysic is exactly the same, the only difference is that its not God, it’s “natural law”, or whatever. It is still some unknowable force that demands that he be HIMSELF, while at the same time, be nothing more than a functional extension of that “force”. I don’t mind atheism, really…its a free country. But don’t concede the same metaphysically impossible premise and call it a better idea.

  336. But the problem goes both ways. I actually understand Fendrel’s frustration, because Christians, even more than atheists, are masters at arguing from inconsistent ideas and calling it truth. THEY keep saying HE’S wrong while at the same time ceding HIS exact same premise. The way I see it, the whole debate between atheists and those of faith could be put to rest if one or the other would just adopt some kind of rational set of foundational ideas. If they actually made logical sense at their root, then we could declare a winner somewhere in here and move on.

  337. Argo wrote:

    Of course, I cannot concede that my ideas are mutually exclusive to joy and happiness! LOL

    It would be a dreadful place if there was only one way to delight. Half the fun is discovering how many places it is found. 🙂

  338. @ Argo:

    Argo, a winner has already been declared…I’m just waiting on a concession speech from the other side. 🙂

    @ Patrice:

    What faith does it require? How does it require faith to say that it is more rational to not make any assumptions in the absence of evidence than it is to invent something for which there is no evidence simply to satisfy one’s need for control or desire to understand?

    As an atheist the ONLY thing I am saying is that it is more rational to go where the evidence points, however disconcerting that place may be, then it is to invent something simply to satisfy your desire for having an answer.

    Maybe God does exists…but until there is empirical evidence to support that idea, pretending it is true, in the same sense that we know the earth to be round, and encouraging others to do the same, is irrational, an indication of delusion or being intentionally deceitful to yourself and others.

  339. Fendrel wrote:

    Maybe God does exists…but until there is empirical evidence to support that idea,

    At 1:36 P yesterday in this thread I referred to an older comment exchange of ours targeted directly at your claimed lack of empirical evidence for God: the big bang start of the universe with accelerating expansion indicating a cyclical series of universes will not occur. Granted this does not prove the existence of God, but it does indicate your “lack of evidence” is as much an article of faith as we believers make.

  340. @ Argo:
    I do hope you realize I meant that jab in the friendliest way possible.

    If I really thought you were a know-it-all and was calling you out for it, it wouldn’t be a parenthetical statment. 🙂

  341. @ Argo:
    BTW, I agree 100% that something cannot “be and not be” at the same time. That is nonsense. And chalking it up to “mystery” does not make a contradiction work.

    But we are taking about a subject on which there is little information to comprehend: what drives things that happen. Philosophers have debated this in western thought for centuries even outside if the content of a Christian notion of God. The bottom line is, we don’t know how it works, and that is why I go to “mystery”. Not to explain a contradiction, but because I don’t understand it at all. There’s just no information on wht drives the things that happen in the world, or how that driving happens. How does metaphysical will translate into physical actions? No one knows, though lots of people have conjectured.

    In my own limited understanding of the created order of things, I cannot fath how we can possibly have freee will. I just can’t see it or understand it. In fact, I don’t even know what it means to HAVE free will. If I am only responding to the sum of the inputs into my life and whatever I was encoded with at birth, then everything I do is at the mercy of what I’ve been given. There IS no real “Jeff” that drives anything.

    But innately I was born with a sense of self and an idea that there is a “me” that drives things. How this works in opposition to what I can comprehend about the created order of things is beyond me, but I believe it because to not believe it would be to descend into madness. Even Fendral who believes this cannot operate upon it.

    Thus, I have to accept what I cannot understand: that I have free will. This has nothing to do with God, Calvinism, Arminianism, or anything else, I have this conflict and mystery before I even get to those matters.

    So when I see God as soverign and still not violating my free will, it’s because I’ve already figured out that nature of what drives things that happen is beyond me to comprehend. What I CAN do is apprehend what scripture, my logic, and my experience says. And this lines up with what the Westminster Confession says: that God is sovereign but he is not the author of evil nor does he violate the will of man.

  342. @ oldJohnJ:

    Of course it doesn’t and if I remember correctly I did end up trying to comment on that point, but regardless…if science is currently incorrect..wonderful then I have something new to learn (as soon as they learn it and teach it to me!). That’s what science is all about…a continual refining and improving of our knowledge as we acquire more and more information.

    It is NOT a matter of who ends up being correct and who ends up being wrong. It is about the rationality of following the data (or as much of it as you have) versus the irrationality of assuming you have the truth when none of the available data seems to support it.

  343. @ Jeff S:

    I understand and appreciate what you said Jeff. But I think you go one step too far.

    If we do not know something then we shouldn’t be “chalking it up” to anything, nor ascribing it to some mysterious force, and certainly not accepting as true something which, as of yet, has no evidence…it should just remain an “unknown”, something which may, as we learn more, surrender its secrets to us.

  344. @ fendrel:
    My belief in God does NOT come from a place of trying to fill the gaps about what drives action in the universe. It comes from my philosophical understanding of the universe (there must be a cause that was not caused) and my experience of God as well as testing the truth of scripture to the point of agreeing with its general reliability.

    Or to say it differently: I don’t know how things happen, but I DO think the evidence that I’ve seen in my life points to the God of the Bible existing and being who the scripture claims he is.

  345. fendrel wrote:

    It is NOT a matter of who ends up being correct and who ends up being wrong. It is about the rationality of following the data (or as much of it as you have) versus the irrationality of assuming you have the truth when none of the available data seems to support it.

    I completely support this. Given the present state of cosmological knowledge either denying or affirming God’s existence is equally a statement of faith. Either claim is equally rational and we should look to other sources of information and inspiration in drawing our conclusions.

  346. @ Jeff S:

    Not trying to attack…but to explore. Let me ask, if science were to demonstrate that an un-caused cause is possible, would that lessen the certainty of your belief…since you say that it is part of what drives your philosophy?

  347. @ oldJohnJ:

    I almost agree… I would say that either affirming or denying his existence is equally irrational .. since there is no data either way … however, everything we DO understand seems to have a natural explanation. But even without that…the logical thing to assert is that you cannot assert anything…in terms of God.

  348. Fendrel wrote:

    Maybe God does exists…but until there is empirical evidence to support that idea, pretending it is true, in the same sense that we know the earth to be round, and encouraging others to do the same, is irrational, an indication of delusion or being intentionally deceitful to yourself and others.

    Billions of humans do believe in a god of one sort or another, so to insinuate that they all must be pretending, delusional or intentionally deceitful is not empirically plausible.

    In fact, since your insinuations themselves are not measurable, they might be considered non-existent. Yet, there they are.

    You have faith both in the accuracy of empirical evidence and in your ability to grasp it intellectually and draw conclusions based on it. Moreover, because you maintain complete reliance on empirical evidence, you declare that any knowledge or speculation outside of it is absurd and can have no meaning or function. That’s a lot of faith of a particularly severe sort, especially considering that you exist day to day with many assumptions and extrapolations which must be ignored in order to maintain your beliefs.

    A person cannot exist in this world without a measure of faith in one thing or another. It’s just the way it is. So we choose our poison and our position and if we are lucky enough to maintain flexibility in those areas of uncertainty, it need not do any harm and potentially can bring a great deal of good.

    I worked too hard today and am now in a lot of pain (another quantity unmeasured yet keenly known), so I will bow out for the night.

  349. @ Patrice:

    Hope you feel better…get some sleep (and a little wine maybe!)

    I’m not sure where you are getting that first statement from..in fact, that people all over the world believe in some type of god, and those gods are obviously not the same one since their properties are all different makes it even more unlikely that it’s based in realty, unless you are making a case for the existence of a variety of different gods!

    I accept that empirical evidence reflects reality because it can, to the extent that anything can, be tested independently with the same results obtained each time and it can be used to make predictions which can also be tested, but it not faith, not in the biblical sense, where it signifies a belief in the absence of evidence. Which is exactly the point that the writer of Hebrews was trying to make…as well in many other places in the Bible.

    Hope you feel better

  350. @ fendrel:
    No wine in the house, but gin/tonic. Also tramadol, which I’d forgotten to take. Partially recovered.

    You hadn’t delineated a Christian god but the abstract idea of god, so that is what I argued from. And because you presented an abstraction, a pantheon of gods is moot except as a footnote. Nor does it follow that since, in practice, different gods are held, there can be no god at all.

    My central point, here, is that snarkiness towards those who believe in a god (any kind of god), stands outside the principles you espouse. Nor is it consistent with another of your statements, that there is no proof one way or another. If you meant the latter, you wouldn’t feel cranky towards those who do find reasons to believe. I suspect you feel caught betwixt/between and it is no pleasant place. Hence my earlier comment about the severity of your position.

    I recommend that you find a way to include emotions in your system because otherwise they will remain unrecognized and continue to corrupt your results. I had a couple of colleagues who landed somewhere close to you on the philosophical spectrum. They had contempt for psychology, mocking it as non-science blahblahblah. It is indeed a soft science and being “social”, reaches into areas that cannot be subject to the scientific method. For eg, it has to deal with the anecdotal. Yet the field does make headway in knowledge (albeit awfully messily); slowly over time, they putter forward. I recommend you do some study in the field. It will help you see how humans develop knowledge in the intangibles.

    So this thread is getting too long. Maybe we can take stuff up again at some other time.

  351. By definition, The subject of God is metaphysical/philosophical. It would be quite the feat to prove God via empirical science; especially if we are in agreement that He is the Creator of nature. If that’s true, then nature would be “proof” of God by NOT proving the un-natural (metaphysical). I admit I’m struggling with Fendrel’s logic. It’s like asking one to prove they can sew by handing them a brush and a can of paint. You can’t prove or disprove.

    All you can do is show that there is a huge rational cause for accepting that there is a God, and that the same level of metaphysical “faith” is required to deny Him as accept Him. We’ve all done that, and yet Fendrel’s insists that we are deluded. I’m not sure where else to go. I think atheists are just as irrationally committed to their beliefs as fundy Christians are.

    Shrug.

  352. @ Patrice:

    I’m sorry what is it you perceive as snarkiness?

    and what in the world makes you think I have no room for emotions? I’m really not sure where you are getting those ideas…I’m one of the most emotional persons you’ll ever meet .. or darn (ed) close. 🙂

  353. @ Argo:

    Please read carefully, because I think you have misunderstood.

    When I say belief is a delusion, it is because there is no evidence for god, it’s delusional if a person insists that they “know” he exists when there is no empirical evidence. It seems to me without evidence you are stuck with it’s delusional, or it’s an intentional lie meant to deceive, or it’s psychological (wanting to be accepted or part of a larger group maybe).

    Second, ans just as important …and for some reason I seem to need to repeat this over and over…I am not saying, nor have I ever said that God doesn’t exist…ONLY that in the absence of empirical evidence and given the extent that one needs to change their life in face of belief in a God, that it make no logical sense to accept his existence in the absence of evidence. That’s what is delusional…or other possibilities listed above.

    You want to convince me that God is real…provide empirical evidence, if you can’t, either due to it’s absence or because the very definition of God prevents it…that’s fine ….. you want to continue to believe..that’s fine too …although I consider it foolish (my opinion), but when you (Christians) insist that he is real and insist on trying to convince others, and want to enact public policy on the basis of his reality, etc. that’s where I think the line needs to be drawn.

  354. @ fendrel:
    So try not to be rude to Argo. Your words are contradictory and more careful reading will not resolve it. Neither will repeating some of your words over and over.

    Your suppositions for god-belief are insults. Surely, if you really mean there is no info either way re a god, you could also find some benign reasons for people’s beliefs. Listing only moral failures and insanity shows that you do not honestly understand the other perspective, or do not take your feelings into account, or that you lack integrity in this area. Plus, to denigrate an impulse in larger humanity is to use ethical judgment that has little place inside the systems of scientific method.

    No one here says you have to accept that there is a God. I have clearly stated that you can go where you need to go without it, if you remain faithful to what you say you believe. I can say that because *if* you maintain integrity and love, and push away at your particular set of contradictions (we all have them), you will find more than you do at present. How much more? No idea. It’s your path.

    Another thing: to argue from the worst proponents of opposing opinion merely entrenches the debate. There are power-hungry fools everywhere. Thus, to equate those who believe in God with those who want to impose public policy based on an awful form of Christianity (which is actually only another version of the same old fascistic attitude that runs through every people-group throughout human existence) is an insult to those on this site who work their a**es off to expose it for what it is.

    Lastly, you come here to convince people of your system. That is no different than those who would like to convince you that there is a God. When people believe they know big parts of the truth, they will want to convince others of it. It can be tried through condescension and/or force or it can be a gesture of good-will and earnestness. It all depends on motives, doesn’t it?

    So now I’ve responded once more, against better sense. But that’s it. It is a beautiful spring day here. I hope it is where you are too and that you might enjoy it as I will.

  355. @ Patrice:

    What exactly do you perceive as a contradiction?
    When was I ever rude to Argo .. or anyone else on here for that matter.

    I come here because I have friends here and because I enjoy a challenging debates and discussions. I spent 25 years as a Christian so I don’t think it’s unfair to say that I have at least some idea of how many people may think concerning their religion, in particular Christianity. Regarding the repeating of my position, I’m afraid I do find it necessary, especially when it gets repeated incorrectly.

    Let me ask you a question…if there is no empirical evidence for God, if, as I think Argo would agree, there cannot be, by definition of God’s nature…then what do you call the mental state which asserts His existence as fact? Is there any other realm where you wouldn’t criticize or question someone’s judgement who insisted on the truth of something’s existence for which there isn’t any proof?

    Secondly, I would have to question the validity of your statement regarding the number of Christians who want to impose or change public policy based on their faith …I would think that even you would agree that every Christian would like to change public policy based on their particular faith…otherwise, as I think James might agree, what good is it ..isn’t it a dead faith?

    Here’s the rub between public policy and theology. At least in Christianity, a person’t viewpoint regarding morality is driven by their belief that an omniscient God has communicated what is right and wrong via scripture. There is no room for learning or growth or changes based on circumstances. Christians would therefore like to legislate according to biblical mandate, not according to what we may actually know and what we learn in the arenas of psychology, sociology, neuroscience, whatever. By definitions Christians believe they already “know” the truth and thus are impervious to any change which might run contrary to revealed truth, regardless of what the evidence may show.

    I do not begrudge someone the right to have faith…but I do disagree with the idea of translating that “faith” into “fact” when their is no support for doing so.

  356. @ fendrel:

    Hi Fendrel,

    I am not offended by you or your beliefs. I welcome your questions, and your presence here is one reason why TWW is so great. To me, a site like this is precisely the kind of place Christ would approve of. It is messy, visceral, complicated, infuriating and uplifting, yet without rank hatred or disdain…in short, it is so refreshingly HUMAN. 🙂

    I suppose my problem is with what I see as the inconsistent foundation of your argument. You continue to demand empirical evidence, however, by your own metaphysical (and physical) definitions of “yourself”, observation is impossible for you. Anything you would observe must be at best an illusion; for you are a contradiction in terms: an unconscious consciousness. This is the fundamental flaw of your argument.

    Empirical evidence is not what is needed for a belief in God…you are searching for answers in the wrong place. In addition, it is a bit hypocritical to demand “scientific” evidence for God when science can only explain what ALREADY is…it cannot explain how it got there. God is “how it got there” which is precedes science, and that is why metaphysical logic is the best way to make your existential arguments. But your logic, again, is contradicted before it leaves the gate. You need a rational philosophy, and for an atheist ANY philosophy is moot, because there can be NO philosophical meaning which is consistent with their atheism. Therefore, you lack the only real tool which can inform your belief or lack thereof about God. As I said, you accept that consciousness is a lie; or, you accept that consciousness is a derivative of unconsciousness (an “emergent property” of biological/chemical; which makes it wholly “separate” from that which generates it, which…is impossible). Both of these assumptions are rationally untenable.

    And please don’t lump me in with the spiritual tyrants. I’m a libertarian at heart. The only moral truth which I accept as something the government has a right to enforce is that which says an individual’s person, property, and mind cannot be violated. I have NO interest in a theocracy. On the contrary, I’m devoting my life to raging against the the neo-Calvinist Marxist collectivism.

  357. @ Argo:

    Once again Argo..I don’t follow ..let’s try one piece at a time … can you please explain either in more detail .. or maybe in a simpler way (for my benefit) what you mean by this statement you made and what the basis for it is. (btw, I also enjoy our discussions)

    Anything you would observe must be at best an illusion; for you are a contradiction in terms: an unconscious consciousness.

  358. Argo wrote:

    Hi Fendrel,

    I am not offended by you or your beliefs. I welcome your questions, and your presence here is one reason why TWW is so great. To me, a site like this is precisely the kind of place Christ would approve of. It is messy, visceral, complicated, infuriating and uplifting, yet without rank hatred or disdain…in short, it is so refreshingly HUMAN.

    I second the motion, and I also believe it is entirely possible to be a person of faith and a humanist at the same time.

  359. @ Muff Potter:

    Hmmm

    Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually, and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). – wikipedia

    But I appreciate the thought 🙂

  360. @ Argo:

    Surprise: I disagree

    While I freely admit that you can be a Christian and be a good person at the same time without any conflict. I would argue that humanism as a specific philosophy has as one of it’s primary tenants the idea that man is generally good, should be the center of our attention and typically rejects either the existence or at least the importance of the supernatural…I do not see how you can reconcile that with Christianity. Here’s a separate definition from Meriam-Webster to support the one I provided earlier from Wikipedia.

    a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual’s dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

  361. @ Argo:

    Now there is a movement called Humanistic Judaism, but again, it is absent a supernatural component…

    Humanistic Judaism embraces a human-centered philosophy that combines the celebration of Jewish culture and identity with an adherence to humanistic values and ideas. Humanistic Judaism offers a nontheistic alternative in contemporary Jewish life.

    Or from the British Humanist Association:

    Western Europe has a tradition of non-religious ethical thinking that can be traced back some 2,500 years to the philosophy of the Ancient Greeks. This way of understanding the world, of finding meaning in life, and of grounding moral thinking can also be found in China and India and many other cultures. You can trace the movement of humanist ideas through time in the following sections. You can also find out more about a selection of historical figures who have influenced humanist thinking or demonstrated humanist ideals in their lives or writings.

    Or the American Humanist Association, whose logo includes the subtext “Good without a God”.

    So while there may be some use of the word which permits a blending of human and religious philosophies, I would argue that in the most common uses, they are mutually exclusive…humanism trying to offer a non-religious basis for morality and ethics.

  362. @ Fendrel:
    Fendrel wrote:

    @
    So while there may be some use of the word which permits a blending of human and religious philosophies, I would argue that in the most common uses, they are mutually exclusive…humanism trying to offer a non-religious basis for morality and ethics.

    I will concede this.

    I would dispute the assumption that God is “supernatural”. I would not categorize His omnipotence in those terms. Also , I do believe that Christianity is primarily man-centered. The existence of man and his free will is the single most important component of our metaphysics. All revelation is FOR man. No man, no revelation, no Messiah.

    Jesus is The Son of Man.

  363. @ Muff Potter: Yep!

    Fendrel, don’t you think it’s possible for people who believe in a g/God (or gods) or who are religious without necessarily being theistic (Buddhism) *and* things that we learn via neuroscience, etc. etc. etc.?

    Really… so many people in the sciences (both hard and so-called “soft”) are religious people, or at least hold to a philosophy that recognizes someone/something greater than ourselves. I’ve known a few, and could round up books by plenty more.

    The whole “faith vs. science” thing (as if they are contradictory and completely opposed) is a fairly recent development. I spent plenty of time studying Northern European Renaissance art (and beyond) and man! The Dutch, Germans and so many others incorporated all kinds of things from the world of science into their art – like the ability to use magnifying lenses to better see – and paint/draw – the natural world, including that which was previously “invisible” to human eyes without magnifying lenses.

    These folks believed that science better enabled them to explore and understand the world – i.e., that scientific discovery was part and parcel of learning about what most of them believed to be God’s creation.

    That really does not square with recent developments (mostly here in the US) re. faith being opposed to science – and even *that* is confined (mostly) to fundamentalist Protestant circles. I really doubt you’ll find many Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, etc. who are on the “faith vs. science” bandwagon… (Which I know you know; just saying!)

    Oh, what the “culture wars” have wrought… 🙁

  364. Yikes!

    I meant to say that I believe it’s more than possible for people who believe in a deity or deities to fully accept science; even to be scientists themselves.

    I think the supposed “contradictions” that people talk about are largely manufactured, and that by people on both sides of the faith/science divide. (Sometimes for the sole purpose of stirring up attention and selling things, I think… sorry to sound so cynical, but there’s money in it.)

  365. @ Fendrel:Have you studied the roots of humanism in western culture? They’re both philosophical and religious – not one or the other.

  366. Argo wrote:

    lso , I do believe that Christianity is primarily man-centered. The existence of man and his free will is the single most important component of our metaphysics. All revelation is FOR man. No man, no revelation, no Messiah.
    Jesus is The Son of Man.

    Excellent point. It is not interesting that much of “orthodox” history tries to take humans OUT of the equation?

  367. @ Anon 1:
    Yes. They don’t think they do, but putting man outside of himself is (by declaring all he knows, wills or does as rooted in some external “force”, either God or “sin nature”-and even that is just a function of God’s control) is precisely what the philosophy does. Man is somehow supposed to integrate himself (which he cannot do, because he has no will of his own) into the collective conscience of the “local church”, which is really just an extension of the Senior Autocrat (pastor). His primary sin is being an individual. Of course, they never blame God for creating man this way, thus being responsible for the root evil of man: his singular existence. No, in their metaphysic, man accepts all the blame for God’s sovereign control.

    If that isn’t a mind- **** I don’t know what is.

  368. Re the debate on humanism, it depends which sort we are talking about it. Reformers in the immediate period prior to and around the Reformation did not mind being called “humanists”. The word can refer to different types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism.

    Although I disagree with secular humanism as a philosophy, I dislike the way “humanist” (like “liberal”) has become a catch-all phrase of abuse for some people without any understanding of the nuances.

  369. @ Argo:

    And round we go….

    Christianity is certainly not man centered…it is God centered…hence the first commandment. While the story of salvation is about man’s redemption that is clearly not the same as saying that the centrality of Christianity is about man .. it is about obedience to and worship of God. Does an atheist really need to be arguing this point?

    @ numo:

    It’s a fairly recent development because science itself is relatively young and while people can hold on to both a scientific viewpoint of the world and still maintain a religious outlook … I would say that even among those, you would be hard pressed to find too many that hold to that belief and treat it as a fact in the same category as they do a scientific fact. I suspect that it is more of a nice to think about the future that way .. gives you a sense of comfort or maybe control ..helps you through hard times…but they certainly don’t abandon or ignore what they learn about this world in favor of 2000+ year old writings.

    It is exactly that mentality that I am fighting against and trying to make a case that it is not only illogical but harmful. I don’t have a problem with the other…softer belief system that basically treats the stories of the bible as simple stories, lessons if you will, but not hard facts and certainly not treating the supernatural as though it was established fact.

    Sorry if I was long winded..just came in from the rain .. need to go dry off 🙂

  370. @ Fendrel:

    Obedience and worship of God by whom, for whom, and to who’s ultimate need and good?

    Man’s.

    The Bible is set in man’s contextual reality; man’s metaphysical truth is what is at stake; it is first and foremost the story of MAN.

    You are mistaken. It is ironic that you have appealed to the very gnostic ideology which drives you away from religion.

  371. @ Kolya:
    Kolya wrote:

    Although I disagree with secular humanism as a philosophy, I dislike the way “humanist” (like “liberal”) has become a catch-all phrase of abuse for some people without any understanding of the nuances.

    Word, that. I totally agree. Though I despise Marxist ideology, I like many facets of American liberalism. But in the conservative circles I used to run around with there is virtually no difference. That’s annoying.

  372. @ Fendrel:

    Fendrel,

    All I meant by that last sentence in my post to you was that I found it kinda hilarious to see an avowed atheist argue from the standpoint of “it’s all about God”. I love irony, and that struck me funny. I realize that my last sentence was confusing/mean sounding. Sorry about that.

    Also, keep in mind, that atheists and humanists are not the only ones who get to say its not all about God. I think that is Muff’s point/perspective as well.

  373. @ Fendrel:

    In all the operable definitions of humanism that you’ve cited, none of them exclude a belief in a supernatural deity. You’re very right though, generally speaking most present day humanists are indeed atheists. But what happens when we move from the general to the specific? We find people of faith who don’t fit into the general pigeon hole and who also believe we are responsible for our own destinies whether good or bad.

    I have no proof of somewhere over the rainbow, heaven, happy hunting ground, or what have you, and I have never tried to convince anybody of its purported fact. It’s simply what I choose to believe.

  374. @ Muff Potter:

    Did you read them? You don’t think “non-theistic”, Non religious, and “good without God”… preclude the supernatural? Assuming that by supernatural we are referring to God and not unicorns or gnomes?

  375. Kolya wrote:

    I dislike the way “humanist” (like “liberal”) has become a catch-all phrase of abuse for some people without any understanding of the nuances.

    That makes two of us! “Feminism” and “socialism” are much abused, too. I am a socialist-leaning Christian feminist/humanist, pretty much, though what I mean by all of those terms is likely not the same thing as what many others mean by them…

  376. Argo wrote:

    Though I despise Marxist ideology, I like many facets of American liberalism. But in the conservative circles I used to run around with there is virtually no difference. That’s annoying.

    Amen! People really miss this one. Both want to micromanage your life for you. They always know what is best for you.

  377. @ Fendrel:

    …and while people can hold on to both a scientific viewpoint of the world and still maintain a religious outlook … I would say that even among those, you would be hard pressed to find too many that hold to that belief and treat it as a fact in the same category as they do a scientific fact.

    Well sure! I can’t demonstrate the existence – or non-existence – of God (or a god, or many) via the kinds of processes that are used in the hard sciences, and I’m totally OK with that.

    I don’t think that the humanists of the 15th-17th centuries (when humanism was often inextricable from xtian and Jewish faith) would have put the two things in the same category – nor would most people even now. I mean, someone draws your blood and a CBC (or array of other tests) is/are done. The lab results should be an accurate “proof” of what’s going on with who knows what all is being tested for, though there are often variances from lab to lab, and some labs are better/more accurate than others.

    I really think it would be silly to try and “prove” the existence – or non-existence – of God/god/gods in the way you’re talking about, or even grotesque (like the guy who proclaimed that the soul weighs exactly 21 grams, based on weighing human bodies both immediately prior to and immediately after death).

  378. @ numo:

    I agree with you, yet day after day I talk with people who insist God is real in the same sense as the earth orbits the sun. I think it is becoming far and away the norm .. maybe more so in the south, but it is not nearly as uncommon as you might think.

    Even before some of the recent ultra conservative movements … isn’t that the basis of all missionary work .. it’s not a matter of let’s share our philosophy .. its a matter of believe this or suffer an eternity in hell.

    Why is it that as an atheist I have no problem acknowledging the possibility that I might be incorrect and God may exist. While I have rarely encountered any Christian who would admit, with equal conviction, that they also may very well be mistaken and that God in fact might not exist. … Why is that?

  379. fendrel wrote:

    I almost agree… I would say that either affirming or denying his existence is equally irrational .. since there is no data either way … however, everything we DO understand seems to have a natural explanation. But even without that…the logical thing to assert is that you cannot assert anything…in terms of God.

    Well it would hurt my philosophical reasoning, but not my experiential one. Damaging- yes. Fatal, no.

    And I remember you said there was evidence of this before, but it was way beyond anything I understand.

  380. fendrel,

    You insist on empirical evidence- but are there not things you know without empirical evidence?

    In fact, I’d be interested for you to tell me some things you DO know based on empirical evidence.

    As near as I can tell, absolutely EVERYTHING I believe starts out with some assumptions, looks at as much evidence as I can gather, and then tests the theory as I go, making the best of the limited information. I don’t KNOW that I’m not a head in a jar somewhere being fed impulses that make me think I have a body, but my working theory is that what my senses tell me is generally reliable. But that is STILL based in part on experience, not only empirical evidence. I look at what seems most likely and I go with that. In fact, we ALL do- it’s the only way we can function.

    And I think it is far more likely that the Christian God exists than he doesn’t.

  381. @ Fendrel: You might be barking up the wrong tree to some extent, in terms of assumptions that everyone who believes in God/god(s) thinking that their beliefs can be “proven” via scientific research.

    At least, that’s my best guess – and it’s not the same thing (imo) as someone taking the position that God does exist. I believe that God exists, but I don’t believe I am under any obligation to try and “prove” that to the rest of humanity. We’re all free to draw our own conclusion, right?

  382. If any readers of these comments wants more details on the topics I’ve very briefly covered the ASA has announced an upcoming special issue of their journal PSCF. The web page announcing the issue, http://network.asa3.org/?page=physicstheology , contains a “draft” of the invitation essay that is in itself a very nice summary of the boundary between present science and Christian theology. I believe several of the commenters would find the draft article informative.

  383. @ oldJohnJ:

    oldJohnJ,
    Thanks for the link! I liked their four pillars of faith statement, because it allows for a wide latitude of human freedom.

  384. Numo, Argo, I hear you both 🙂

    “Socialism” is another much-abused word – can mean anything (in theory) from European social democracy with free-market elements to Pol Pot’s full-blooded nightmare.

    Likewise “feminism” can be anything from women who don’t want to be abused to full-blown manhaters.

    “Capitalism” – where do you want to choose on the scale between (again) European social democracy powered by free-market taxes and Ayn Rand’s vision?

    This words can be useful shorthand in brief conversation, but they can also be meaningless, superficial and even damaging labels unless used and defined correctly.

  385. @ Kolya:

    Kolya, I hear you, numo and Argo. When words, labels, and appellations are co-opted by individuals and groups as their own, they get to decide proper usage unless objections are raised.

  386. dee wrote:

    Once again, you bring out the comments. 455! You are awesome! 

    Thanks for the compliment. However, I feel it is more the subject than the author. You got large numbers of comments on YEC posts before I discovered TWW.

  387. oldJohnJ wrote:

    If any readers of these comments wants more details on the topics I’ve very briefly covered the ASA has announced an upcoming special issue of their journal PSCF. The web page announcing the issue, http://network.asa3.org/?page=physicstheology , contains a “draft” of the invitation essay that is in itself a very nice summary of the boundary between present science and Christian theology. I believe several of the commenters would find the draft article informative.

    I appreciate the link to the ASA’s page. It was a very good read and I must say that I appreciate the “spanking” they gave to YEC’s including CreationWiki and AIG. I must still wonder though how they would deal with the challenge to their integrity when confronted with a conflict between science and Biblical authority which could not be easily set aside with a softer interpretation of scripture.

  388. An add on thought:

    YEC folks imply that to a greater or lessor extent, there is a conspiracy among mainstream scientists in favor of evolution and common descent and simultaneously an attempt to bury or dismiss evidence for intelligent design.

    Why would they do that? If there was truly evidence that life on this planet were the result of an intelligent designer as opposed to a natural process, it would not imply the same thing to them as it does to a YEC.

    To a scientist, evidence of intelligent design would strongly suggest, if not outright prove that there was intelligent extraterrestrial life somewhere else in the universe. Do you seriously think any mainstream scientist wouldn’t jump all over that evidence if it were actually here?

    We spend billions of dollars on NASA and SETI looking for evidence of life on other planets…if the evidence were right here under our noses, do you really think we’d try and bury it?

  389. @ Fendrel:
    When fact and logic fail, try conspiracy. Seriously, there is a large effort ongoing in an attempt find life in places other than dear old planet Earth. Conclusively showing that life exists outside of our solar system would have a profound intellectual and spiritual impact impact. I’ve started collecting references on SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). If I decide to write a guest post on the subject it will be months before it is ready. (I am in awe of Dee’s and Deb’s ability to produce two good articles each a week.) If someone else feels up to writing on this subject go for it. I’d enjoy reading such an article.