Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Good stuff - thanks for bringing this to our attention. It is good to see that some Christians are prepared to take a stand against the creationist claptrap that has been weaseled back into "Evangelicalism" by the likes of John Lennox (subtly) and the Discovery [sic] Institute and Ken Ham (unsubtly). Perhaps this paves the way for a more constructive dialogue between atheists and theists in general.

-H

H
I don't think Dr Lennox would like to be accused of subtlety.

GV

Well, "cobblers" then, perhaps? I'm currently reading "God's Undertaker", and boy is it crap.

H

Just got it out of the library. I'll maybe take a look over the weekend.
See you all Monday -

Graham Veale

Hi Helio,

Seeing christians speak out against creationists has its good sides, but let's not get too cheery yet. Consider 3 scenarios:

- Creationist ideas remain around for a while. Creationism gains more adherents, works its way into science classes etc.
- Creationism is pushed out, christianity loses some of its worst modern shames.
- Creationist ideas remain around and a while. In the face of further growth of our knowledge, it makes people realize what nonsense the bible is, people drop it altogether.

Scenario 2 is preferable to 1, but is is a rather pragmatic, less principled compromise. After all, the book of genesis does get it all wrong if you read it for what it says rather than take the 'it's metaphor for what science has taught us' line. A non-literalist reading of the bible means fewer total wackos, but more believers with ideas that are more respectable in the eyes of many.

For example, peterjhenderson, regular on this blog, commented that if he had come across creationists earlier, he would have been an atheist now rather than a moderate christian.

So while it's good to see creationism being criticized by christians, I'm not so happy about the idea of christianity getting away with evolving from the nonsense it has long proclaimed. If the original message is accepted to be rubbish, then let's just dump it all together rather than put a non-literalist new wrapper around it and give it a new lease on life it really doesn't deserve.

PeterKlaver

1) As quicky as you can name and describe THREE possible ANE theogonies?
2)What is the difference between the Genesis cosmogony and competing cosmogonies and theogonies?
3) How was time measured in the ANE, and how might this help us interpret Gen 1?


If you can't give quick answers to these questions, then you're not in a position to assume that a literal reading of Genesis was obvious to it's intended audience.

GV

Well Genesis is a cool book, to be sure, with much to be gained from reading it. Rescuing it from the butterfingers of Ken Ham would be a wonderful move, and I'd certainly be interested to hear any recordings of Elsdon's lecture...

And God said, Let there be DNA: and there was DNA.

And God saw the DNA, that it was good: and God divided the
DNA from the RNA.

I do not believe reason has any part to play in our knowledge of God but it certainly comes into its own in our scrutiny of religion. I am anxious to find out what the 'fruitful and nuanced approach' to the opening chapters of Genesis will be and must try to make time to attend the lecture to find out.

I am rather fearful, however, that this issue is the evangelical Protestant equivalent of Roman Eucharistic theology where learning debases reason to veil palpable nonsense under the spurious respectability of scholarship and erudition.

Surely the only honest thing to say about Genesis is something along the lines of: "Look, read this along with, say, the 'Enuma Elish' - it will give you an interesting comparative insight into how people of the ancient Middle East thought about the origins of the cosmos."

There's a good video being discussed on the Panda's thumb at the moment:

The American Association for the advancement of science responds to expelled" In it there's a section were a number of Christians (Francis Collins etc.) express opinions as to how they reconcile their faith with evolution. I think it's very good and is similar to the talk William has publicised.

However, I've been extremely critical of the main denominations stance on young Earth creationism in the province. I've long expressed the opinion that leading clergymen such as Bishop Robin Eames, Rev. John Dunlop, and Rev. Jim Rea should be giving the ordinary run of the mill Protestant leadershiop on this issue. Yet, every time people like Mervyn Storey utter their nonsensical statements the main Protestant denominations are conspicuous only by their silence. Why ? Are they afraid to confront the YECs ? Do they not say anything because there are large numbers of YECs in those denominations ? Certainly the Presbyterian church in Ireland is riddled with YEC ministers, despite the denomination allowing different views. More and more Presbyterian ministers these days appear to be YECs now. I therefore have to ask myself "what exactly is being taught at Union Theological College ?" The other Protestant denominations do not appear to be endorsing YECism at the moment but that is not to say that the belief is held widely by their members.

Incidently, Dr. Denis Alexander (not to be confused with Dr. Desi Alexander of Union Theolgical college) has a new book out aimed at christians called "Creation evolution you don't have to choose" It's already been heavily criticised by the YECs who won't accept any compromise (they are correct, everyone else is wrong).

The Rev. Dr. Elsdon's talk is to be welcomed. At least someone from the main denominations is trying to address the issue. However, I fear it is too little too late. The YECs in the province have had it their own way for far too long. With outside help they've managed to convert every evangelical denomination, along with a huge proportion of the Presbyterian church, to YECism. A rescue plan at this stage is a lost cause, unfortunately.

After nearly 2000 years people are still arguing about what this fairy tale means. When do you think they will agree that they've figured it out? Good thing it is all only a bunch of fairy tales. It's adherents couldn't handle anything more complicated.

Also, surely the term "scientific age" is sometghing of a misnomer. Was science not practised several hundred years ago ? For example, Newton might have been an alchemist but that was all they knew then. The periodic tabe was a concept yet to be thought of.

I have no doubt that several hundred years hence the scientists of the future will look apon this scientific age as the dark ages. Of that I am certain. Unless the YECs win of course.

peterJhenderson

I don't agree. Science is a process, a method of understanding the world and the universe by theorizing, testing, observing and then repeating the process always realizing that conclusions are tentative and open to question and reversal in light of new evidence. The scientific age began when significant numbers of people adopted this method. It's not the amount of knowledge that defines the scientific age but the acceptance that this is the only path to real knowledge. This is entirely distinct from what religion offers as a path to knowedge, that is the handing down of ultimate truth to some privileged messenger and sent by still other messengers, priests who instruct and interpret this truth for everyone else. The right to challenge or independent thought is not allowed in this method of determining truth. This is why the Catholic Church understood immediately that Galileo's challenge to their monopoly on truth was a mortal threat that would some day eliminate its power. Their fight was of course hopeless since human beings are by nature curious animals needing to find out the truth and not all being put off forever, even by force.

My favorite part is the story of Noah. The Irish Rovers have a real nice song about it and "The Unicorn."

A long time ago, when the Earth was green,
There was more kinds of animals than you've ever seen.
And they ran about and played while the Earth was being born,
And the loveliest of all was the unicorn.

There was green alligators and long-necked geese,
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born,
The loveliest of all was the unicorn.

The Lord seen some sinning and it caused Him pain.
And He said, "Stand back, I'm going to make it rain!"
He said, "Hey, Brother Noah, I'll tell you what to do,
Go and build me a floating zoo,"

"and take some".......

"Green alligators and long-necked geese,
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born.
Don't you forget My unicorns."

Old Noah was there to answer the call,
He finished up the ark just as the rain started to fall.
Then he marched in the animals two by two,
And he called out as they came through,

"Hey Lord,"

"I've got green alligators and long-necked geese,
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Some cats and rats and elephants, but Lord, I'm so forlorn,
I just can't find no unicorns!"

And Noah looked out through the driving rain,
Them unicorns were hiding, playing silly games.
Kicking and splashing while the rain was pourin',
Oh, them silly unicorns!

There was green alligators and long-necked geese,
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Noah cried, "Close the door because it's starting to storm,
And we just can't wait for those unicorns!"

The ark started moving, it drifted with the tide,
The unicorns looked up from the rocks and they cried.
And the waters came down and sort of floated them away,
That's why you never see unicorns to this very day.

You'll see some green alligators and long-necked geese,
Lots of humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees.
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born,
You're never gonna see a unicorn!

Marcus: Maybe you're correct. However, in the early 18th century they probably thought they were living in the scientific age. I still have no doubt that in several hundred years time the scientists of the future will view our science as archaic.

Re. the unicorn song. The bachelors have the best version, in my opinion. Surely the original "boy band" of the sixties and largely forgotton by the current "gold" stations. Does Hugo ever play the bachelors ? The bachelors version of the unicorn song is on Youtube by the way.

Hmmm. There seems to be a notion floating around that science can't tell us much about the gods. I disagree - it can tell us a great deal about what the gods are NOT - for instance, they did not create the universe a few thousand years ago; they did not specifically create different species or "kinds" of life; they don't answer prayers; they don't send or raise messiahs - those are lots of good goddy characteristics we can cross off the list.

By the time we're done with that, perhaps we can speculate as to what the gods actually *are*.

Fart all, I would suggest.

[Hey! The profanity filter kicks out foxtrot echo charlie kilo!]

What always amazes me is that there are two different accounts of creation in Genesis.

Surely it has never, ever, been doctrinal to hold to the exact literal reading of BOTH stories???

H
Science proves the miraculous is impossible? That prayers are NEVER answered?

I'm going to regret asking, but how exactly did you leap to these conclusions?

GV

Graham

"I'm going to regret asking...."

Not at all; I'm real interested to see where Helio is going with this business about prayers and raising messiahs.

Well, lessee - prayers that *are* answered are answered with "yes", "no" and "wait". Which seems to be utterly indistinguishable from prayers that are *not* answered. Ever hear of confirmation bias?

Jesus is dead; the gospel stories provide no basis for belief that he was resurrected, given that they were written in credulous times by people who couldn't even agree on what actually happened. As time went on, the stories became ever more stupid (e.g. the Gospel of Peter with Jesuszilla and the talking cross).

The only things we call upon gods to explain are stories. And stories are a piece of cake.

Hi Helio

I see you are suggesting that many of us (believer or not I would suggest) are too often guilty of believing what we want to believe. How true. I have no dispute with you there.

Interestingly though, your use of the common christian 'prayer' cliches, ' "yes", "no" and "wait" ', continue, like some of your other comments, to tell me more about the theology of the particular christian community you had experience of, than provide me with any substantial reason to reject faith.

If getting prayers answered was the approach to prayer inflicted upon you, you have my condolences.

H
Well, lessee, if I can put this in terms that you can, like, understand

Your post never mentions science once, so, you know, I guess you ,like, din't reallllly have an argument from sciencezilla.

And hey, it's not like everyone was credulous, and just believed everything they heard back then, you know? Like, people knew about superstitions, and the guys who wrote the New Testament kept having to try to say, "You know, there was an empty tomb, and eyewitnesses, and all sorts of stuff".

But it's good you just know what's true and what's false without trying, cos otherwise you'd have to read books. And you're a "bottom up" figure.

I'm sure you can prove I'm wrong just by using rude words (tee hee, they always make me giggle) so I guess I'm out of my league.

GV

Helio or should I say Marie Antoinette? (post 21)

"And stories are a piece of cake."

Well I suppose it all depends on whether you are reading Enid Blyton or Dostoevsky, and whether your are eating 'wee buns' or patisserie.

And anyway, without the story you don't have cake, just a list of ingredients.

WILL - get your people to fix this darned blog submission thing! It keeps rejecting my posts :-(

OK, chaps - I appreciate that when you are in a very weak position, resorting to dancing around seems attractive.

So you're admitting no contest re the prayers and resurrection thing then? Are prayers just about that nice feeling you get when your wee god loves ya? Seems so. Maybe science has indeed nothing to say about them, other than the fact that they are indistinguishable from no-prayers-at-all, which is kinda the point.

And since a resurrection is indistinguishable from no-resurrection-at-all, it would seem that science has something to say about that too.

Add to this burgeoning litany the embarrassing fact that god is indistinguishable from no-god-at-all, and I think we can all go home now.

-H

Helio

"Are prayers just about that nice feeling you get when your wee god loves ya?"

We've been here before, so to save me the time repeating myself about the gooey, mushy, feely, 'god must be with me, spine tingle' guff, maybe you would like to explain how you jumped to this conclusion about praying from my comment, "If getting prayers answered was the approach to prayer inflicted upon you, you have my condolences."

And while you are at it explain to me why you repeated the point about answered prayers being indistinguishable from non answered prayers.

Christian prayer is not an invocation, a mantra, a charm, an incantation or any such like. It is not a measure of one's ability to believe (something often confused with faith), and by it one does not conform the gods to one's will. I can however understand, given it's popular use, that the phrase 'in Jesus' name' sounds a bit like, 'double double toil and trouble'.

Helio, why do I keep on getting the impression that the 'theology' you ditched was just crap theology? All Enid no Fyodor by the sounds of it.

H
To say that the Gospel writers lived in credulous times, and that this explains the resurrection accounts, shows a woeful ignorance of the historical data. The Saducees and Greek philosophers rejected the notion of physical resurrection as absurd. Pharisaism was horrified at the idea of a crucified Messiah. This is to say nothing of the skepticism of many writers regarding superstitions (the miraculous).
You offer no argument against the possibility of the miraculous. Other than people as educated and as intelligent as you cannot even consider such possibilities.
So we have established in a prior discussion that you have absolutely no explanation for the evidence surrounding Jesus' Resurrection - and the fact that you cited Ehrman's hypothesis shows that you accept that there is evidence that requires an explanation.
So let's have your cards on the table - can you produce a sober, dispassionate argument against miracles? Or do you need rhetoric to make your position sound convincing?

GV

Just a comment on prayer.

I do not believe that God either hears or answers prayers but I believe he is what we might, in management speak, call a powerful resource for those who pray.

I see prayer as a process, conscious, or perhaps sometimes unconscious, which allows us to communicate with ourselves in the medium of the wholly other. It enables us to see ourselves, those whom we love, our situation, the world, whatever, in a different context, under a different light, from a completely different perspective. It is a process which can energise and transform us, which can effect change in our lives and even bring about change in the exterior world.

Public prayer, led correctly, can bring us into this transformational experience, allowing us to talk to one another sub specie aeternitatis. Unfortunately, in my experience, most people leading prayer barely disguise the fact that they are indeed talking to other people but use God as the excuse rather than the medium.

Now, given Portwyne's post, H has to respond to some inconvenient evidence.

1) That prayer can make an important difference to an individual psychologically. That can be studied scientifically - without reference to the existence/non-existence of God. In fact, there is a mountain of data H will need to engage with, going back to William James' work on religious conversion. Can the positive effects of a prayerful life be replicated without religion? What are the negative effects of a prayerful life? Keep in mind (a) we are not talking about Christian prayer and (b) if we want to be scientific we need to consult and analyse the data. We can't flick through "The God Delusion", and make a flippant comment about memes.

2) Developing Portwyne's post, prayer - communication with a Personal Transcendent being - is a persistent cross cultural phenomenon, even occurring in religions that believe that Ultimate Reality is non-personal. This calls out for some sort of explanation, and leads atheists to posit memes or repressed Father figures. Otherwise many intelligent, eduacted self-critical and self-aware individuals are in fact delusional. They are in a worse state than James Stewart in "Harvey", for they defer to their imaginary friend in morality and knowledge.
Of course, it would suit H and co. to caricature Theistic beliefs in this way. But if the caricature works, why do intelligent atheists rely on Darwinistic, Freudian or Marxist explanations of Religion? Intelligent atheism does not buy into the polemic that Religious believers are not merely mistaken, but psychologically damaged. Some deeper explanation is required.

3) Prayer is like many moral experiences - it is an experience with cognitive content. As an example, I may feel revulsion at pictures of the Holocaust, and simutaneously find myself believing that human life demands respect and care.
The experience of prayer is a cognitive experience - it asserts the reality of a transcendent (and usually personal) being. So if I am justified in believing cruelty is wrong, or that innocent life should be protected on the basis of my moral experiences, then surely I am justified in believing in God on the basis of Prayer. (This is not proof, of course, and my beliefs remain open to rational critique).

Now H has some questions to answer, given his recent comments on the wonders and nature of science.

(1) What scientific studies has he consulted on the effects of prayer? Without familiarity with the literature, how can he assert that science has nothing to say about prayer, and that it is no different than "no prayer at all"?

(2) Does he have a testable scientfic hypothesis that explains the Religious experiences and emotions associated with prayer? (And it must be testable). Or must he content himself with anecdotal evidence, and caricature?

(3) Are my moral beliefs only justified when I establish them by the Scientific method?

GV

"It (prayer) is a process which can energise and transform us, which can effect change in our lives and even bring about change in the exterior world."

Portwyne, I agree (I think!) and would probably say that one of the primary reasons to pray is that prayer changes me. Maybe I might suggest that prayer, among other things, is when I am transparent before the Divine. And, to flirt ever so fleetingly with the topic of this thread, it is when I realise my need of 'covering'.

However, how you have managed to arrive at the conclusion that God is unknowing and distant, and that life is meaningless is, frankly, a conundrum which quite simply bends my brain. As soon as I think I have an ecclesiastical description which might help me grasp your understanding of God/christianity, be it, liberal, mystical, sacramental, 'high' (most certainly not 'low' !), liberation, existentialist, as in Kierkegaard... I must admit, with regret, that it slips through my hands and I am bereft of a box in which I might place you.

Peter

"Unknowing", yes but not distant, never distant!

Graham, you know I like your posts, but you don't really believe that, do you? I don't think you do.

The "evidence" in the gospels may indeed all be fantasy. I like to think there is a grain of truth, and that when Matthew and Luke were ripping off and embellishing Mark, they were merely reporting what they heard, rather than intentionally lying. Your problem is that even if you take the starting point that they are *mostly* true (nobody believes they are *all* true, because they contradict, of course), the most parsimonious explanation is that Jesus died and a rumour started spreading that he had risen. A miracle is not required - the same thing happened (briefly) for John the Baptist! Do I exclude the miraculous? I don't have to. All you have is a story. That's it. And poor apologetics, of course. People rise from the dead all the time.

1) That prayer can make an important difference to an individual psychologically.

Indeed. In medicine, it's called the "Placebo effect", or sometimes the power of positive thinking. It works just as well in the absence of gods. It worked for the Egyptians, Sumerians, Celts, Vikings - yup, good stuff this prayer psychobabble.

Can the positive effects of a prayerful life be replicated without religion?

Yes. Just speaking from personal experience here. I get all sorts of positive effects from the people I love and doing what I enjoy, and interacting with others (such as your good self).

communication with a Personal Transcendent being - is a persistent cross cultural phenomenon

Big deal. We've evolved to read personalities into rocks. I don't recall suggesting we weren't human. I even swore at my door today when I walked into it (politely).

Otherwise many intelligent, eduacted self-critical and self-aware individuals are in fact delusional.

Precisely. 100,000 customers can't be wrong, eh?

Intelligent atheism does not buy into the polemic that Religious believers are not merely mistaken, but psychologically damaged. Some deeper explanation is required.

If you read Dawkins, you will find that that characterisation is a clumsy straw man. You can do better than that. Some are damaged, of course, but I know a lot of very nice and sane Christians, Jews, Muslims and even a few Buddhists and Hindus. They are not nutters, but you do not need to be a nutter to believe something that is totally untrue.

(1) What scientific studies has he consulted on the effects of prayer? Without familiarity with the literature, how can he assert that science has nothing to say about prayer, and that it is no different than "no prayer at all"?

Have you heard of the null hypothesis? It's up to you to present the evidence. You can't. I don't even think I said that science has nothing to say about prayer. If you can demonstrate an effect, and we can put it to the test, then science can say shedloads about prayer.

(2) Does he have a testable scientfic hypothesis that explains the Religious experiences and emotions associated with prayer? (And it must be testable).

People believe nonsense. That is pretty provable. How about YOU (who are claiming an effect for babbling at a non-existent pixie) provide some evidence that prayer WORKS? I get emotions looking at all sorts of things; I feel a sense of awe and wonder looking at the night sky, or a DNA sequence, or the RAS-MAPK pathway. If you can replicate that warm glow by internal mumblings, that's nice, but I have to say I regard that as somewhat vapid and entirely worthless. But whatever floats your boat.

Or must he content himself with anecdotal evidence, and caricature?

Which is funny, coming from someone who tries to argue that Jesus actually rose from the dead!

(3) Are my moral beliefs only justified when I establish them by the Scientific method?

No - they are justified by the effects they have on other moral beings. Quantum mechanics (or even the gods) won't call you to account, but other people will. Morality only works properly when you boot out the gods and start valuing *people* more than imaginary tyrants.

Portwyne, I agree that god is not distant - for something that is entirely contained within the skull, that's pretty darned close!
:-)

-H

Isn't it interesting that church liberals feel they need to rescue the first book of the bible from people who actually believe in it.
www.theevangelists.blogspot.com

H
I like your posts too - I think you're very good at rhetoric, and I always like your put downs. I can't seem to match them, and I take it we both know they're intended as sport.
It just seems to me that you belong to the Dawkins school of atheism. I find his arguments thin and unconvincing when you abstract them from his style. But he is always entertaining, and can sound very convincing, even when he makes the most ludicrous assertions.
I don't think you engage with the evidence, or the arguments. Prayer and aesthetic experiences are different. But why should Scientific discovery give you a "warm glow" if nature has no meaning? If religious belief can be explained by insulting believers, why use memes or alienation to explain Theism? If I lived in Nazi Germany, who should call my morality to account? What if I lived in a rural village in Saudi Arabia? Should I be Wahabi?

You can find data on prayer in Michael Argyle's "Psychology of Religion",
William James classic lectures ,
a list of David Hay's articles at ,
Eileen Barker's work on Religious Conversion here


Neuropsychiatrists have been studying religious experience - look at the Horizon website for details.

It's not a topic that would grab my attention - but it has grabbed the attention of soem scientists at least.

GV

Rev Hall

Interesting site.

Is everyone who does not take a literalist approach to Genesis 1 a liberal?
If so, who gets to define "liberal"?

GV

H
How do you test the theory that we have evolved to read personalities into rocks? Do you regard this theory as true?

If there is a world of difference between aesthetic experience and Religious Experience, trust me, there's a much larger gap between prayer and anthropomorphising my car.
This is why I feel you should make some effort to glance at summaries of the psychology of Religious Experience. It's also why Naturalists are motivated to provide deeper explanations of religion.

Finally, the gospels are tested, rigorously, when examining the Historical Jesus. Even your friend Ehrman would admit to that. The historian Collingwood is helpful here -essentailly we should look for the information that sources UNINTENTIONALLY convey. Embarassing material, material that reflects the concerns of someone other than the author. Craig's four "facts" (and Craig is hardly the only scholar who holds these) are sound.

GV

PeterM - your post # 30

Helio (The God Debate #59) has come up with a potentially suitable box for me which you missed in your list - perhaps I'm a 'smug postmodern artsy' type? Then again perhaps not...

Portwyne

Smug postmodern artsy type?

Postmodern I can believe, but smug, surely not smug!

And of course, if postmodern were true (what is truth?) then 'boxes' are probably not your thing!

Hi Graham,

Good - we're in mutual appreciation mode ;-)

Do I belong to the Dawkins school of atheism? Yes, indeed I do. I understand why theists don't like him - much of it has to do with him being *right*. The standard responses are along the lines of "that's not by god" or "he's too shrill" or "his arguments are thin". These are not well thought-out responses (you'll have read Plantinga's laughable response in a book review of "The God Delusion", and maybe even Alister McGrath's "Dawkins Delusion" - Dawkins outclasses these folks in a big way).

I don't think you engage with the evidence, or the arguments.

Actually, I rather think I do. The problem is that many theists pretend that their arguments mean something else than they actually do. I have no problem in accepting that prayer, for example, has psychological effects on people, and even the "religious experience" may make some people a bit less odious than they would otherwise be. However, there is no reason to extrapolate this beyond what is happening to *people*, and certainly no reason to invoke silly theories that they somehow validate the existence of the gods.

But why should Scientific discovery give you a "warm glow" if nature has no meaning?

Who ever said anything about anything having "no meaning"? Are you perhaps double-dipping, by assuming that "meaning" has to be externally verified? And therefore there must be an external verifier? And without such there cannot be "meaning"? That is mere question-begging. I find lots of meaning, but I derive my meaning from what is going on around me.

If religious belief can be explained by insulting believers, why use memes or alienation to explain Theism?

Actually, religionists are the ones who do the most insulting. Some of us are trying to understand human behaviour, and shifting terminology is a good way to get rid of emotional verbaggage.

If I lived in Nazi Germany, who should call my morality to account? What if I lived in a rural village in Saudi Arabia? Should I be Wahabi?

This is a good question, and where a lot of theists come unstuck. By "society" we are not talking about "government" (local or national). We are talking about the interactions between people.

Neuropsychiatrists have been studying religious experience - look at the Horizon website for details.

And they're the right people to look at it.

Now on to your next post:

How do you test the theory that we have evolved to read personalities into rocks? Do you regard this theory as true?

Well, we *do* read personalities into rocks; that's the fact. What theory explains it? Well, we *evolved* - that's a fact too. Perhaps there were evolutionary pressures that led us to personalise all sorts of things. That may be a black box. Either way, it does not prove that rocks have personalities (obviously), but you seem less inclined to accept that evidence when applied to the notional gods. Why?

Finally, the gospels are tested, rigorously, when examining the Historical Jesus. Even your friend Ehrman would admit to that.

Indeed - I would go further than Bart - I think that Mark at least contains a lot of fairly accurate stuff.

The historian Collingwood is helpful here -essentailly we should look for the information that sources UNINTENTIONALLY convey.

And again I absolutely agree, and this is a good point. The sources unintentionally convey the fact that there was a serious divergence of opinion regarding the events surrounding the resurrection, consistent with chinese whispers and ghostie stories. They convey the fact that the agendas of the gospellers caused them to warp the stories to fit what they wanted to say (Matthew's mess-up with the triumphal entry is an amusing example, as is his story of the Jerusalem zombies and earthquake).

Craig's four "facts" (and Craig is hardly the only scholar who holds these) are sound.

Actually, they are not, because the only sources we have for these "facts" are the sources that are themselves under question. But even if we assume them, an actual resurrection is not the "best explanation", because we know that back then people assumed resurrections accounted for all sorts of silly nonsense. The stories show quite clearly that the idea of the resurrection came first, and the stories were moulded to fit the belief. Not the other way round. They were moulded in slightly different (and contradictory) ways.

It didn't happen.

BTW, don't worry about Ian's website. I don't think he has specified whether Genesis 1 is true and 2 is wrong, or the other way round. Dr Elsdon's talk promises to be a lot more interesting. And not in big bold font.
ATB,
-H

H
Plantinga just dismissed Dawkins as philosophically inept; Swinburne takes a similar approach. Neither really tried to respond to him on his own level of discourse. And Dawkins is much better at being dismissive than Swinburne. I thought Plantinga was funnier, but then I'm on his side.
Dawkins is philosophically inept, but his arguments can be sharpened up, and responded to.
I agree that McGrath's book didn't really deal with Dawkins.
The rest of your post demands much more thought than I can give at the moment. I'll get back to you Monday morning.
Could I just ask one question that might help me see where you're coming from on Science? Is it rational to believe in "Dark Matter"? That is to say that there really is something that Dark Matter refers to, and partially (but not fully)describes? Or should we always be agnostic about such things, and simply search for models (or fictions) that help us make predictions?

GV

And yes, the font was scary

Hi Graham,

Cripes - we're agreeing again - yes, Plantinga, Swinburne (ouch - his was *bad*) and McGrath didn't really touch the issue. It is true that Dawkins' arguments are simple - but that is because they don't have to be more complicated than that. Some things are very straightforward, and dressing them up in flowery fancies just gives the fleas more places to hide from the permethrin. You'll be aware of

Is it rational to believe in "Dark Matter"?

No - it is not rational to *believe* in it. Rather, we have models that are very good at describing the behaviour of matter. Yet when we zoom up these models to see whether galaxies *really* behave in manners consistent with them, we find that they *don't* - i.e. there is a problem with the theory (which, incidentally, shows that you were wrong to suggest that scientists only see what fits into their theories).

Therefore, we have to ask: is the model completely wrong, or are there other factors that might either lead to a new model, or parameters that can be incorporated into the existing model that would make it behave as we see nature actually *does* behave.

In the latter camp, we have Dark Matter. I think it's certainly likely that such DM exists, and it does seem to do what is required of it (i.e. you can include it in your model, and the model works again), but what it actually *is* is a far trickier one. Which means we need to look for examples that test the models further, such as that galactic collision that was reported the other day.

So it does look like there is DM, and I might even operationally accept that there is DM. We can play with models of various types of DM, and see how they match reality. But *believe* in it? Naah - belief is never required. It stops people thinking outside the box.

For example, there are some people who *believe* that Jesus rose from the dead. This stops them looking at alternative explanations for how the stories arose and propagated. There are people who *believe* his ma was a virgin. There are people who believe Mohammed was in contact with the angel Gabriel, or that the world is 6000 years old. Belief does bad things to brains. Always keep the door open to new ideas. Play with ideas. It's fun, uplifting, and wondrous.

He that believeth hath everlasting stultifying concrete imprisonment.

Cheers,
-H

H- As usual I agree with you on almost everything. I understand the difference between belief/faith and theory/'operational acceptance': Christians are not very good at understanding this difference, which is key if we are to be rational people acting on real observations. I don't share your atheism, though my 'operational deism' (as it has become recently) accepts, shares and even advocates all your criticisms of religion and many of your criticisms of theism. It's an interesting thing to agree with someone (even in the nuances) as much as I do with you, and yet to dissent on the final conclusion: 'There is no god!'

John, I don't *believe* there is no god - it's an operational acceptance ;-)

-H

H- Understood! :-)

Incidentally, I am hoping to skip along to this; might see a few of the regulars there? I'll be the one in the gorilla suit.

I rather hope to get along myself - work permitting. I'll be the one with 'flashing eyes and floating hair'...

Good-o. I'll bring some bananas. :-)

I think the 'milk of paradise' might be frowned upon in St Bartholomew's but maybe I could rustle up a honeydew melon...

Sorry, I missed the post about meeting up. I'm not avoiding anyone. Even if they are in Gorilla suits.

GV

Hi Graham, we're talking about heading over to hear what Rev Elsdon has to say. There is a rising number of evangelicals who are becoming prepared to stand up against the cretard bully-boys.

Am I likely to agree with everything he says? Probably not. I do not see the "hand of god" in creation any more than I see it in Maradona. But if theists and atheists are to have any sort of intelligent debate (like wot we're maybe having here;-), it's better done without the cloud of frank BS that is YEC.

-H

Thanks a lot for this message. I am just back from the meeting and I can say that it's been interesting - it is always good to see that there are Christians making an effort to establish a dialogue between faith and science. We certainly need more of this...

I went too - and wasted a lunch time I rather think. I think I like my BS frank rather than pare.

What we were offered was a very now, very green understanding of Genesis 1, the usual injunction to read the bible whole and to understand individual passages in the light of the central themes.

This argument fails for me because of the absence of thematic consistency throughout the canon. If the Bible begins with and sustains a theme of care for creation, it ends in Revelation with what has also been a fairly pervasive theme throughout, that we live in what is essentially a literally disposable world - the ultimate throwaway.

When Dr Elsdon addressed this issue he crystallised what is for me the problem in moderate evangelical thinking - he continued the reasoning of God (and Christ) out of the picture. Revelation ends, he suggested, with a new earth - sounded to me like he thought it would be a kind of PDP - a people-divine project.

Reason cannot explain God, when you bring it into the equation, bit by bit, you reason God away.



If you don't really

I thought it was quite stimulating; it didn't degenerate into the fight that I thought it might (I had visions of Dr Elsdon having to ward off a horde of angry creationists!)