Blasphemy Challenge Conversations Continued Part Deux

The conversation continues. This is my correspondent's e-mail - the blue bits are my previous e-mail he is responding to.

Well yes, the christian god IS irrational simply because there is no evidence for it. No reason. The only thing Ive heared from you is that throughout time many people believed in the devine. Thats not really evidence is it?

The idea that belief in God is "irrational" and is incompatible with
science is in itself a faith-based statement.

Well if god IS compatible with science, why cant we prove god with science? The scientists that you mention in the past may have been great for their time, but lets face it, they didnt know what we do now. Evolution is bairly accepted as it is now, I can only wonder how it was back then. You just didnt question the exsistence of god back then as we do now.

Many Christians, including myself, see
no conflict between the concept of a creator God and the theory of
Evolution. Genesis is about the meaning of creation, not the nuts
and bolts.

Wait, what? How come christian change the meaning of the words in the bible so it fits them? How can you, as a christian belive that evolution goes hand in hand with your religion? You (as in other christians) constantly brings up the advanced human body that is supposedly created by a perfect god. Now, evolution states that your god did in fact not create humans as they are today, rather that the human body has evolved for thousands of years. How can you not see any conflict here?

And acordingly to the bible, Earth is 6k years old. That does not go hand in hand with science at all. 4.5 billion years 6000 years =/= the same. Thats equally far away from the truth as saying a year is 32 seconds. Now if thats not conflict I dont know what is.

Also, you say that "Many Christians, including myself". Meaning that other christians dont believe as you do. Why is god letting the bible be interpitated in so many ways? Who does a supreme, all-knowing being write the bible (Im going with the trinity here, that jesus the son and god the father is the same person. John 10:30 - "I and the Father are one.") in such a way that you can missinterpitate it so easily? Why didnt god write the bible perfectly clear?

Now if you wish to say that any organized religion that claims to
hold all the truth about God is irrational, or that the Bible should
not be read as a scientific text, I'm on board with you.

I want to say that believing in the christian god is irrational. And ofcourse, the bible shuld not by any means be read as a scientific text (and I dont think it is anyway).

I would say that editing your results to get the result you want and
then publishing articles in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals
are classified as fiascos. I'm not talking about "trying," I'm
talking about deliberate misrepresentation or jumping to unwarranted
conclusions and publishing for material or professional gain. Not
good science.

I would bring up the point that what your mentioning isnt science. Its human behaviour. However you could just counter that the crusades are human behaviour so Im going to let this one go. I cant deny that humans alter the effect religion or science is/was meant to be like. But after all, It doesnt say that you shuld to that in any "scientific book". However it DOES say in the bible that you shuld stone to death this and that. All unbelivers shall be put to death. Thats one of the reasons I think religion is dangerous.

How do u justify the cruel times of holy crusades back in 12th century? Apparently they had the support of christianity and the bible.

In both cases, religion and science were compromised by ideology.
Your argument seems to be that science can be excused when overtaken
by extreme ideology, but not religion. I'm unsure about the logic of
this.

Good point. But yet again, science is not like religion. Science, as you said before, is trying to answer everything. Once something has been answered by science (ie how to build nuclear weapons) it is humans that decide how this new knowledge will be used. The thing with religion is that you dont seek your own answers, you get them handed to you. Because it says "Kill the unbelievers" in the bible christians tend to find that enough to justify what they are doing.

So yes, I do state that the error is in mankind when it comes to using science and the error is in religion justifying extreme ideology.

St. Francis
of Assisi's followers have helped millions of the poorest and most
destitute of humanity. I could go on for pages, but I'm short on
time. Even more importantly, the millions of people who have done
good works quietly and without fanfare because of their religious
beliefs are discounted by such a statement.

I dont deny that Christians can be able to do good things. But just as an example, take all the poor people that has been helped out directly because of religion and devide that with the Billions of childs currently being mentaly tortured when their parents tell them that there is a supreme being out there, and if you deny him you will be burned in hell for eternity. And dont even get me started on this one because that is flat out mental torture.

You are assuming that the point of religion is to explain things.

Well obviously it doesnt. Not only that, religion PREVENTS the explaination of the world around us. Preventing science, in other words.

Now you will go all like: Oh well I dont prevent religion and many other christians doesnt aswell.

Well here is a fun fact: Christianity has, and always will oppose science. And frankly we are getting quite sick of it. Each and every new discovery that goes against the bible (and there is loads of them), it gets rejected by religion. Throughout time many chrsitians comes to accept these facts and in turn change the meaning of the words in the bible. And AFTER they have finally accepted it, after the resistance has already been done we get guys like yourself saying: well I dont see any conflict when it comes to evolution and a all might creator.

You of course can
believe whatever you want, but don't be surprised when you encounter
resistance.

And you can believe whatever you want. But you (as in christianity) need to stop opposing science. You cant deny facts, even if it goes against what you believe in.

Theism (or sometimes non-theistic religion) is the
dominant principle throughout human history. Until good evidence to
the contrary appears, the burden is on atheists.

Dominant indeed, but as Ive stated before, Popular doesnt mean right.
This is exactly my point. As long as you believe what you believe, you will always be irrational. There already is sufficient evidence against a supreme creator, however an irrational person will have a hard time to see it.

And my reply:

Religion and Science are not incompatible because they are not trying to answer the same questions. Science answers questions of causality. Religion and philosophy answer questions of meaning. If science attempts to answer questions of meaning, it is misusing the scientific method and stepping out on faith. If religion attempts to offer definitive scientific answers, it is being misused as well.

The reason why science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God is the following hypothesis: "If God exists, and God is by definition a being beyond our categories of existence, it is impossible for us in our limited capacities to prove or disprove God's existence." The reason why God would choose to be unprovable and also why God does not usually reveal himself directly and allows multiple interpretations of scripture to exist is free will. Read here:

http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2005/05/free_will.html

The summary. God did not need automatons, God wanted rational beings that could return his love. And for it to be love, it has to be of free will. Absolute proof destroys free will.

You seem to be unable to get past an idea that ONLY scientific truth matters. Where does that leave art, literature and music? Have you stripped yourself of these as well? Explain to me scientifically why one person prefers the Beatles and another the Rolling Stones. This seems to me to be a very barren way to live. Religion lives more in the realm of art than it does in science.

It is evident that your knowledge of Christianity is based in what you see American televangelists slinging out, or what the media calls the "Christian Right." What if I told you that that Fundamentalists were a minority of Christians in the world today, and a new phenomenon created within the last 100 years? I strongly object to being lumped in with intolerant right-wingers and crusaders just by being Christian in the same way you would object being lumped in with Nazis just by being an athiest. I have marched for civil rights and worked to uphold the God-given dignity of people with same-sex orientation. You simply cannot say, "You Christians believe X" and judge the entire religion. You obviously have a very limited contact with Christianity.

Once again, in your questioning of how I view the Bible, you are applying scientific principle to something (The Bible) that is not scientific. You ask, "How come christian change the meaning of the words in the bible so it fits them?" Before the advent of the Scientific method, people were much more comfortable living with stories that they knew might not be factually true, but conveyed meaning, much like modern literature does. I explain this here:

http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2005/12/how_to_read_a_s.html

We find Rabbis of Jesus' day looking at the creation account and asking, "What is a day to God?" In other words - maybe it took at lot longer. St. Jerome in the 4th Century wrote that the truth of the Gospels was preserved sometimes in "material falsehood." The Bible was not written within a scientific framework, nor did people of the time care as much about scientific truth (which hadn't been defined yet). If they didn't, why should we insist that their writings be taken scientifically?

The Bible is literature. For me, VERY important literature (I would say the Word of God as revealed through human authors, and with all their foibles). You don't disregard the truth of literature because it is scientifically unsound. You wouldn't discard the Lord of the Rings because there are no Elves or walking trees, would you? Yet millions have taken heart from Tolkien's writings, and "Tolkienists" were persecuted in the Soviet Union as being politically subversive.

Therefore, Genesis is about WHY (meaning) God created the heavens and earth, not exactly HOW (causality). The idea that the Bible "says" the earth is 6K old is one of several speculative datings created by people who are looking for certitude. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that.

As to commands to kill in the Bible, they are there, along with calls to "turn the other cheek" and "forgive seventy times seven times." A compiled literary work like the Bible requires interpretation by a faithful community taking into account both what traditional interpretations have been and what human reason tells us.

Are you aware about Christian "Just War" doctrine? It requires that violence be a last resort and meet a whole list of requirements before it even can be considered not murder. Are you aware that the leaders of thirty of America's leading denominations attempted to meet with President Bush before the Iraq war to voice their opposition? He, of course, declined the meeting. I myself spoke at an anti-war rally. You can read that here:

http://www.ayiailuvatar.org/2006/10/looking_back_on.html

Likewise, it is easy to read Darwinian theory as supporting euthanasia of the disabled and "useless" as a desired outcome of natural selection. I've never met an atheist who supports this, but neither have I been able to find one who can tell my why this is not a natural outcome of "pure" Darwinism (Which was something Darwin himself didn't ascribe to).

"So yes, I do state that the error is in mankind when it comes to using science and the error is in religion justifying extreme ideology."

I simply cannot accept your double standard on ideology vs science and religion. It seems to me to be completely illogical and more based on the story you wish to believe in than fact (Atheists have their cherished myths as well). Religion does not "hand us answers on a plate." Just look at the numbers of current theology books available on Amazon and you'll have to admit that we don't think we have the answers. Once again, I think you are judging all Christians by what you see Pat Robertson doing. If you are going to attempt to judge Christianity, you need to understand it better in all its diversity.

Do you have evidence for these billions of children being mentally tortured? This is a pretty emotional and unscientific statement. Yes, I have counseled with people who have been "burned" by fundamentalism, but I have also met children who have grown up perfectly well in those environments. The difference? Abusive parents sometimes use religion as a scourge, but if it hadn't been religion, it would have been something else.

Please supply your "sufficient evidence against a supreme creator." You've mentioned this several times, but I have yet to see what that evidence is. The Big Bang, millions of years of geologic change to form the earth, and Natural Selection are the best scientific theories we currently have to explain how things came to be. None of those theories preclude a "prime mover " who initiates them unless you make a leap of (un)faith.

"Christianity" does not oppose science. There are those Christians who (usually for bad reasons in my mind) oppose science. I read Nature and Scientific American. The motto of my seminary is "Seek the Truth, Come Whence It May, Cost What It Will."

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, bible, blasphemy challenge, episcopal, evolution, fundamentalism, religion, science