Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Autodidact]

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?

Because, obviously, it indicates that the reason it "makes sense" or satisfies your intuition or common sense is not a reflection of its truth, but of your conditioning. As I said, had you been raised in Saudi Arabia, and used this same method of intuition, Islam would make sense to you. It wouldn't make sense to me, because of the lack of evidence. Common sense and intuition are not good guides to truth. Are you at all familiar with the research done in the last 30 years about how our brains tend to fool us, common errors in thinking? For example, human beings think in terms of stories and pay more attention to stories than to statistics that actually contain more accurate information. Human beings tend to think in terms of causation and purposeful agents, even when what is really going on is plain old randomness.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

The laws of science do not have being. That's mere platonism.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Well that's nice, but really undermines your position that it's true. We all tend to believe things and see things we want to see, which is one of the main ways we make errors. It gives me tremendous hope and contentment to think that I look like Queen Latifah, write like P.G. Wodehouse, and sing like Patsy Cline. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it true. To say that you believe something because you have faith is the same as saying that you believe because you believe, without confirming evidence. (your definition) Can you see how likely that is to lead you into error? How you have no way to determine whether what you believe is true?

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.

Yes, it took us a long time to figure it out. The thing is, it works, and it's the most objective thing you have. My question: Do you NOT believe that evidence is a good way to determine truth?

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.

Of course, I'm human. I'm subject to the same sources of mental errors as everyone else. The only difference is that I try to use what methods we have to reduce mine as much as possible.

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

For me my purpose comes from within my life, while I'm alive, not from something that may, or, more likely, may not happen after I die.

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.

How do you tell which is which? For example, did the sun actually stand still in the sky for Joshua?

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.

What are you talking about? I think some atheists, including I believe Richard Dawkins, do not believe that we really do have free will. I do, because I see it differently. It's a very complicated subject, and worthy of a separate thread, which I will start if you want. In any case, as I have said, God does not solve the problem.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

My entire ethical basis is quite different than yours. I guess for me they're all timeless, as based on human nature. In any case, for about the tenth time, you failed to answer my question. You think there is a timeless, absolute principle that two men should not love each other or express their love physically. Why? How about slavery? Timeless? Or cultural? During Biblical times slavery was moral, but now is immoral? Same for polygamy? Too much relativism for me. I actually consider my ethics to be fairly objective, but I may be fooling myself. I certainly like to think they don't change enough so that I would ever accept capturing another person and keeping them as my property. In any case, I understand that you think that some things are permanently wrong (homosexuality) while others not, in a cultural context (slavery). My question: how do you tell which is which?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Autodidact
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. __________________

Now you have to show us that you're right. It's not enough to say, "I disagree." We can't learn anything from that. To contribute to the discussion, you need to show us why.
You are mischaracterizing what I said, which I do not appreciate. I never said the OT is all about genocide and slavery, nor do I think it is. Go back and read my posts. What I said is, conquest and dominion is a major theme in the OT, and I fail to see how you could read it objectively and conclude otherwise. There are other major themes: creation, monotheism, ritual purity, etc. It's one of them. What I said is, the Bible clearly authorizes slavery. It does. That's just a fact. Now if you want to dispute any of these facts, it's on you to do so.

As I said twice, you accused me of being inaccurate in my statements. My accuracy, and therefore my credibility, is very important to me. That's part of my ethical system. If I was wrong, I want to be shown that so I can correct myself. If I was right, which I think I have shown I was, then I expect you to withdraw the slur that you made on my credibility. Your failure to do so has reduced my respect for you and your own credibility.

 

[Autodidact]

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?

The purpose of my life is for me to be happy. The purpose of your life is for you to be happy. Because we are both human, contributing to your happiness increases my own, and vice versa. Since we are all human, we are all equally entitled to the same rights and respect.
Occasionally we find ourselves in a situation where our own happiness comes at the cost of someone else's. An example that comes to my mind is if you're stuck in a horrible relationship with someone who doesn't treat you well. In that situation, I would leave, possibly making that individual unhappy. Maybe it's just a rationalization, but in my mind I do not think that allowing someone else to treat me badly is in their true self-interest either, so it benefits both of us for me to leave. That is, it's not good for them to allow them to make me unhappy. In any case, I have been in this situation, and think it's preferable to go ahead and leave even if it does hurt the other person. However, wreaking revenge on them is neither necessary nor helpful to me.

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

If you don't know what happiness is, I can't explain it to you. If you don't know what love is, I feel sorry for you. I believe that for human beings love is essential to happiness. No love, no happiness.

 

[Autodidact]

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?

I believe there are many things we can't know, or can't know now. We don't even know what we can't know! However, we've been pleasantly surprised many times before, so I think it's worthwhile to keep trying.
At no point does it make sense to me to give up, say we can't know, and call it God. OTOH, I don't have a problem with ascribing the word God to the ineffable mystery at the heart of everything. Of course, that God is not Yahweh, and did not inspire the collection of myths, history, poetry, lies and pornography that is the Bible.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Not so nice when the shoe's on the other foot, is it? Let's focus on the facts, and not the other individual's attitude.

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

No.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

I'm a peanut! I have a shell, and taste real good! I am so well designed, I believe in my creator, Jesus. Yup, I do!

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

I'm just a peanut, though, so that's just my personal thots about it.

Cheers!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm a peanut! I have a shell, and taste real good! I am so well designed, I believe in my creator, Jesus. Yup, I do!

You'll also kill certain people if they come in contact with you. Is that part of being "well designed"?

If we can infer design and intent based on an organism's form, we can infer two things from peanuts:

- God wants us to eat peanuts
- God hates people with peanut allergies.

You've addressed the first point. Can you give a theological basis for the second point? Why does Jesus hate people with food allergies?

 

[Random]

Does anyone see any contradiction in the fact that science often affirms the Big Bang theory whilst in the same breath deriding Creationists? No? I bet not. But I do...

 

[sandandfoam]

Does anyone see any contradiction in the fact that science often affirms the Big Bang theory whilst in the same breath deriding Creationists? No? I bet not. But I do...

(Yes, this post is intented to flame all concerned. Get over it.)

Can't wait for the immensely rational repsonses from the products of predictive programming here on RF.

thanks,
Conor

I partly agree, who made God, what caused the Big Bang, same problem. World was created as per the book of Genesis? I can strongly disagree with tthat view.

 

[Random]

I partly agree, who made God, what caused the Big Bang, same problem. World was created as per the book of Genesis? I can strongly disagree with that view.

And I agree with you. No-one, not even the RC Church, takes the 7-day Creation tale literally. But there exists a definite discrepency between affirmation of Big Bang and anti-Creationism...

BTW, You quoted my unedited post. Damn. Now I'll probably get another warning...

 

[Mr. Peanut]

You'll also kill certain people if they come in contact with you. Is that part of being "well designed"?

If we can infer design and intent based on an organism's form, we can infer two things from peanuts:

- God wants us to eat peanuts
- God hates people with peanut allergies.

You've addressed the first point. Can you give a theological basis for the second point? Why does Jesus hate people with food allergies?

Hi! I would never infer that God hates anybody! No, no! I'm sure God loves everybody. But some people are allergic to peanuts, its a tragic fact. So sad! Theologically speaking, (us peanuts don't do much of that) this sad allergy would be a result of the fall. All us peanuts are sad and groan because of the fall of God's beautiful creation. But we know everything will be alright soon enough. God loves us! He will make all things new! And us peanuts will taste even better then!

Cheers!

 

[Mr. Peanut]

And I agree with you. No-one, not even the RC Church, takes the 7-day Creation tale literally.

Us peanuts do.

 

[Random]

Us peanuts do.

Hence, peanuts. Well...I don't know what to say to you. Certainly many Protestant sects encourage believers to take the Biblical creation-myth literally. It makes wholly un-scientific sense to do so, but what the hell, if it keeps you happy..?

But really you should want more, my nutty friend.

 

[Smoke]

And I agree with you. No-one, not even the RC Church, takes the 7-day Creation tale literally.

Us peanuts do.

Not just peanuts, but many other nuts do, too.

However, there is a long tradition of Christians not taking it literally, going back to no later than the fourth century.

 

[Random]

However, there is a long tradition of Christians not taking it literally, going back to no later than the fourth century.

Indeed, similar stories and creation myths were told amongst the intelligentsia of pre-Babylonian societies. The early Gnostics pre-Roman Christianity read allegory and metaphor into the Genesis narrative, which otherwise they said was absurd.

Safest way is always to do ones own research. Difficult as it is, trust nothing and no-one who has vested interests in the system.

 

[Autodidact]

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).

Well, if the individuals in question said while they were alive that they did not have faith, then why would they end up saved? Were they lying? Remember, your rationale for all of this is that it makes sense.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Hence, peanuts. Well...I don't know what to say to you. Certainly many Protestant sects encourage believers to take the Biblical creation-myth literally. It makes wholly un-scientific sense to do so, but what the hell, if it keeps you happy..?

But really you should want more, my nutty friend.

It makes sense to us peanuts. But, I'm just a peanut! So, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, is good enough for me.

Cheers!

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Not just peanuts, but many other nuts do, too.

However, there is a long tradition of Christians not taking it literally, going back to no later than the fourth century.

Hi! I'm just a nut, too! Yes, however, we fell into the dark ages when scripture was not allowed to be read among common men and men began mysticizing the Word of God, until men began to read it for what it said, then we had the enlightenment and great strides in understanding BIble doctrine by many people. You see, even Jesus and Paul refered to Adam and Eve, Christ's linealogy going back to Adam, and his reference to the institution of marriage as in the beginning when two people left their parents and clove together to be one flesh. Paul's whole argument in Romans is that by one man, Adam, sin entered the world and passed down to all men, and by one man, Jesus mankind could be reconciled to God. That is my understanding, at least, but I'm just a peanut!

Cheers!