Only for Mark Russell and the curious (Allergy warning, may contain God, prepared in a place where g

Thanks Matt, and may your 'chariot' never puncture, Mark

 

Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the cosmologist shares his thoughts on death, M-theory, human purpose and our chance existence

 

True...

But he also said

whatever

 

Thanks for posting Mark. Would like to hear this presentation in person (if lived in London).

However, there are some fallacies presented of which I don't wish to go into detail now (ironically... "A Brief History of Time" )... except for the following two quotes, of which I can give a personal account on...

As I have already stated... I too am not afraid of death... albeit, also in no hurry to die. However, why stoop to this generalised reasoning on such an important & profound topic such as this? As also stated in the past, I came from the opposite direction to a Creator based persuasion (from the norm); hence, the above assumption doesn't fit with me (& many others).

Don't agree here. For starters, we are not talking about "broken down computers"; we're talking about Human Beings (i.e. we have an imaginative mind - not bits & bytes).

With winter here in Australia, I spend a lot of time in the dark... training (running). My teachings/faith has told me there is no need to be fearful of such trivial matters such as the lack of light (darkness)... & it's true! This is a medieval thought process which has no place in this type of discussion.

Hence, to make the assumptions found in the above two quotes isn't good reasoning... let's hope the presentation contains better reasoning, science & of a less generalised tone. Dr Hawking's views on quantum physics, universe etc... are interesting but the speculative personal views on the metaphysics side of things are better left to a minimum (unless there is an agenda on the issue of God).

In short Dr Hawking - ultimate reality... we will all find the answers one day - that you can be sure of. In the mean time we both have to exercise faith in the search for logical answers which do not violate known principles & laws of the universe. The principles found within "String Theory" --> "M-Theory" or whatever one wants to eventually call it (i.e. "theory of everything") may give you some earlier insight into the profound order evident via an uncaused ultimate causation entity... then once matter & energy is dealt with, we can then look into the issues surrounding the remarkable concept of life (i.e. deemed abiogenesis) & the development/evidence thereof. Here one may then find that one faith based persuasion has more logic/reason than another faith based solely on that of just mere naturalism.

Hmmmm

 

Matthew has anyone ever offered up that you've clearly missed your true calling as an author? One could probably say the same about David & Mark as well!

:drinks

 

Harumph.

 

Thanks David. Yes, a few have said this to me. Haven't taken it seriously as yet.

One example that is somewhat related to this topic, was when a friend heard that Professor Dawkins was contemplating writing a children's book to push across the evolutionary perspective on impressionable young minds (later heard him state it himself in an ABC interview). It was suggested that I write a children's book with an alternative perspective... whilst encouraging children to think for themselves based on the observable (experimental) science/evidence around them. I believe my version has the potential to be far more entertaining, educational & more importantly... far more positive & uplifting.

 

Robert you thenthtive thavage....!

I assure you that your verbal acuity and wit are shoulders above the masses and was only referring to this thread in which you ululate cacophonously such puerile utterances as:

 

A brief history of time has sold over 10 million copies. I guess confidence is a preference to the habitual voyeur of what is known as..... :bash: Neither I nor my six year old daughter can wait to read "evolution is bollocks". "Some people got way too much confidence, baby... baby" Original of the species- U2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlxeT1WO7vg

 

I thought it was pithy...

I had to look ululate up

 

That's fine Robert, I had to look up pithy!

 

Just for the record (in the slight chance that Simon's post was in reference to my input), I do have Hawking's books... "A Brief History of Time" as well as the updated... "A Briefer History of Time" - I enjoyed the ideas he presents & found his metaphysical input far more balanced & considerate as opposed to Dawkins views on the area. I hope I didn’t give the impression (i.e. "confidence") that my possible future endeavours will surpass Hawking's (i.e. "10 million copies").


Now with the above in place... your reference to "confidence" Simon may have now been addressed. However, you may be questioning the "confidence" of my assumption to the potential resultant positive sentiments & subsequent uplifting feelings/impressions acquired from content with a Creator persuasion base as opposed to an evolution persuasion base. I feel the stated views are valid (i.e. more uplifting) as a result of a meaningful intelligent input to the origin of humans. It was only stated in reference to the fact that Professor (although, I think he has now lost this title) / Dr Dawkins has intentions to write a children's book to enforce the 'truth' of evolution at an early age. Probably because he feels that people who don't believe in evolution are in part the result of being "brainwashed as children" (which is a ridiculous view to air). My assumption of the positive sentiments as the result of reading a book with evidence of mankind being purposely designed/created in the general image of a supreme omnipotent being as opposed to the undirected mutation results of molecules to man evolution would have a greater self value impact on a child. On this issue alone, evolution in essence debases human value in comparison.


Revealing to a child the evidence found in observable/experimental type science to then take into consideration whilst studying the workings of plants, animals, people, biosphere & the universe is far more scientifically productive & sound than over emphasizing the speculative views surrounding the historical/forensic type science which make up the crux of the evolution paradigm.


In regard to a recent study based on U.S children's competence in science; the results from the report suggest that students are able to parrot back some aspects of evolutionary information as they are taught it, but they struggle with problems involving critical thinking & application, such as analysing data & drawing scientific conclusions from them (i.e. experimental science). Judging by the results of the study, American students do not need to be taught more evolution, as certain special interest groups (& Dr Dawkins) would have the public believe. The results also strongly suggest that the current education system is not equipping students to foster & practice critical thinking & application in observable, real-world scenarios, leaving a vast majority of them ill-prepared to carry scientific advancement into the future... hence to adequately prepare future scientists, evolution is not the answer.

 

Hmmm. By and large I like what you say Matthew. And I'll state my position early as being a Theistic Evolutionist (heretic to both camps). But I'm afraid I disagree with the above.

What is taught in schools should be the best available scientific models. Now we might argue the toss over ID vs evolution, but the fact is that the vast majority of the people who's job it is to study this field accept evolution as the most plausible and best model. To my mind, therefore, it should be taught as such. People in school do not have the tools to enter into the debate in an intelligent and informed way, thus I think it not appropriate to try!

The fact is that the science of evolution is highly complex and difficult to grasp. The faith of ID is not, and is of a flavour both familier and comfortable to the developing mind. As such a child will always be inclined to take the view which they can fully understand and which requires no study or effort and their part over the view which they can only appreciate a part of and which requires a lot of work to understand fully. The same human principle is why so many people prefer "pronation bad, supination good" to tissue stress. It takes less work to understand.

 

The fact is that the science of evolution is highly complex and difficult to grasp. The faith of ID is not, and is of a flavour both familier and comfortable to the developing mind. As such a child will always be inclined to take the view which they can fully understand

Very well said Robert.

IMO, I found Hawking's statement to be arrogant as well as mean-spirited to those that hinge their very beings on their religious beliefs which includes heaven and an after-life.

On a metaphysical level, I believe the purpose of our brain is to be the master translator in the 3D world that we live in (4D when we include time). Yet, does our consciousness, our awareness, limited to only our brain? It is my own belief system, that our awareness continues without our body and brain and that we can never come to understand the ineffable, the Divine, through the limited boundaries of our intellect but only through our heart and soul.

I would also say that for something to evolve, it must first be created. What is created initially is not the final product but the first step of many as it evolves.

Steven

 

Moreover, fostering the ability to think critically and analyse in a school-room is related to the teaching and learning methods employed and has little, if anything, to do with the subject matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Really. "Some people got way too much confidence, baby......baby".

I like this quote from Pirsig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig : "When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion Though no-one here is delusional, right?

Alright. Look forward to reading it.

 

I agree, the best available scientific models should be presented... without discrimination... & open to critique. I should state here that I don’t believe religion per se should be taught/or be a part of the science class (dread the thought, as there is another place for it) - which is the concern of many. Students need to understand, analyze, critique, & review in an objective manner the scientific strengths & scientific weaknesses of existing & future scientific theories. If it is accepted that 'evolution is a fact' then data will always be interpreted according to this belief - irrespective of whether there is a valid alternative interpretation. Now, the manner in which Neo Darwinism corrupts/distorts the evidence is bad for science. There needs to be a disturbance in this area because the evidence is being distorted to prop up the one main theory (a failing paradigm) that just does not fit it.


Evolution is the "most plausible model" as it is primarily the only model allowed when that part of science where origins & development are discussed/studied. Just think about it – are there any others allowed?... many other fields of study have competing hypotheses allowed – why not so for the very important topic of origins/development? This is in part the concern I have. Hence this issue is not really about science, if it was, then why scientists from the same fields have conflicting views on this area. I personally know scientists in research who believe in Creation. There are also Zoologists, Geneticists, Geologists, Biochemists, Physicists/Astrophysicists, Immunologists, Biologists/Microbiologists, Anthropologists etc... who believe the Creation model best fits the evidence we see today & the growing evidence to come.


Evidence continues to mount that completely nullifies arguments put forward by the evolution camp (particularly in the last 10 years) i.e. fossil preservation/dating, petrification rates, bacteria resistance/function, Galaxy Models, symbiotic relationships, genome characteristics/sequencing, pseudogenes etc... On the issue of pseudogenes, historically deemed “junk DNA” (failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes), evidence has been accumulating that the "broken" bits of genes were nonetheless processed & used as regulatory features in the cell. "In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation" (Pink, R. C. et al. 2011. Pseudogenes: Pseudo-functional or key regulators in health and disease? RNA. 17 (5): 792-798). Hence, "Noncoding RNA" refers to RNA molecules whose data are not used in the production of a protein. Instead, these RNAs are vitally important to regulate such parameters as the timing & duration of DNA, RNA & protein manufacture. It is now clear that "noncoding" RNAs, which were copied from "noncoding" lengths of DNA, in fact contain vital codes! Just because they do not necessarily code for new proteins does not mean they do not code for something else the cell needs, & these researchers - publishing in a standard evolution-oriented journal - provided specific examples of important regulatory codes in these "noncoding" sequences. Therefore, without a source of useless "junk DNA" available to mutate infinitely, there is no longer a mechanism for new proteins to evolve. In other words, a Creator would have made exactly what is found in a cell's DNA - well-designed, functional components, the vast majority of which is used for vital processes such as gene regulation.

I don’t think you quite grasp the situation here Robert (or at least my position). Firstly, a large part of science does not need to invoke origin issues ascribing to an evolution or a Creation perspective. For example – how much of medicine needs to invoke it (how much of Podiatry?)?; how much of chemistry & physics need to invoke it? Secondly, the study of science related topics on the whole involves research into elements we can observe test & apply via repeating experiments on – this applies to everyone no matter of their persuasion... the ground work needs to be done first. It is sometimes the interpretation of these results if the topic requires historical assumptions (origin & the development thereof) which will usually differ depending on one’s philosophical persuasion or world view (i.e. planetary motion, organism development, paleontology, geology). As alluded to in my previous post, we should be spending more time studying the elements of science which is present before us, to develop problem solving, critical/analytical thinking & application of real-world scenarios & then judge which paradigm fits the evidence before us regarding the origin/development of life etc...


Now evolution is somewhat an ambiguous term; it depends how one defines it. If it means change over time, then I would think no none here would have a problem with its meaning – we can see there has been change over time (i.e. the history of the earth, minor changes in species). It is the extent & direction of this change which is the real issue (in lifeforms) & the nature of change (in the earth sciences). If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent (or ascent – pending how you view it) of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation (that is millions of mutation events) & natural selection (textbook definition of neo Darwinism), biologists of the first rank have real questions/problems with this. Some would even go further to suggest that Molecular Biology is in a crisis (in the evolution setting). One has to remember, Darwin did not write a book on how existing species change over time; he wrote a book called "The Origin of Species" – he propounded to show how this same process leads to new species... in fact every species. Now the evidence for this grand claim is almost totally lacking... 150 long years down the track (150 years is a long time in science research)... hence the concern for science education.


Not only is evolution an ambiguous term but so is also Creationism/Intelligent Design. Now I can only speak for myself here (& there are others) as there are some which are under the Creationism/Intelligent Design banner (particularly in the USA) which do have flawed interpretation of the concept &/or go about endorsing this alternative paradigm the wrong way. My perspective is that Creationism/Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence but does not conflict with the data of experimental science & philosophy. This is a commitment (scientifically & philosophically) to the possibility that detecting intelligent causation is a valid possibility.

Yes, true (pronation/supination issue), but this isn’t a good analogy when comparing to the Creation/evolution discussion. There is far more issues involved – more than most realize. I feel you are over simplifying the position of the Creation persuasion i.e. "God did it" – just doesn’t cut it... the "why" & the "how" what we see before us is where the foundational work is required.


Now, nobody knows exactly how life did arise - all scientists agree on this (including Dr Dawkins). So, did life arise by a purely undirected process or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance or design. Now it seems the rules of science are being applied to actually foreclose one of the two possible answers to this very important & fundamental question. Therefore the rules of science are saying we will consider any possibility (i.e. primordial soup/mud coupled with electricity, crystals etc...) except the one that is guided by any source of intelligence.

Science & religion (metaphysics) should not be at war with each other. We have distinguished scientists on both sides of the metaphysical fence saying exactly opposite things; this tells me that the conflict is not between science & a belief in God but it is a world view conflict – it is between scientists with a differing world view/philosophy. Unfortunately some people are so deeply entrenched in their own world views that they will not countenance alternatives. Meeting our biases is the best way towards rational discussion.


Also, this isn’t solely a religious Christian argument either; there are scientists which are Agnostic, Jewish, Moslem & from various other backgrounds who feel (unlike Dr Dawkins) that Darwin’s conjecture (or if you prefer, theory) is failing. Ironically, it is this which is hindering the absolute enlightenment of science. The idea that science will be reduced to "Biblical fairy tales" is a red herring... used by individuals who don’t have an argument & are reduced to throwing sand in your eyes. Speaking of which...

Contempt is not a scholarly virtue, & most of the so deemed scholars dabbling in philosophical, sociological & cultural aspects of spirituality (refraining from using the term religion) openly presume that Gods exist only in the human imagination, that spirituality arises mainly from fear, & that faith is sustained only by ignorance & credulity.

Is my subjective opinion quoted (which was clearly explained in my previous post) really that outrages to warrant this kind of response. I see far grandiose claims here on Podiatry Arena.

If it eventuates I may send you a copy.

 

This is fun

Respectfully, I disagree for two reasons, one scientific and one theological.

My scientific problem with ID is that it introduces a wild card into the scientific equation. We may argue the "holes" in evolution. I suspect we would both do so from a shaky position as we are both Podiatrists, not cellular biologists or geneticists. However regardless of that debate, the greater one is this.

Can we posit intelligent design as a plausible justification for the generation of life.

If we can, then we can talk about all the wonderful likeliness of spontaneous generation and discuss ID as a valid explanation. But I don't think we can do that and stay within the boundaries of science.

We are looking at cause and effect. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that we observe an effect for which the conventional explanation (evolution) does not satisfy. Therefore you posit and intelligent design as an alternative cause which does.

Scientifically speaking this is not consistent because we have no scientific basis for a comprehension of that intelligence. The "shape" of the intelligence we posit is defined by the hole which we seek to fill it. We fill the "gap" in the natural with supernatural. That's not science.

My second problem with ID as a model is theological and arises from that. One cannot put God into the gaps in science. That has always been the preserve of religion. Once people did not understand thunder and lightning, so we ascribed it to the supernatural, now we understand it. Once we believed the sky to be like an upturned bowl, sat upon the earth with heaven above, and hell below. Now we know different. Once the church held firm to the idea of the sun circling the earth.

The problem with this is that it uses God, the Ider, as a sort of conceptual sticking plaster to cover the gaps in our understanding of the world around us. Those gaps have an unfortunate tendency to be filled, and where does that leave God? As an tool for promoting Christianity, it is the equivilent of negative campaigning. "vote democrat because the republicans don't have the answers." "believe in intelligent creation because there are holes in evolution."

Indeed! Because such intelligence is, by definition, supernatural. And one cannot make a supernatural element an answer to a natural question. Its like trying to solve an unbalanced algebra equation by introducing "X" where "X" is whatever it needs to be to balance the equation. Its the antithesis of science, to stop trying to understand, by accepting that we can't understand, thus must resort to supernatural.

By all means, at the appropriate level (which I think should be very high) one might discuss the challenges to the evolutionary model. But the response to those challenges should be either "this is the counter view" or "we don't know". "We don't know so we suspect a supernatural explanation" is not good science.

I don't think I am.

A gallup Poll in the US in 2006 gave people the following 3 options

"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." It's fair to describe this as the creationist view.

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." We'll call this the theistic view.

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." I'll term this the naturalist view."

The answers broke down as 47%, 13% and 40%. That means that according to that pole, the most popular belief in the US is that humanity was spontaneously created in its present form as per the literal interpretation of Genesis. The Theistic evolution point of view (which you and I share I think) has a very small following, and the "pure" evolutionists come in a close second to the YEC'ers.

The "oversimplified" creation version is the most popular one! You may talk about guided evolution and intelligent design, but the fact is what people are hearing is the abbreviated version. Just like people read Root (or didn't) and heard "the foot must be held in sub talar neutral and not allowed to pronate".

Respectfully
Robert

PS, You may wonder, if I hold the TE viewpoint, why I am arguing against it. Its because although its a view I hold, I've never tried to justify that belief as science.

 

Thanks for your response Robert. You have raised so many issues. This is a fascinating yet exhaustive topic(s).

Yes, but we can study the research from the specialists/scientists on these areas & analyse/cross reference the data with other research conducted by other specialists/scientists on these same areas to analyse & assess which better fits... the undirected naturalistic evolution perspective or the directed intelligent Creator perspective. The issue here is that the general population present in both the evolution, Creation & I.D camps don’t do this – they don’t put in the effort to seriously study the issues for themselves... as has & will become evident...

Can we say what the boundaries of science are for sure? Would at times the boundary of science be touching the boundary of philosophy when delving in these areas... there is the dictionary definition of science as well as a science model forwarded by Sir Francis Bacon that goes something like this... observation -> induction -> hypothesis -> test hypothesis by experiment -> proof/disproof -> knowledge. Of course this, & the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality & induction. Here is where philosophy can come into the picture; however, a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data & used in interpreting it. Does evolution work within the boundary of science & the science model (I think not - particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory)... is there an element of philosophy involved (I think so). Can thus perceptions & biases come into play here? (yes it can & does). So it seems that evolution is allowed this leniency & not Creation. Why?... is it because one invokes religion?

Evolutionism is intrinsically an atheistic religion... however, some may prefer to call it humanism or naturalism. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism - the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, & that we human beings are creations of that process. Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life & the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism... & atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

Eminent scientific philosopher & ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning & morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, & it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000)).

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
“I use that trust to effectively brainwash them... our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal - without demonstration - to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments & evidence that supports the currently accepted theories & omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary” (Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000)).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist was generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" & wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
“Evolution . . . is the most powerful & the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth” (Essays of a Humanist).
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern." Then he went on to say that... "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual & moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that... "we must construct something to take its place." That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, & that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.


The important question is not “Is it science?” We can just define science to exclude everything that we don’t like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health & life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods & institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation & a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997).

Now that’s open-minded isn’t it? Isn’t science about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:
“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions & biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational & objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (& interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology” (Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14).

Hmmm, so the fundamentally important question is, "which worldview (bias) is correct?", because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.

As far as the generation of life is concerned... does not the evolution paradigm include that life came from non-life... can the materialism/naturalism of evolution claim any other means. I have commented on this aspect of the Creation perspective on the generation of life before i.e. life can only come from life... the cause of all causes & all subsequent causes must itself be uncaused... i.e. an eternal entity (more later).

Scientific consistency? – Quite the contrary. One must go where the evidence leads. We may one day gain comprehension “of that intelligence” (hence an understanding of that eternal entity which transcends natural boundaries into the immaterial - supernatural) if we are allowed to go there (which is being restricted in academia circles). You subject the Creation/I.D perspective in this fashion but is evolution consistent with scientific laws & principles – I have outlined in the past that it clearly is not. So why then can one paradigm get a pass & the other cannot – is it solely because one ascribes solely materialistic/naturalistic means (which doesn’t always fall into the realm of science anyway), whilst the other ascribes materialistic as well as immaterial/supernatural/formal religious qualities.


As stated in the “Evolution” thread on this forum...

For simplicity, let’s look at these two viewpoints as universes:

1/ The Evolution universe: consisting of 2 constituents... matter & energy.
2/ The Creation universe: here we also have matter & energy but we also have other constituent elements, namely spiritual or immaterial elements. One could say that these elements are supernatural – that is, they appear to transcend the laws of physics (i.e. matter & energy).

Now which of these 2 universes better fits the evidence – the science we know?

There is a Latin phrase which translates... “out of nothing... comes nothing”. Now the non-theist (or atheist) universe asserts (suggests, proposes) a universe that came out of nothing, for nothing, by nothing, because of nothing. This is an article of shear faith.



Now, everyone here is exercising faith. I have studied both sides of the topic. If anyone thought it was only the Creationist that exercised faith & the evolutionist does not, then you need to disabuse your mind of this – it is incorrect. Everyone is exercising faith in something.



- Let us take a look at the universe from which we find ourselves. The evolutionist/non-theist (materialist) believes that this grand, glorious, enormous universe came out of nothing, for nothing, by nothing, because of nothing. Now, I believe everything that begins to exist must have a cause i.e. there was a time when your computer, desk & chair etc... did not exist – it just didn’t spontaneously exist... someone made it. Now the universe began to exist, we know that the universe is not infinite but finite... & it is actually expanding (scientists: Edwin Hubble & Einstein). Therefore the universe had a cause (this troubled Einstein), & this cause must itself be an uncaused entity. Now by this I mean; there is (or has to be) a regress or a chain of causation i.e. what caused you? - your parents, what caused your parents, what caused their parents, their parents, their parents & so on... This is just not the case with people. Can someone count to 100, 1000, 10000, a million – given enough time? But can one count to infinity? No – an actual infinity cannot be counted or traversed... you cannot move through infinity. Thus the number of causal events before today must be a finite number of events; because if there were an infinite number of causal events before today, could we ever move through that infinite number of causal events to get to today – No. Which demonstrates the number of causal events (& frankly the number of hours, days & years) before today must be a finite number of moments because we cannot traverse through the infinity of anything.


Now here’s something interesting... there must be something at the beginning of this chain of causation which in itself is a cause that was not itself caused. This is why when people ask such questions such as: Who Created God or who made God? There is no answer – God does not need a Creator, a cause, a beginning. The teaching of scripture accounts that God is eternal (eternally existed). If He never began to exist, does He then need a cause? No. There must be a cause which is the cause of all subsequent causes but is not itself caused by some other cause... otherwise the chain keeps going back. At the beginning there must be a cause that is not itself caused by something else but which becomes the cause of all subsequent causes & effects... as there cannot be an infinite regress of causation. Just to prove I’m not making this up, one of the greatest scientific minds on the planet – Professor Stephen J. Hawking (wrote the number 1 scientific book of all time – "A Brief History Of Time") said that almost everyone believes that the universe, in fact time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang. Here is something interesting... if you have a beginning, by definition you must have a beginner (which troubled Einstein). This is known as the Principle of Causation. A principle that the writer of Genesis would not be privy to long ago (pending on your view) & its subsequent impact on the whole scheme of this issue... if the writer was not inspired. I like to ponder the question... Why is there something, rather than nothing?



Now let’s look back at our 2 universes: The Creation based universe can have 4 words associated with it. The first 4 words of scripture are probably the most philosophically profound words in literature... "In the beginning God". Here we have a cause, which in itself is uncaused (he is eternal, an immortal being) that becomes the cause of all subsequent causes & effects. Here we have a causal agent to begin the universe. Over in the Evolution universe we have... nothing! We have a universe which came out of nothing... for nothing... by nothing... because of nothing.


Now based on the Principle of causation, every event that has ever happened in your whole life was either caused by you, or you are experiencing the cause of it. So in the Creation universe we have a cause of the universe, over in the Evolution universe we have... faith. I have to affirm causation in everything I do... in my training as a runner & my assessment of a patient as a Podiatrist (what caused this injury to occur?). However, when it comes to the profound issues of the beginning of the universe & life, are we then suppose to ignore this principle?? I just don’t have enough faith to be an evolutionist. So when it comes to the issue of time & its beginning & its finitude (that is the non-infinite nature of time) the best explanation involves the act of God.



Ask an evolutionist (Dr Dawkins) – Where did the universe come from? There answer will be "we don’t know"... which is an article of faith. We believe the universe is here – right? So what caused it? You are accepting there was a cause by faith (also, where did the first cell come from... protein molecule etc... & the associated information required for their function?).


As Professor Paul Davies admitted:
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? Nobody knows... there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.” (Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163 (2204):26–30, 1999).



Does it take faith for me to believe that God created the universe? Sure it does... but, it is a faith in keeping with the Principle of Causation & the principles/laws of science. Does the evolutionist have to exercise faith that the universe came from something? Of cause they do... but, they have to exercise a kind of blind faith because they have to maintain (at least in the present) that the universe came out of nothing that we know, by nothing that we know, because of nothing that we know. So here we have the greater leap of faith done by the exponents of the Evolution universe.




Design leads scientists to expect:
1) universal laws;
2) elegant mathematical forms;
3) coherent mechanisms.


Conclusion:
1) Materialism is not a rational presumption for science.
2) Consciousness and the power of mind over matter refute materialism i.e. is consciousness localizable? ... What is the Placebo effect?
3) Materialist “explanations” of religion are poorly motivated and implausible.
4) The real issue should be objective truth.

You may get the above perception from your experience with some groups of the general I.D movement (& as I alluded to in my previous post i.e. some groups of the religious conservative in the U.S). But one with a Creation perspective shouldn’t be lumped in the same boat. You may notice as I tend to use the term Creationism as opposed to I.D. I should say at this point that I personally feel that Creationism & Intelligent Design (I.D) should be classified in different groups (maybe best discussed at a later date). I certainly haven’t perceived the material I have read on my journey to be of the above stated way & I would have thought that my input would have displayed some sincere interest & reasoning behind the views expressed & not a means as “sticking plaster to cover the gaps” to fulfil a religious/Christian agenda.


For the record I certainly have no intentions to promote Christianity/God in the manner you alluded to. I have no doubt some do (however sincere)... in fact the idea unsettles me. I have come to know that a metaphysical dialogue on these topics can be controversial alone & to do so via a written format on an internet forum can give rise to misinterpretations, miss-intentions, ambiguity & attract criticism (to name a few)... hence, as you stated this type of dialogue may be classified as “negative campaigning”. However, I cannot control how others choose to receive my views on these issues. With this in mind I have become increasingly uncomfortable with my involvement in this type of discussion. I would like to state that I have never initiated these types of discussions for this reason but I do feel compelled to provide an alternative point of view (answers) when evolution & the nature of God are brought up... this is an interest of mine – first & foremost.


On the theological aspect in relation to this discussion; the Biblical Genesis account is of great interest to me as it alludes to an eyewitness report which is far more thorough & intriguing (i.e. the reason sun, moon stars created on 4th day etc...) than other metaphysical documents on the topic (i.e. Qur'an & various folklores around the world). This is a big topic in itself thus can’t delve into it here... it at least provides a strong hint as to my position on this topic (i.e. I’m not a Theistic Evolutionist).


Also, being that you have brought up a theological aspect & being that you are a “Theistic Evolutionist”, are we not suppose to provide an answer to substantiate our position... 1 Peter 3:15 ... “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”
Also... 2 Corinthians 10:5... “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...” Yet understand the dilemma we face... John 3:12... “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”
I should admit that I don’t particularly like adding Bible references on a secular forum for obvious reasons & as stated above (i.e. don’t want to come across as “religious”) but the above is theological grounding from the Theist's guide book for doing so.

I would like to say more on this but due to the length of this already long post I refer to the above material which more than adequately explains the issues involved here with the philosophy & science of both camps.

Hmmm, I think you still are. Does this result really prove your position? You use the reference of the U.S... I think you, Dr Dawkins & myself would agree & understand that the U.S is far more openly religious than the U.K & Australia. Do you think it would be interesting to have the same “gallup poll” done in the U.K & Australia (I do)... has there been one? I’m sure the results would differ.

As stated in the start of this post... how many of people in both the evolution & Creation camp know the deeper underlying issues of both paradigms? I would say very, very few (I’ll think you would agree). So with this fact in mind, is the above account really valid when wanting to gain absolute enlightenment on this area?... (the subjective ignorant views of the masses). Besides one can say that little knowledge on the intricacies of life (i.e. microbiology) will lead to the superficial understanding of it -> evolution was the process... as parroted to them in high school... without the desire to then put in the effort to question it further for themselves. Do you honestly think I have taken a simplistic approach? I was brought up in an atheist/agnostic environment & exposed to evolution as fact in high school & Uni. As a result of my journey I think I have a greater understanding of evolution than most... I also have a greater understanding of Creationism/I.D than most. It has been far from a simplistic journey. There has been much effort, thought & time spent (& thus sacrifice) coming out of the 'norm comfort zone' in analysing the issues involved (as with many scientists who have also taken this path)... a lot is at stake here to go against the norm & the accepted truth in academia.

Hmmm, well I think I have addressed the general science & philosophical side of things. I respect your input Robert but I do have sincere issues with the Theistic Evolution standpoint. I don’t want to go into detail here as it is another big issue in itself. However, with your above statement in mind... you ascribe to theology & evolution & obviously allow that form of ‘science’ to determine aspects of your theological understanding/interpretation via going against the Genesis account & succumbing to evolution. Let’s face it, the Genesis account & evolution cannot be compatible – the language of both views is very clear & distinct from each other. With this aside, what other areas of the Bible can then be open up to one’s interpretation &/or measured against science. Once you decide you are going to let science dictate how you are going to interpret Scripture, then there is no end to it. If I understand your position correctly, you do not believe that the world was created in six days. Is it because of the “overwhelming scientific evidence”? With your theist position (belief in God/Jesus), would not the overwhelming scientific evidence suggest that a virgin birth is not possible? So to be consistent on this point; one’s a fairy tale – so is the other; or one’s a miracle – so is the other. Thus, if you don’t believe in the Biblical Genesis account of a relatively recent six-day creation, then it opens the door to serious doubts about the Biblical virgin birth of Jesus, about the Biblical Resurrection of Jesus etc... – these would also be scientific impossibilities. When this principle of “consistency” is achieved – what is logically left?

Respectfully,
Matthew.

 

All,
Just to throw my 6 penneth into the mix :-

Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Christians really can and do believe in evolution. Consider for example -
The position of the Catholic Church:

Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith and that he considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis; Pope John Paul II, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1996), said that new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis; Pope Benedict has refused to endorse "intelligent design" theories, instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science.


The position of the Episcopal Church:

The Episcopal Church has said that the theory of evolution does not conflict with Christian faith. In 2006, the General Convention affirmed, via Resolution A129, that God is creator and added that "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith."


regards


Catechismic Catfoot

 

Hey Matthew.

Thought provoking stuff indeed.

One of the fundamental truths of the universe (either by design or accident) is that the posts on a discussion like this become exponentially longer as each expands and challenges the points of the last. I shall, therefore, not attempt to answer all of these points, lest we break the internet. I'll hit what I think are the high points, to keep the discussion moving, but if there are any points you particularly wish to pursue which I've missed, please do point them out.

I've argued this position myself, for Sh!ts and giggles, on the "rational repsonders" forum. However here I'll argue the contrary.

If we're going to argue the toss over whether secular humanism, or atheism is a religion, we're going to have to get down to semantics over what exactly religion is. My choice is always the OED:-

Whereas atheism :-

This seems to me to be clearly exclusive.

Although atheism has taken on many of the characteristics of a religion, that does not make it so. Atheism specifically refutes the existance of a controlling power. It may have gaps in its knowledge, which it should recognise as gaps. It may accept concepts as indicated but not proven. But what it never does is ascribe any of those gaps to a superhuman power. Thus, to me, Atheism is precisely the antithesis of religion. By definition.

.

Possibly. But then Dr Dawkins is an evolutionary Biologist. Ask A cosmologist where it came from and he'll give you a workable model.

No, its an unprovable hypothesis consistent with best available evidence. That's not faith.

A scientist does not have "faith". An unproven hypothesis can be proven or dis-proven, requiring the scientist to change his position. Complete confidence is the preserve of religion. In your own words

. Yes. Not about having a complete trust in something.

I believe the present understanding is called M theory, an extension of string theory. I'm not going to pretend to understand it, I doubt many of us (possible exception of Dave Smith) have the tools! But It is a theory.

No. For the reasons stated. Belief is different to faith. Its easier to change, based on available evidence and subject to being disproven by other evidence.

I think so. My position is that when the dominant culture and education endorse YEC, it is oversimplified by the masses. Treat the US as a test tube if you will. Could happen elsewhere.

I Hummed and hawed about going here with you. It borders on the personal and that's usually the point these discussions break down (IME). However, since we're having fun...

There is, as you say a fundamental dichotomy between a literal biblical faith and science. The former, by definition, requires one to suspend the latter. How does one decide where to come down on which issue?

I tend to a relativistic view. I know my understanding of science and the world around me is deeply flawed, simplistic and subjective. I've spent 14 years trying to understand the way the foot works and I'm nowhere near the answers. What chance then do I, do any of us, have of understanding, fully, the birth of the universe?

That said, I equally mistrust my (our) understanding of the bible. As complex as I know the world to be, how much more complex the divine. The bible is packed full of contradiction and allegory, as you know well. There are places where we are clearly not to take what is said literally. And of course, the translation issue. 6 day creation infers "day" to be what we understand it, 24 hours. But of course the word in the original is "yom" which could mean 12 hour day, 24 hour day, or age. So the question becomes, which bits should we take literally and which not.

So the dissonance, to me, is between an imperfect understanding of cosmology and an imperfect understanding of scripture. I really don't trouble myself too much with which my imperfect monkey brain understands best. I consider both to be models, simplified and imperfect interpretations which one can USE (important word) to build a FUNCTIONAL (another) world view. So my theology is based mainly on the concept outlined in 1 Corr 13 (somewhat cut).

To me, presuming knowledge, either scripturally based OR scientific based is... well, presumptuous. I'm a red letter Christian. That means I apply myself primarily to the red letters of the bible, all the good stuff about being nice to one another and such. I'm interested in the creation debate, but that's all I am, interested. Its not a prime article of faith for me. If I found I was wrong and that it was 6 literal days, it would not trouble me. If I found I was wrong about the virgin birth, or even resurrection, it would not alter the functioning of my theistic beliefs. I treat my Christianity as a model. I KNOW its simplified, I KNOW its wrong in places, perhaps even in its entirety. But it seems to work better than the other models I've tried so I prefer it.

Bugger, these posts do over run! This was only going to be a quicky!

 

All,
Some more interesting snippets on this topic.

http://www.eauk.org/resources/idea/bigquestion/archive/2005/bq7.cfm

http://www.eauk.org/resources/idea/bigquestion/archive/2005/bq6.cfm

regards

Cosmic Cat

 

Robert,

Man after my own heart. Trying to make the Bible a text book on the details of things it was never meant to describe has always caused issues. I think Genesis chapters one and two are fantastic summaries of the progression of how life has unravelled on this planet. For a pre-scientific society, its an extremely concise and accurate account, which agrees with the order in which any evolutionary biologist would list the progression of species.

I think we need to always be ready to re-evaluate both our understanding of science AND of scripture. Because neither of these are set in stone, and need to be revisited and revised as new information is available.

But, I have a bone to pick!

What would the message about Jesus be without the resurrection? It would be nothing. A useless delusion. Everything either stands or falls on whether this actually occurred. His purpose was far greater than being a teacher or wise man with advice on how to live, though this was part of what he did.

to quote Paul discussing this very issue- 1 Corinthians 15
But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can't be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world. But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died.

Just some thoughts! Is this podiatry arena? certainty see a different side of your professional colleagues in these discussions!

Phil

 

Don't you though! Fascinating stuff. Its in the break room so I guess its Ok

Surprise One of the two constants in any religion is that people will disagree about it!

I do see you point. This is one of the things on my more radical fringe of belief. However...

I would pick you up on the word "Useless" in "a useless delusion. "

Let us suspend disbelief for a moment (or if you disbelieve then just stay as you are) and say that the resurrection never happened. Now consider your spiritual life since your conversion experience. Has it been richer? Has it given you fulfillment? Encouragement? Has it made you live as a better person? (I like to think that Christianity, while it will never make us sinless might make us sin less). Has it provided you a community of likeminded people? Has it given you an external moral framework which is less relativistic than it might otherwise be? Has it helped you to function? Has it given you comfort when the cold black of eternal oblivion threatens you or someone you care about?

For me, the answer to all of those questions is yes. Thus I consider my faith in terms of pascals wager with a no lose twist. I believe in the resurrection. If I'm right then all is exceedingly peachy. If I'm wrong then I still have the most functional model of an existential world view of any which I've tried or seen others try. Quite simply, it works for me, so its not really even pascals wager, for me its a win win.

Some people call religion a crutch for the weak, in my case that's dead on the money! And a very useful crutch too! There have been times when I've struggled to cope, times when the world and other people get on top of me and times I've not liked myself very much (keeps me in the majority view). At times like that, Christianity simply works. If it works by the supernatural model as I believe, great. If it works for some other reason, I'm not going to chuck the baby out with the bathwater, it still works!

 

But, I have a bone to pick!

What would the message about Jesus be without the resurrection? It would be nothing. A useless delusion. Everything either stands or falls on whether this actually occurred. His purpose was far greater than being a teacher or wise man with advice on how to live, though this was part of what he did.

Excellent Phil

Just as any scientist researcher would agree, go back to the original if you really want to know what was said and the real meaning of what was said. 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... hand interpretations are not necessarily what the original says and will almost always reflect the bias of the interpreter. This goes double (at least) for the Bible.

Dave:good:

 

True enough :drinks

Although of course there is always the bias of the interpreter! Even if you read the bible yourself you have your bias, and the bias of the translator.

Pax.

Robert

PS, did anyone notice the world ending on 21 May? I didn't but I'm not the most observant guy in the world.

 

Anyway what happened while I was away? you all went and had yourselves a great big party, O!Mazing

All of you that have faith in our God will know that the Word of God , the Bible, is a living word, speaking to each of us individually. Without faith this is not known and cannot be understood so this can be a great difficulty in apologetic discussion because there is no other book like this and appears ridiculous to the non believer.

So with regard to evolution and such theory - For me, This passage / tract say it all

Genesis 1:26-31 (New Living Translation)


26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings[a] in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.”

27 So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”

29 Then God said, "Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food.30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.” And that is what happened.
31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!
And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day.

Is very clear to me, God made us in His own image separate and above the animals and only a little lower than God Himself. In OUR image - 3 persons - not a bit like Him not a bit like one of them but perfectly like all of them.

Later on in scripture - It does not say He made us from fish or out of the things of the sea. No it says He made us from dust and breathed life into us, He gave us His entire spirit, a piece of eternity and He wrote eternity on our heart so that we would always strive to fill the void. The only thing capable of filling that eternity would be God Himself in all His Glory. This is why, without God, we strive for never ending knowledge in the vain hope that it will fill the hole. It satisfies us for a while but then we need more and more and more ad infinitum. But God fill us with His Spirit and wisdom and we are fulfilled. This is all we need, God, through Jesus, has done everything for us, He requires nothing from us we can do nothing to improve Him or diminish Him we cannot help Him or hinder Him, we cannot build His house greater or tear it down. He has built it and all we need to do is live in it and praise Him. Praise Him and Live. That's it that's all there is, a child like faith.

There are some, No many, who have a version of Christian faith that is not love of God but is instead a love of the things that God has given us and an expectancy that He will be grateful to us, that He will love us, for our benefaction and patronage. We say if that and if this, if I'm wrong then what? 'If' is not faithful, 'If' requires a backup plan,' If' says perhaps not.

He does not say IF, He always loved us without condition, As individuals He takes us to places where we can meet with Him, not lovely soft easy places but hard desperate places where we struggle by our own strength to figure out what life is all about, what Faith is all about why is everything so difficult, and when we are broken only then, when we have lost faith in all our worldly trappings, when we are completely confused and demented by our quest for knowledge, only then can we truly hold out our hand and humbly ask for rescue. The bible is full of characters who experience this and change. And we can experience this to through our faithful total reliance in our rescuer, Jesus Christ.

This is why God loves the weak and the poor and the desperate for they are easily broken men and God loves a broken heart. In God their weakness, our weakness (for we are all weak) becomes our strength . Once we can completely disappear into God then we will be free. Trying to drag God into our world and make Him fit our life is the highest vanity and utterly impossible.

So trying to make God fit a Human theory like evolution is vain and fruitless and in the case of Catholic Church is most likely the result of re interpreting God's word for political manoeuvring and appeal to authorities and idols that should have no place in God's Church.

Great stuff!

Dave

 

True enough but most bibles have a great many translators and interpreters of great integrity and education in their field, even so there are many versions and some do have very different interpretation.

Of course, it's the living Word of God not a book of instructions and so each will have their own message.

Dave

 

That told me!

'If' you're right of course...

Here's the dichotomy. I tend to agree with the first of your hypotheses. I've always maintained that the bible contains truth, not facts. But here's the thing. If I read the creation account and my message is that its allegorical, and you read it and see it as literal, can either of us claim knowledge?

Here is why I feel (returning to the point of several million words ago) that teaching ID alongside evolution is a bad plan. Science does not allow for such relativism, religion does.

 

Its a good point well made Robert, nice argument! However I feel that it is not correct, but I had to think hard why not

Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.
Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning. (http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/allegory.html)

And thus I feel that the bible is both a factual account of events and each event is metaphor for our own lives. It literally allows us to understand God and His work, the nature of Jesus, the power of the Holy spirit. It takes us into deep relationship with all three. Each word, each combination of words, sentences, phrases, verses, chapters has a new meaning in terms of our understanding of the above each time we return to it.

Animal farm is an allegorical tale, so to is Narnia and many other great novels, however they are not truth but only a portal to truth and perhaps not even a reflection of truth. We can read and agree or appreciate the value of the metaphor but at the same time dismiss it as never being a possibility in our own lives since the whole thing is a clever deception. How can truth be embodied in deception?

The Bible does not deceive us, no it shows us what actually happened, its shows us what a real God actually did for real people - for us, to us - real people and gives an accurate account of their actions and the consequences of those action in God's world. It really happened, it will really happen to us and God really did those things for our benefit. There is no doubt, it is not fantasy pretending truth it does not use deception to convince us of truth it is truth, God's Word revealing God.

What parts would you say are metaphor and what parts are literal?
As I think Phil was making the point, if the the whole thing is metaphor then none of it really happened and the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ are fiction then I as a Christian stand on sand not rock. If Christ was not God incarnate then I should be a Muslim. If God did not create man directly then why should I believe He directly created The universe, maybe he was just the energy that allowed the big bang to occur and everything just happened after that. Why should I believe that God loves me unconditionally if He did not sacrifice His son for our sins, was His creation (if He created it) just His own vanity.


Therefore God made Man in His own image and evolution is not optional or compatible, even so science continues to point the way to God, which in itself is good and part of God's plan to take us to a place where we can meet with Him.

I think this is what Ben Hur is trying to achieve, which is great but look how he tries to help God with His plan, like the Lord needs His help, like he can make any difference to the outcome and yet still Ben valiantly struggles on. (Sorry Ben its Just an example) We all do this because even thought it is futile it is in our nature. I think God loves that we do it, Like a father loves it when his little boy is helping his dad mend the car by working on his own toy car with toy tools, it is futile but full of love and adoration. But God will fix the car anyway and then take us on an amazing journey to a place we need to go to. This is ok as long as we realise our futility and don't think that our efforts should have done something useful by now and then get worried that we are doing something wrong and start to struggle to achieve more. This is the time to just stop, praise Him and wait.

We Christians must decide who we are, understand why and how God loves us. We must stand together and undivided. We cannot be part devoted to the world and part devoted to God. How many times does God show us this?

New Living Translation Mt 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money".


Oops gotta go running out of battery power

Dave

 

Thanks Robert for your open response (post 60). As stated earlier, it would seem that this medium (& probably this forum) isn’t an ideal means to discuss issues of this nature in the required depth it deserves. Posts will be long if there are many issues to address; issues will be misinterpreted if one isn’t careful referencing another’s point or articulating a position carefully.


For the record, I purposely provided the opinions of the cardinal exponents of evolutionary thinking/philosophy (i.e. Michael Ruse, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould etc...) so as to provide evidence of their position on matters related to the topic... semantics aside... it was used to substantiate their often biased & sometimes hypocritical position i.e. religion in science. The men referenced in my last post are all well known in science circles... hence their opinion counts when they represent the evolution camp making statements about the position of Creationism/I.D. I could provide more evidence/references but it would seem to have little purpose here.


I could also go into detail about the fact that everyone exercises “faith” in something (including scientists – hypotheses & again, semantics aside). However your distinction between belief & faith seemed valid to me. I do feel M-Theory/String Theory are hypotheses & very interesting... the process of which possibly may lead more people to a clearer understanding that the envisaged unified formula ('theory of everything') may hold information to an orderly intelligent source... & not derived from chaotic naturalistic means. On a similar note, I could also delve into the theory of Fractal Geometry associated with the biological 'theory of everything'. However, the process of which would seem to have little purpose here.


I could also delve into the breakdown of the first two chapters in Genesis with reference to the original Hebrew syntax (i.e. parallelism), language/meaning of key words i.e. all Hebrew scholars that I’m aware of acknowledge that “yom” associated with a number (i.e. 1 – 7) in association with... “the evening & the morning” phrase as outlined in the 7 day creation week account can only mean ordinary consecutive solar days, or an earth rotation on its slanted axis (i.e. 24hours – albeit the first three days were not solar light – interesting issue in itself). However, the process of which would seem to have little purpose here.



One can also delve into more direct theological issues i.e. If death existed prior to Adam's sin (as would be assumed with an evolution perspective), then there is no need for Jesus' death, burial & resurrection... which really is the crux of it all. However, the process of which would seem to have little purpose here.


The bottom line is one can choose to be open to the fact that Scripture is compatible with science (vice versa) as well as put in the effort & allow Scripture to interpret Scripture... not be lazy & rely on an isolated verse for meaning or rely on another man or religious bodies to feed you the information. On the other hand one has also the freedom to interpret such Scriptural issues for themselves to whatever suits their agenda or world view... which inevitably leads to problems... speaking of which...

Thanks Catfoot for bringing these views up. I was aware of them, which only supports the fact that there are problems with religious organisations. Is it any wonder why so many are confused on issues of this nature & hence don’t want anything to do with religion – I don’t blame them! To quote... “Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive” – well, it certainly seems so; but evolution & Scripture certainly is not compatible... hence I don’t care for religion (on the whole) & their self-serving theology.


There are a lot of sincere good people in the Catholic & Episcopal (Anglican) churches however I have no respect for their governing organisations – particularly the Papacy. I don’t care what any Pope says on this matter. The Papacy has a history of theological incompetence to say the least (even blasphemy)... as well as other barbaric qualities (to say the least).


Sadly, there are many individual Christians & Christian institutions (e.g. para-church ministries, colleges & seminaries) that compromise with evolution. In fact, it’s not an exaggeration to say some form of evolutionary compromise is the prevailing position in the evangelical movement. Many evangelicals have surrendered serious biblical ground on origins to the secular establishment, hoping for a greater degree of academic respectability, a voice in the marketplace of ideas.

There are other issues why governing groups want to distant their theology from the Scriptural outline of the creation week i.e. wanting to distant yourself from Exodus 20: 8 - the 4th Commandment... the longest of the 10 & the one that starts with the word... “Remember” (an issue of which millions were killed for in the past).

Interesting articles. I of course have issues with the first reference... of which there was a PDF response underneath the article which was well written...
View attachment The Case For Creation- Andy McIntosh.pdf

The second reference was well outlined... particularly the following quote...

I don’t understand where you are coming from. Can you please clearly explain yourself here David? Thanks...

 

All,
Looks like the Plan(c)ks are back again ....

http://samnunnally.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/reconciling-faith-and-science-quantum-physics/

regards

Catfoot

BTW Just because I post these snippets doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them...

 

Ben

I wrote

You asked

Ben AKA Mathew;

Sorry I may not have appeared very kind to you with that example of our individual human nature.

However the point is in the context of what I am saying to Robert – If’s – God’s love for us does not come with a qualifying IF and neither should ours for Him.

Robert seems to be saying that His TE faith is great because it satisfies both His understanding of world theory and Scriptural truth and if one fails he has the other to fall back on and anyway. E makes great sense logically and T gives great rewards even if its true or not true, so its well worth it to any gambler willing to take a punt, its a safe bet.

We should not love God because or IF He is consistent by Einstein.
That is to say, belief in and so the love of God is not conditional upon the general truth of His word being consistent with scientific theory. God is only a safe bet when you take all your money and put it all on Him, spreading the risk is the most risky thing to do. I believe you Ben are saying the same thing here:

“Sadly, there are many individual Christians & Christian institutions (e.g. para-church ministries, colleges & seminaries) that compromise with evolution. In fact, it’s not an exaggeration to say some form of evolutionary compromise is the prevailing position in the evangelical movement. Many evangelicals have surrendered serious biblical ground on origins to the secular establishment, hoping for a greater degree of academic respectability, a voice in the marketplace of ideas.”

Which I entirely agree with in principle although I’m not sure that, as you seem to suggest, the majority of evangelical Christians hold this view. (NB Perhaps they do since now I’ve questioned some who are close to me and was surprised by their answers that had leanings toward that compromise.)

My faith relies on no compromise or conciliation, God came to me a said here I am, He definitely exists, ergo His word must be solid and true and literal. Maybe this is something to do with my character, I find it so difficult to be diplomatic and appease if at the same time it diminishes God and yet sometimes I feel like I should be softer somehow (Do you have a couch I can lie on and talk? ).

And this feeling that we need to justify God by our own intellect runs through much of our Christian life. There are probably very few if any that do not suffer this problem, it is our human nature, certainly mine. We want to help, we want to feel like we have some control, we like to feel that we have some part in who loves us and what choices we make concerning that. But lately God has been giving me such a different message.

Ben, I really like and mostly agree with your posts here, particularly this one:

{You don't love religion - great! But do you love God? Do you love God enough to let Him take over, to stop being His Champion and so become His greatest ally? I want to love God like this but it is difficult because I feel I don't yet really know Him well enough. And yet will Champion Him to the end, see this easy thing of doing nothing is so difficult, why?}

Ben, I have even used your quotes in a special ‘science and God’ discussion forum at Church but even as I wrote the argument I felt the futility of trying to explain God and His work in terms of Science, if we want to explain God then just praise Him and speak His truth this is our commission.

If we find solace in the fact that God fits with science theory or the other way round, if it strengthens our faith then how much faith do we have in God? What happens if some science boff suddenly comes up with the equation that explains everything and then does some lab experiments to confirm their propositions, wouldn’t we then have to admit defeat and give up on God, what alternative would there be. As you suggest above, there is no middle ground, it’s all for God or all for the world half and half is nothing at all.

My faith is absolute, it doesn’t depend on how it measures up to world views, it doesn’t depend on how I feel on a particular day, it doesn’t depend on how much I think I have achieved or how I did or did not achieve it. It does not require compromise, political discretion or diplomacy. His love does not then depend on my effort or compliance to rules or agreement to contracts and fulfilment of obligation. My faith and salvation are both freely given by God and accepted on His terms not mine.

Science is great, it is extremely useful in all sorts of ways but it is the finger that points to the moon but not the moon itself. Many cannot tear their gaze from it and look up to where it points. For us it is obvious but then for us a bird singing or the wind blowing is proof enough if proof is needed. All the logical argument in the world will not convince an unbeliever to love God but that’s ok because God has it in hand, He has elected who will make the choice for Him and will take them people to the place where they need to be to meet with Him, recognise who they are, recognise their weakness and futility and ask for His help.

Once we can recognise this we can do our work knowing that God has taken care of the results, it is not our responsibility to save anyone, it is not our responsibility to explain How God works in terms of any worldly criteria, it is not our responsibility to protect Him from anyone, who can assail Him?
It is our obligation and pleasure to praise Him by everything we say and do and that is all we can do, praise Him and live. Stop struggling to accomplish His work because He has already done everything, everything is in place.

God tells us by His word how things will end and He does not say that it depends on how many come to help and how great their effort is, No of course it happens as He plans regardless of us.

This is why the Bible tells us that God’s yoke is light, he does not goad us to greatness in our own strength, instead He says, stop struggling with that load, give it to me, wait for my help, wait for my rescue and while you wait praise and know the joy of praise, recognise how you change and notice how free you have become.

Don’t get me wrong I’ve argued science V’s God and enjoyed it and felt pretty clever at times and fully stumped at other times. I first came to see the fragility of science when I was very much in the world and loving the science adventure. I still like science and maths but it’s a side issue, a gift that God gives me to enjoy but not central to my identity.

Yes I agree, one can be open to that fact but the fact is just a consequence not a necessity, it does not or should not bolster our faith. Faith, given by the Holy Spirit allows us to understand scripture and interpret what it means in terms of our own lives.

Ben I think we are on the same page unless I have seriously misunderstood your writing.

Regards Dave

 

Thanks David for taking the time to explain your views. As I've said before, this writing/typing medium isn't the best form to express views relating to the nature of the topic... sometimes sentiments & intentions can get lost in translation.

We are all at different levels of our journey... with different strengths & weaknesses to function off. I know I need to work on many aspects on my journey; with this in mind, the following opinions are based on where I'm at, at this point in time...

That's good David, but I feel we should give careful thought on why we believe in a Creator God, particularly when one (I) wasn't born (grew up) in the faith... particularly when there is so much material (via education system, books, TV documentaries, magazines etc...) telling us there is no such thing. These matters need to be mulled over & a reason for what you believe needs to be searched & developed. Hence there is a field known as Apologetics.

We should remember that the popular views such as those of Richard Dawkins are quite prevalent in society; whether that is via his books, documentaries, magazines etc... such views include... "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Well, Dr Dawkins is referring to the likes of me... right or wrong, I feel compelled to express views to the contrary. However, I like to think I do so in a more respectful manner.

I never view myself as "His Champion"... looking back I can probably understand why you get this impression due to the number, length & nature of my posts... but it was never my intention. Thomas Henry Huxley was described as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his strong advocacy of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution & subsequently Richard Dawkins is known as "Darwin's Rottweiler“ - I do not want to be seen in the same fashion. Hence why a couple of posts ago I stated I was feeling increasingly uncomfortable on my extent of involvement on issues of this nature. I’m just someone interested in these topics... looking for answers.

However, I am under the impression that we are commissioned to further His work down here on earth. All I intended to do was to provide reasons why I have chosen this path... reasons why I don't believe evolution is the way... reasons that most may find at least reasonable (or at the least somewhat logical); even if they still choose not to believe. The reasons I have given will not be readily found in the general media... some may not have heard of these answers or this type of reasoning expressed before. Maybe a seed has been sown to at least question the materialism/naturalism nature of origins... & be a bit more open to the possibility of an intelligent causative entity in the future. One must also remember (as far as a Christian in concerned), if the triune power of the Godhead did not create the universe & life, then Jesus should be considered a deceiver/ liar i.e. John 5: 46... "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me” (Jesus speaking).

I strongly believe that science will never disbelieve God. I also feel the future will be very interesting in relation to the connection between science & God (particularly in the microscopic fields of science i.e. Quantum Physics & Micro Biology). The issues between science & God has been going long enough & one would logically think that the greater knowledge achieved in science/technology over the years would have dispelled this apparent "myth" by now - however, there appears to be an opposite trend evolving (excuse the pun). The more we understand of the intricacies in life & the universe, the higher the probability tends to suggest that there is an intelligent source.

Having said this, I'll be open & honest & say (admit) that I may have a faith issue. As subjective this statement is, I sometimes find myself questioning God at certain times... whether it is intellectually or as evident in my actions/emotions. It seems I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution & yet sometimes the notion of a God seems so distant in my (our) environment (not a great position to be in); but I'm probably not alone here. I can only imagine God could also be distant if one is currently being taught in high school or university/college factors pointing otherwise (this is a known fact – there are stats showing this). Maybe this is why I feel compelled to at least provide an answer to questions targeted my way or put forward alternative opinions when others are expressed. I know that my faith has been strengthened in the past when difficult questions are directed to me & after much searching I find (& always have up to this point) an answer which not only is supported by the science but fits into the Creator paradigm.

Maybe your faith is stronger than mine David... I don't seem to be as consistent as you, as it does fluctuate at times. However, I do believe in the unconditional nature of God's love - need to remind myself on a regular basis... was brought up in a competitive athletic environment where success was rewarded & failure was shunned, hence unconditional love was somewhat a foreign concept.

I am a bit confused by this quote. Many people have come to know God because logical answers were given to them... they later mulled over these answers & came to their own conclusion that God could be a possibility & a subsequent journey progressed from there onwards. I have read many scientists’ account of this happening to them... it definitely does work. Usually what stops the unbeliever could be an issue involving evolution & the Genesis account... in fact I think it could be the most prominent issue... as well as the following type of concerns... "Why do bad things happen? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why does God allow death & suffering?” Sincere, logical, Scriptural (educated) based answers are needed to these deemed difficult questions. Once again there has been much evidence of people coming to God with answers to these concerns/arguments.

I'm also confused by the statement... "He has elected who will make the choice for Him..." . Isn't God available to everyone on the planet? I am vaguely familiar with predestination theology; is this what you are alluding to?

Hmmm... isn't it our responsibility to lead people to a knowledge of God & subsequent salvation? This may require some information/explaining in relation to the world we live. I agree & understand that we have no power to save anyone as this can only be done by the One who was sinless & sacrificed His life for our sins to then represent us before the Father sinless. There is a particular church doctrine/theology who feels they can carry out this role (intercessory role), but no mortal sinful man can save another of their sins. Hence (in part) my issue with religion – false religion.

I think we are certainly on the same page David i.e. we believe in God, He is our Creator & our Saviour. We no doubt may have some theological differences but we are both still believers. As stated before, there are different categories as far as the Creationism/I.D topic is involved but with this aside, Robert, you & I do at least acknowledge there is a God.

Besides, what’s an internet forum without at least one thread about God? ... I think Podiatry Arena has now certainly paid its dues.

Kind regards,
Matt.

 

I recall my old editor, Sarel Emeril, asking me what a group of severely delusional people were called and was surprised by his answer (a congregation!), especially as he was a practising Quaker, but for some reason, reading through the recent submissions, reminded me of the conversation! I have to say I am glad I am not remotely religious - it's difficult enough comprehending some of the sciences without having to contemplate the impossible dimension of superstition in the fray - but good luck to you anyway.





Honest to god, religion is much ado about nothing!

 

Mark, you just haven't found the right religion yet. I used to think like you, then I discovered the Church of the Sub-Genius. Welcome "Bob" into your life. http://www.subgenius.com/ and prepare yourself for the rupture. In fact, I think you are an excellent candidate for a minister to The Church. http://www.subgenius.com/scatalog/membership.htm

Today, I as been mostly listening to Devo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbt30UnzRWw

 

Hey Guys, Especially Robert

I had been watching this thread grow and grow and resisted the temptation to write because I can't seem to stop being full on and that seems to put some people right off. 71 posts and 2455 views not bad considering the subject matter so I felt a little guilty that I had written and started a discordant argument amongst the supporters of God, (so I'm sorry for that).
Especially as I have been talking to mature people of the faith and many seem to come close to Robert’s point of view but only close, in that they are not concerned about the detail of creation only that there is a God that created in some way.

I don't know how they came to God but my thoughts are that, while I'm sure none of us came to Jesus fully equipped with all the tools of faith. None of us either, came to Jesus expecting to completely let go of the world even though this is what God ultimately asks of us. Its one thing to have misconceptions (which will later be clarified) but quite another to have them offered to you as a concession or enticement to come to God (and later be unable/not wanting to let go and feel tricked or worse cheated [See Parable of the Great Feast]).

What we all want is unity and that unity comes through our accepting and understanding and passing on the significance of Jesus' suffering, sacrifice and resurrection, rescuing and redeeming us from the world and our human nature of sin so that we can come to God only through faith in Jesus.

Is this enough? I don't think so. Many times in the old testament God makes it clear He wants to see a heart just for Him no other God no other Idol no other worldly distraction. But also Jesus, in His own words, implores us many times - e.g. Mat 25:12, Luke13:25,27, Luke 16:15 John 5:42, John 17:3 Rev 2:2 with words like this And He will reply Even though you appear righteous "I tell you I don't know you or where you are from. Get away from me, all you who do evil. - God knows your hearts. What this world honours is detestable to the Lord. So the middle road that allows honour for both the Lords word and the world view is no road at all and is not the narrow path to salvation however similar it may appear. The parable of the Great Feast illustrates this point "Many are called but few are chosen" Jesus' word about The Narrow Gate or Door to life and the broad highway to death also illustrate that God only allows those who have a complete heart for Him to enter heaven. If someone does not have a heart only for God then they have not truly repented when they asked Jesus to be their saviour, they held onto some of those things that they loved in the world and of course God knows this in advance.

So though this may look like a contradiction it is not because God knows our heart in advance and the Holy Spirit will change us to have a heart sold out for Jesus but only because God knew this first. Hedging your bets by satisfying your worldly mind and your spiritual heart at the same time is a dangerous road. Only God knows our true heart but why take a dire risk by dragging yourself and others away from the narrow road with vain hopes of holding on to two Gods?

I think it is important for people to know up front what the cost is and whether they can pay it - Jesus says this too Luke 14:28 Don't begin until you count the cost ---

Regards Dave

 

Personally, I don't worship God, I worship "Bob". The cost? $30.00 to become a fully ordained minister.

 

Ben

No! You are very consistent, which is why I describe you as a champion or warrior and you are right that some one might read your work and then take the time to find out more about God but our arguments cannot change their heart only God can do that as you know. But this is about your heart your relationship with God, neither is itt a competition of who has the strongest faith, as you say that is just a point on our journey. God wants our heart in the right place so we can meet with Him in weakness.

Regards Dave

 

It's the pipe that sealed the deal for you isn't it?

 

That and the "rupture" during which time I'll be sucked up by the sex-godesses.

warrior
n. a person engaged in, experienced in, or devoted to war
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdt9kE58uww&feature=related