Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Nick Soapdish]

I'm still enjoying our conversation. You raised several interesting points, and some of them resonate and hit home. However, you have attacked my credibility, and so I must rise to defend it. I said (1) One of the major themes of the old testament is "this land which I gave you, kill everyone in it." (2) The bible authorizes slavery. At this point, the issue is not whether you can dig up some apologetics to defend these passages, but merely whether this is indeed the case. So I will take the time to cite some of the passages that support my assertion. In turn, I will ask you to either support your aspersion on my accuracy, or withdraw it. Unfortunately, the response will take longer than the board allows, so I will break it up into more than one post.

I will not include God's own genocides, as against the Egyptians or all of humanity, but only those instances in which He commands the Israelites to kill another people, or in which they do so with His assistance and at His command. I have also omitted the many long passage describing battle journies, tactics, numbers of soldiers, and the like. Basically wars and battles take up a huge percentage of the OT. I have just cut to the conclusions: Kill them; we killed them. So these quoted passages represent a tiny percentage of the total text devoted to these subjects.

Well done. You have certainly included an adequate number of sources.

I don't think I am capable of justifying every passage in the Bible, but I will say that these books were written in a time when war and slavery was very common. Society was not nearly as mature and civilized as it is today. In many cases I am sure that war was inevitable and necessary for the continuity of the Jewish heritage.

One thing I will point out is that the God of the Old Testament still rewarded righteousness and punished sin and called for people to be holy. This was unusual for religious doctrines of the time. His involvement in war I suspect is due to Him acting out His judgment of detestable societies.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not sure what gave you the idea I am opposed to the general study of science in learning about the earth, that presumption alone is preposterous .

I don't know, maybe it was when you said:

Scientists have this amazing ability to piece this muti million year planet together as if it happened yesterday , and there are some who hang off every word of these clowns, now that's cause for a laugh or pity on the dear souls.

I don't however believe with all the scientific knowledge we have, can prove evolution as anything more than a theory,which is all it has ever been and all it will ever be.To speak, of something that they think happened billions of years ago, as if it happened yesterday blows my mind ,it takes more faith for that line of thought than for God

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. [wiki] Examples would include the theory of gravity or the the germ theory of disease. In short, it's the highest level of scientific knowledge. In science, there is no such thing as only a theory.

So apparently you're O.K. with science, but have a problem with geology, cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, biology, and all attempts to learn about the past?

Alrighty ,what may I say is the postion you take or they take,
One of the primary positions in which they attempt to age the earth up to billions of years is the measurment of the differnt types of decaying rock regarding a method called radiometric dating. Emphasis seems to be on the Mount St Helens eruption and what they discovered.
There is so much info on this subject alone, so many methods ,so many a hypothesis

What say you?

Mt. St. Helens?!? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I already said, according to modern geology (whose opinion, not being a geologist but a reasonable person, I accept) the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old. I am prepared to defend this position. What do you say?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

That's true, and the Bible has a lot of good to say. Some would warn against throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but at the other end of the spectrum, you can't just let the baby sit in that lukewarm water until it rots.

The facts are these: The Bible has some not-so-nice, not-so-peaceful messages in the OT that need to be dealt with. You can't treat them like your crazy Uncle Harvey who no one talks about and everyone hopes won't show up at Christmas. You can't just sweep them under the rug, because they'll come back to bite you. Most Christians believe that the Bible was Divinely Inspired--that means that whatever is in that book was put there by the Christian god.

I agree. I will admit there is some difficulty in reconciling these passages.

There are many ways to safely secure that baby and rid yourself of the nasty water, however. There are several religions that teach many of the peaceful, loving messages that can be found in the NT, without all that OT baggage. Buddhism is one of them, and Buddha also predates Jesus by about 500 years.

Doesn't Buddhism still have the baggage from Hinduism?

The two things that keep me away from Buddhism are:

1) There is no explicit God. This is a big one because I believe in a purposeful Universe.

2) The goal of Buddhism is to end suffering by getting rid of your attachments and desires. I am not a big fan of detaching myself from the World so that I can seek inner peace. Just doesn't jive with me.

First of all, I only got through the first two books of the Bible because that's all I had time for. Second of all, the initial assertion concerned the Old Testament only, not the entire Bible.

A better indicator, then, would be to analyze the number of verses within the books that I got through. Genesis and Exodus together have 2,746 verses in all. the verses I provided account for 2.79% of those first two books in the Bible, or 3% if we're rounding. Let's also keep in mind that the verses I provided dealt specifically with genocide--there are several other categories of atrocities that the good Lord commits which I did not include in my count.

Not a terribly accurate measure. The first 5 books of the Bible will have many more passages of this sort than later sections. There will be much fewer verses in Job and on.

Here's what Romans 2:6, 13 says:

"Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified"

I don't see how the fact that he is addressing Christians makes any difference here. He is blatantly telling them that they have to "do good" and "follow the law" if they want to be considered just in the sight of god.

No one is totally just in the sight of God; doesn't mean no one is saved.

Its no matter. There are several other examples of this contradiction that I can find for you if you still desire them.

As for my accusation hunting: a hunt presents a challenge. One need not venture further than the second chapter of Genesis should they wish to find inconsistency and contradiction.

All I am saying is that if you are hunting for contradictions, you are most likely misinterpreting what you are reading to make it "fit" the inconsistency.

 

[Autodidact]

Well done. You have certainly included an adequate number of sources.

I don't think I am capable of justifying every passage in the Bible, but I will say that these books were written in a time when war and slavery was very common. Society was not nearly as mature and civilized as it is today. In many cases I am sure that war was inevitable and necessary for the continuity of the Jewish heritage.

One thing I will point out is that the God of the Old Testament still rewarded righteousness and punished sin and called for people to be holy. This was unusual for religious doctrines of the time. His involvement in war I suspect is due to Him acting out His judgment of detestable societies.

I'm not asking you to justify any passage, not even the many that I cited in which God commands, authorizes and rewards His people for committing genocide, not to mention infanticide. They are not justifiable, and attempts to do so are sickening, so I would rather you not try. My point was not that Yahweh is a genocidal, primitive war God, that's obvious. Remember--you haven't read all of the world's holy books, or even very many. You are not familiar with all of the world's religions. Once you were familiar with the one you were raised with, it seemed so theologically sound to you, so obviously intuitively sound, that you accepted it and base your life on it. So I want you to tell me, when you read these passages, what about them so resonated with you that you realized that this and only this book contained God's truth, described the Author of the universe and His relationship to humanity so well, that you thought it would make sense to base your life-philosophy on them. Because you did know these were all in your Bible, right? You wouldn't accept a text-based religion without even reading the text, right?

Bear in mind it's not about society, it's about God. Of course in reality these are just the attempts to write history by an ancient and rather primitive and war-like people. Of course unprovoked attacks, ethnic cleansing, slavery, taking wives off the battle-field were all part of Canaanite culture, so of course the Bible contains glorified records of these kinds of actions. That's not the point. The point is that you base our fundamental understanding of humanity and the divine on them. I know that there is no God, and He never commanded the Hebrews to slaughter the Midianites. After all, the poor Midianites were completely destroyed three separate times. It's impossible. That's not the point. The point is, what about these texts so resonated as the best possible description of humanity's relationship to the divine? Because to me they just read like primitive tribal histories, arbitrary food taboos, and innacurate natural history, with the occasional gem of wisdom.

ETA: Will you please have the decency to either withdraw your aspersion on my credibility or support it? My word is important to me, even on the internet.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Take the old testament. Take out all the passages describing, commanding or advocating war, genocide and conquest. Now take out all the passages commanding and prescribing animal sacrifice, which you no longer practice. Now take out all the passages containing commandments that you have decided don't apply any more, like prohibitions against eating bats and barbecued spare ribs. Now take out all the stuff you don't really believe is true, like the sun stopping in the sky, or a worldwide flood (unless you do believe those things are true, in which case you're wrong). What do you have left?

History, ethics, poetry, Hebrew mythology.

 

[Autodidact]

Not a terribly accurate measure. The first 5 books of the Bible will have many more passages of this sort than later sections. There will be much fewer verses in Job and on.

Actually, the most war-filled book is Joshua. That's almost all it is. Have you read the Bible?

All I am saying is that if you are hunting for contradictions, you are most likely misinterpreting what you are reading to make it "fit" the inconsistency.

Really, or if you're hunting for consistency, maybe you are misinterpreting what you are reading to make it "fit" the consistency. Instead of attacking the credibility of the individual, how about responding to the points made?

 

[Autodidact]

History, ethics, poetry, Hebrew mythology.

And a very slim volume of those.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Usually the person who makes an assertion has the burden of supporting it. Do you have anything stronger, anything roughly contemporaneous, or closer in time than what I gave? If not, I think it's safe to conclude that he was not.

I am confused. There are multiple sources of evidence... isn't it up to you to produce counter-evidence?

Depends on what you mean by "faith." It's an ambiguous term. There is a big difference between faith based on evidence, and faith without or despite it.

To have faith is to commit yourself to an idea even though you do not have independently verifiable evidence.

Really? Where does the Bible say that?

Matthew 5:1-7:29 (Sermon on the Mount)

1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

Yes, I understand. I'm trying to get you to look at what you sincerely believe are those reasons, to see whether they stand up. For example, you say that the theology makes sense to you. I'm arguing that it often doesn't, and when it doesn't, you just reject that part.

Do you have an example?

I would like you to consider the possibility that the reasons it comports with your intuition should be a bit suspicious. Is it a coincidence that what most people find comports with their intuition just happens to match up with what most of the people around them believe?

No, of course not. What difference does that make?

I just think it would have been great if it had just said, "everyone," or defined "neighbor" to mean everyone. That's because it's very clear that the OT sets forth a tribal religion, in which one only needs to deal ethically with members of one's tribe, and it's O.K. to kill, rape, kidnap and enslave everyone else. This type of attitude is devastating in the modern world. It would have been excellent if the NT had clearly and explicity rejected this view.

Matthew 5:43 You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'

Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

In any case, the question isn't whether you can scrape together some apologetics to justify worshiping a genocidal war God. The question is whether the whole thing, the big picture, makes sense. Is this the wisest, most compassionate and logical religious system? God appears once, to one people, and what he tells them is: Kill, kill, kill. Are you saying that makes sense to you?

So are you saying this is moral? That genocide is moral and correct, if God commands it? What do you think suicide bombers believe on this question?
You don't consider genocide and infanticide to be bad?

So you think that ordering a soldier to stab a baby to death with his sword is just?

Remember: the Israelites only killed all the men. Moses told them God was angry because they had failed to kill the babies as well. Who's distorting here?

Once again you are overshadowing the holy and righteous teachings in the Bible with these depictions of violence. Yes, the big picture makes sense to me. The Christian systematic theology makes sense.

The fact is we live in violent world where bad things happen. This is depicted in the Bible and God is involved in all things. Just because bad things happen doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

No, I've been asking: How do you know? I assert that without evidence, you can't. You have not offered anything in refutation of this position. In brief, as I said, your position seems to be "I just know it; I really really do." Which is pretty darned weak.

I have never said that. I said that I believe it is based on intuition and faith. You may think it is weak, but it gives me tremendous hope and contentment.

Of course it applies to me. The difference is that I do have a basis on which to differentiate whether we know something: evidence. Remember, this thread is about creationism. (a long time back in this thread) I know that 6000 years ago special creation didn't happen because of the evidence.

But you have to understand that your belief to only follow evidence is a belief in itself, learned from your environment and culture. If you lived in 1000 BC Israel, I doubt you would have that same belief. You too believe what you do because of your culture.

I am still critical that you do not use your intuition on many things that are not evident. I don't know enough about you to say what all you act on merely based on faith, but I have no doubt everyone does.

Purposeful. Significant. Resonant. Important. Worthwhile.

Purpose to what end? To hang on until the eventual destruction of our planet, solar system, etc?

Of course you don't. BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE. That's my point. You claim that you believe this religion because it makes sense, but it doesn't, so you don't. Except when you do.

We can't get value out of something if it is allegory, analogous or illustrative? Might I suggest it is my interpretation of the Bible that makes sense to me, not your interpretation.

I think Christian theology makes a lot more sense than believing I am a programmed, automaton organism, that self-replicating, evolving enzymes managed to accidentally form themselves out of muck, and that the Universe, in all its order, mystically popped into existence for no reason.

Me too. Who believes that?

I don't know. Maybe atheists pretend that they have freewill, that abiogenesis makes total sense in a naturalism framework and that an ordered Universe can make itself up.

Of course they do. That's why the Bible is absolutely useless.

Sorry, but that is a reckless generalization.

For example, apparently you think the prohibition against male homosexuality doesn't change with time, while the authorization of polygamy does. Why?

Some ethics are of absolute, timeless principle, wouldn't you agree? Like murder, rape, theft? However, not all cultural norms are timeless (slavery, polygamy, sacrificing animals etc). I am not sure why you are surprised about this.

Show us what I said that was not correct.

I find your statements are full of unjustified generalizations and mis characterizations. For example, the OT is all about genocide and slavery, the NT doesn't teach very much ethics, the Bible is irrelevant because it is so old, etc. It is as if you are constantly referencing the Christianity depicted in anti-Christian sites such as infidels.org. This depiction of Christianity is very different from the one I know.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I thought salvation was through faith? I'm confused. Maybe I don't know what you meant by "salvation"?

No it is by faith. I do not have divine knowledge as to who will have/does have faith and who is pretending to have faith (i.e. a wolf in sheeps clothing).

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Thank you. That's a nice question, although possibly not of general interest to our readers. Maybe you could be more specific?

Short version:
I'm 52 years old, a lesbian, and an atheist. I have 3 children. The oldest is 18 and rocks the world. The youngest is 8. I adopted her through the Department of Human Services solely because this is the only life I have and I wanted to accomplish something significant and positive with it. A Jewish tradition is that by saving a single human life we save the entire world. Being her mom is very, very hard. I work for a non-profit and the funnest thing about my job is that I get paid to help people.

I have a scientific orientation to life. I try to overcome our natural tendencies to believe weird things, as Michael Shermer says, by being aware of them and using the scientific method as much as possible. I believe that, objectively, human beings enjoy being kind. I don't think there are any shortcuts, and the best way to my own happiness is by practicing good morals. As Aristotle says, virtue is the science of happiness. Here is a set of quotes that sums up my ethics:

The purpose of our lives is to be happy.
--Dalai Lama
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.
--Dalai Lama again
When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
--Abraham Lincoln

Since I strongly suspect that this is the only ticket I get to the great ride of life, I try to make the most of it in terms of having fun, learning, and being nice to people. I cherish opportunities to help other people when I find them. I do not think there is anything immoral with enjoying myself, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else.

I have a girlfriend who is the kindest, most thoughtful and compassionate person I have ever met. That's why I love her so much. Also she's a cutie. Knowing she loves me changes me and every moment of my life, transforms my existence, my house, my time, my very being. If I have faith in anything, it is in the love we share. I cannot imagine anything that anyone would say that could convince me that our love is wrong. Frankly when I read someone saying that it is, it makes me laugh, because anyone who would think that has no clue about what right and wrong is all about. If love is wrong, then...well, love isn't wrong, and no one can convince me it is.

To get into metaphysical naturalism would take us far off track, and would be too much to cover. For me it's basically epistemelogical. If I cannot perceive it, if no one can perceive it, what difference does it make? It's the functional equivalent of not existing. And that's enough for now.

Thank you for this, it is appreciated.

As far as the purpose of our lives is to happy, I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. Is this happiness for you or for everyone? What if an act compromises someone else's happiness in order to give you happiness?

And what exactly is happiness anyway? What is love, and how does that factor in?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Unlike religion, science is able to accept the answer, "We don't know," or "We don't know yet." In many situations, that is the most accurate possible answer.

How about "we can't know"? Or is that being too realistic? I mean, really, how is science suppose to discover where the laws of physics it describes came from?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Actually, the most war-filled book is Joshua. That's almost all it is. Have you read the Bible?

You are right, Joshua is a historical record of Joshua's conquest. I find it to be more tame than the first 5 books of the OT. Most of the messages from God are to be courageous and strong, and to be thankful and love God.

Also, it is not after Job.

Really, or if you're hunting for consistency, maybe you are misinterpreting what you are reading to make it "fit" the consistency.

Good point. Hey, stop attacking my credibility...

Instead of attacking the credibility of the individual, how about responding to the points made?

I did respond to the points made, didn't I?

And a very slim volume of those.

You are kidding right? Ever read Proverbs? Psalms? Ecclesiastes? Prophets?

 

[roli]

roli, you don't know what a scientific "theory" is, do you?

I know what theories in some people's mind seem to be, truth ,or so it seems

 

[Autodidact]

I know what theories in some people's mind seem to be, truth ,or so it seems

Like all scientific knowledge, it's as close as we have come to the truth about a specific subject so far, but still subject to future improvement. Again, you seem to be rejecting science as a source of truth. For example, what do you think of the heliocentric theory? Truth? It's only a theory. In fact, it was eventually overturned or rather improved to reflect later knowledge that our sun is just one of billions of billions. It's still a heck of a lot more true than the geocentric idea that it replaced.

 

[Sunstone]

I know what theories in some people's mind seem to be, truth ,or so it seems

Theories are like maps, Roli. They are not meant to be comprehensive of every feature on the terrain they refer to. Instead, they are meant to be useful guides to predicting and navigating the terrain.

 

[mingmty]

How about "we can't know"? Or is that being too realistic? I mean, really, how is science suppose to discover where the laws of physics it describes came from?

Science doesn't like the "we can't know" answer, it only leads to conformism, the "we don't know yet, but..." is much better for continue developing ourselves.

As I said, a very impressive particle accelerator is being constructed in Europe, and it is the result of "we don't know yet, but if we build a super collider with 2.5 miles of radius we may know tomorrow".

Science is beautiful. And for those of you that say that without god there is no meaning; I really don't need an invisible omnipotent being to find the meaning of my life, and I think nobody needs it, we could perfectly stand only as man; breathing living beings, striving for kindness, happiness and the progress of humanity as a whole.

 

[Valjean]

I know what theories in some people's mind seem to be, truth ,or so it seems

When we speak of scientific theories we're not using the word in the colloquial sense of "conjecture." roli. A theory, in science, is not an incomplete or unproven fact, nor are theories and facts mutually exclusive.
The germ theory of disease is a theory -- and a fact. The heliocentric theory of the solar system is a theory -- and a fact.
Spherical Earth, Gravity, E=MC^2, thermodynamics -- all theories. Plus, science doesn't prove facts, it can supply overwhelming evidence, but it doesn't prove things. For proofs look to mathematics.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Science doesn't like the "we can't know" answer, it only leads to conformism, the "we don't know yet, but..." is much better for continue developing ourselves.

I love science, but it has limitations. How can we possibly formulate how the laws of physics came into being? Suppose if we do, we just now have a new set of formulas to figure out how they came into being. Science, at its roots, is based on quantitative analysis. If something is not subject to quantitative analysis, it is not in the domain of science.

Science is beautiful. And for those of you that say that without god there is no meaning; I really don't need an invisible omnipotent being to find the meaning of my life, and I think nobody needs it, we could perfectly stand only as man; breathing living beings, striving for kindness, happiness and the progress of humanity as a whole.

Before becoming a theist, I studied quantum physics, cosmology, TOEs, trying to find some meaning. I have to confess that what I discovered is fascinating and mind boggling, however, it did not provide me with any meaning. I realized that the logical consequences of materialism was that I was nature's automaton, a stimulus-response machine incapable of seeing reality outside the version nature has programmed me to see.

 

[Autodidact]

I am confused. There are multiple sources of evidence... isn't it up to you to produce counter-evidence?

I did. I showed your that the first writing on the subject, well after the event, by a Christian church leader, does not mention it. To me this is strong evidence that the story, which appears 100 years later, is probably made up. Certainly there is no persuasive evidence in favor of its truth.

To have faith is to commit yourself to an idea even though you do not have independently verifiable evidence.

O.K. no, I don't think I have this kind of faith in anything. I certainly try not to. I am committed to doing my best to learn the truth, and I think that believing things without evidence is a poor way to do that.

Once again you are overshadowing the holy and righteous teachings in the Bible with these depictions of violence. Yes, the big picture makes sense to me. The Christian systematic theology makes sense.

How does "This is the land I gave you, kill everyone in it," make sense to you?

The fact is we live in violent world where bad things happen. This is depicted in the Bible and God is involved in all things. Just because bad things happen doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

You are missing my point. Is it deliberate? The point is not that bad things happen, I've made this quite clear. The point is that you worship a God who commands us to do evil. How does this make sense?