I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

[jpurssey]

If this thread was actually engaging people who wanted to argue for evolution as a proof of atheism, or was engaging any atheists, then we would see real arguments to deal with.

As it is this is just a preaching to the the converted and patting each other on the back without bothering to countenance a reasoned argument from another position. But if that is what turns you on...

I think it is ridiculous to say that the internet is just another form of communication which mimics something already created by God and therefore is not new. That is just clutching at straws to maintain a position.

There are many Christians for whom evolution is not a stumbling block to their faith.
I am sure that there are many atheists who are not concerned over disputes between creationists and supporters of evolution.

On a small personal note I think it is invalid and sometimes dishonest to cherry pick the results of science and say that this part I accept because it support creationism and that part is wrong because it disagrees. As far as I am concerned that is not science at all. That approach would never increase our knowledge of the world.

[Keith Sherwood]

Evidently human invention is not related to evolution - all human advancments are designed and invented by man.

Your idea of cherry picking is simply not tenable or scientific - if as a scientist I believe man has evolved and was never created, I am happy with that - but then if I suddenly find one or a number of features that could never evolve in every man - then my theory does not stand up and I know evolution as a theory is not tenable.

In fact many scientists are now looking more intently at these features in all living things and in the celestial make up and coming to the conclusion that there has to be a designer, even going to the extreme and suggesting it could be a creature like you and me in the attempts to leave God out of it..

Even in the matter of bats and tiger moths they are not able to find evolution except theoreticaly - so no scientist says over millions of years as you have - but rather millions of years ago

Then your 'pat on the back' remark is a bit much I do not think I am normaly accused of such tactics, in fact if I realy like a post I am more likely to send a private message than a congrat publicaly because a public statement puts the good post into history and I would rather it stay present for a while. The complexity of creatures do declare there is a God as does all creation

I have no problem excepting that believing faith does not demand conformity of thought on all dogma of believers or theologians and many subjects are complex because of scientific worlds explanations - however as science discovers more and more, we have arrived at the time when its discoveries will and are starting to line up more with there being a God than just starting from a premise that there can not be one, as such a theory is beginning itself to be untenable in the face of the evidence

Keith

[Ian]

Evidently human invention is not related to evolution - all human advancements are designed and invented by man.

I assume this is a paraphrased representation of what someone is supposed to have said. If anyone did, it would have been easy to refute. There are numerous well documented technological advances that have been made by deliberately imitating nature. For example, there are clever computer programs that randomly adjust themselves and preserve any adjustments that result in an improvement, while discarding any that don’t have a desirable effect. The programmers didn’t think of this all by themselves: they got the idea from nature.

Magog’s post about bats is a variant of the 18th Century argument of William Paley, which has often been used and re-used in an attempt to discredit evolution. Keith takes the argument into the 20th Century by introducing examples of what others have called irreducible complexity, mentioning bombardier beetles and knee joints, which he says are too complex to have evolved. Others have cited the blood clotting system and the human eye and the bacterial flagellum as examples of what they call irreducible complexity.

The essence of the irreducible complexity argument is that there are many examples of biological systems that each contain several components that are all individually essential for the system to work. If any one of them is absent then the system doesn’t work. The argument goes that such a system could not evolve because there would be no selective pressure or advantage to be gained until all the components had evolved and the system was complete.

The weakness of this argument is that it depends on assumptions that have never been shown to be true and in some cases have been shown to be false. To make the argument work, it has to be assumed that the components were always individually essential at all stages of their evolution or creation. It also has to be assumed that these components had no other function.

It is possible for an enzyme, for instance, let us call it enzyme A, to be able to do a job all by itself early in its evolution, but then another enzyme or co-enzyme B, which may originally have had a different function, undergoes a slight change that enables it to help enzyme A to do its job better. You now have a 2-component system in which only one of the components is essential. The two components continue to evolve in a way that makes their cooperation more effective, and in the process enzyme A may lose its ability to do the job without the help of B. Now you have a 2-component system in which both components are essential. The process can continue as more components are added one at a time, and you finish up with what has been called irreducible complexity. So irreducible complexity as an argument against evolution has failed.

This process that I have described is not just a hypothetical possibility. There are several specific examples in which there is strong evidence that such a process did in fact happen.

The evidence for evolution having happened and continuing to happen is very strong, so I predict that attempts to discredit it will eventually fade away, like the geocentric universe and the young earth and the flat earth.

In the meanwhile, however, such attempts are damaging the public perception of Christianity. They are giving many people the impression that Christian faith depends on discrediting evolution. It doesn’t. Christian faith can flourish along with acceptance of evolution. Such attempts to discredit it are also discouraging young Christians from pursuing what could be fruitful careers in science and medicine, where they could make huge contributions to the alleviation of sickness, malnutrition, poverty and ignorance. Putting one’s energy into the solution of such human problems seems to me an eminently Christian thing to do.

[Keith Sherwood]

I assume the 'very strong' evidence for evolution from one into different Specis. Can and has to be examined - I or you saying 'very strong' does not make a matter true. Which is why I gave two simple examples
A strong belief in creation does not diminish the credibility of Christian dogma on Christ and salvation. it is the changed life that backs up that argument in contempory terms

Keith

[magog99]

I am grateful to jpurssey, or is it agape John for his criticism of my post, but I would respectfully remind him that it was not I who called the atheist "A fool!" It was God Himself, Psalm 14 verse 1.

I start each day with the prayer, "Lord make my life purposeful today". And by His grace He does, and without ramming the Gospel down people's throats I find myself putting the Gospel to ones and twos. Almost invariably people will say to me, "In today's uncertain world, I wish I had the Hope that you enjoy". " "I wish I could face the future with your certainty."

As Christians we are far too apologetic for the Gospel. We need to be far more positive in our declaration. Folk desperately need the sure and certain hope that is ours in Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:8 (King James Version)
8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
He also said:
Romans 1:16 (King James Version)
16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

We are far too accommodating today; we are so often running scared. Declare the Gospel with positivity. Men and women desperately needs its sure and certain sound.

We are watering down the message. We are afraid to declare it with force. No wonder so few are listening any more. Get out there and get alongside the man in the street and tell him "There is a God who loves him so much He sacrificed His only Son to make the gift of eternal life a reality." Don't waver, don't compromise. Tell it as it is!

Oh, some will laugh, some will consider, and some will turn to Christ, who is mankind's only answer!!

God bless you in your witness for Him.

Magog99

[jpurssey]

I am grateful to jpurssey, or is it agape John for his criticism of my post, but I would respectfully remind him that it was not I who called the atheist.......... " A FOOL !" It was God Himself, Psalm 14 verse 1

By what argument are you going to convince an atheist that God has called him a fool? Remember that he does not believe that God wrote the Psalms.

BTW. If something is true, SHOUTING IT, does not make it any truer; and if it is false, then shouting it does not make it true.

Keith,

Christians generally believe that we and the world are God's creation. That is a strong belief. As far as I am concerned the Young Earth Creationists/ Old Earth Creationists/ Intelligent Designists versus evolutionists are just creating a distraction. That is why I don't bother to go into details.

Re: Cherry-picking. Scientific knowledge hangs together looking for a coherent explanation and that many disciplines support one another, but my experience of creationists is that they do not do science but say "Look this (cherry picked) fact has not been explained yet so evolution is false" whereas science readily admits that as the boundaries of scientific knowledge move we find more things to understand and explain by use of scientific method. On the whole science has been successful in its realm of knowledge. Science does not deal with relationships, morals, or spirituality in themselves. Religious people and scientists have both made the mistake of thinking scientific knowledge covers all knowledge, or all of life's experiences.

[Keith Sherwood]

There is a huge raft of scientific arguments for creation that are used by scientists who believe in creation

Giving examples is a better argument than a generalised statement and should not be dismissed as cherry picking - at least people can look up the examples


Keith

[Elizabeth]

Religious people and scientists have both made the mistake of thinking scientific knowledge covers all knowledge, or all of life's experiences.

Thanks, John. I find scientific knowledge is excellent but it does not address our need to have a personal relationship with our creator or with our great Redeemer.

Our great Redeemer, e'er he breathed
His tender, last farewell
A guide, a comforter bequeathed
With us to dwell.

He came in tongues of living flame
To teach, convince, subdue
All powerfull as the wind he came
And viewless too.

Jesus told Nicodemus that the Spirit of God blows where he will and we must be born again to be able to listen to the Spirit of God. Science can not help us with this, I don't think. The Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts and reveals the things of Christ. Scientific knowledge does not do this for me. Can our members give their experiences of the Spirit of God working in their hearts.

Only by grace,

Elizabeth

[jpurssey]

There is a huge raft of scientific arguments for creation that are used by scientists who believe in creation

Giving examples is a better argument than a generalised statement and should not be dismissed as cherry picking - at least people can look up the examples

It is in the nature of the scientific method to look for rational explanations.
The history of cosmology/astronomy has looked for mechanisms to explain the nature of the universe.
The church reacted arrogantly to the idea that the earth revolved around the sun and the solar system and stars that science discovered, even threatening excommunication on Galileo.
Later some Christians liked to say that the Bible said the earth was sphere because it talked about the 'circle of the earth'. I don't think that anyone would have deduced that from the bible. It took the science to discover it and some Christians like to cherry-pick it and say it was in the Bible all along! You do not use the Bible to discover science facts, you use scientific method. And scientific facts are not an unrelated set. Many observations are interdependent. Nor are there single observations that negate a theory. With a set of conflicting theories and observations you have to decide where to make further investigations to decide if your observations are wrong, or your theories, or a combination. With creationism you abandon science and say "This can't be explained so it must be creation." A popular move if you have a vested interest in supporting creationism.

[Keith Sherwood]

I do not think it is so simple. The bible teaches that all things are created by the Son of God who came into the world i.e Jesus Christ
That all things are sustained by Him

Then do I regard scripture as truth - if so - then is the Genesis account factual or fictional ?

At what point does the account become historicaly accurate ?

Then are the historical accounts and the people named Fact or Fiction ?

For me it is all true

Keith

[Ian]

Not all writings can meaningfully be classified as fact or fiction, as true or false. Many statements about mathematics or about history can be so classified, but poetry, metaphor, allegory, exhortation, questions, prescribed rituals, laws and recipes cannot usefully be classified in that way.

You could describe metaphors or allegories as apt or poignant or illuminating or awe inspiring, but if you try to describe them as true or false it suggests you have already decided they are not metaphors or allegories, and you could be mistaken about that.

[Keith Sherwood]

I just asked the simple are the stories true or fiction and if they are fiction but are or contain metaphors or allegories as apt or poignant or illuminating or awe inspiring.

When did they stop being fiction e.g end of Genesis and became factual stories that also might contain or are used as metaphors or allegories as apt or poignant or illuminating or awe inspiring

Is it too much to ask Fact or Fiction

Keith

[jpurssey]

It is too simplistic to divide things into fact or fiction, and you appear to be using those terms with loaded connotations of true and false.

The parables are plainly fiction. They are intended as illustrative fiction to get a point across. The point of the parables does not require them to relate to historical events. There are different levels of meaning in different literary genres.

Psalms have a lot of poetic language and, like our hymns and carols, use poetic license and imagery which is not amenable to the analysis we use on prose. There are also poetry and Hymns scattered throughout other books in the Bible.

There is also apocalyptic literature, theologically interpreted history, and some would see Jonah and Job as theological stories.

I understand the Jews do not read parts of Genesis literally, and so they it does not bother them that it contains two alternative stories of creation. I think that many people miss that the creation stories are to do with (wo)man's relationship to God and mankind's relationships to one another by seeing it as primarily about the mechanics of creation.

Many Christians are comfortable with Abraham and family being the first historical figures of the bible. Their faith does not depend on that historicity. They have no need to harmonise the different genealogies of Jesus.

[Keith Sherwood]

Even in the parables it is not so easy to say they are just a story
The sower is just true of sowing
A king going to a far country is actualy a factual story
For all we know the tax gatherer in the temple is maybe Zacchaeus of the next chapter (the Lord does see all)
Many think the Lord drew back the curtain a little with the story of Lazarrus and the rich man
Paul refers to Adam as a real person, in comparison to Christ a real person

The more one thinks about the omnipresent all knowing Christ, the less likely it is that he invented a story to illustrate
When he says a certain man was travelling from Jerusalem to Jerico - it seems to indicate that this actualy happened.

We seem to use our own experiance to suggest in a way that Jesus Christ was only a man - and not the Son of God who sees everything, forgets nothing and posses all the attributes of the Father. We must take into account that he is the Son of God

For years Pilate was thought to have never existed until one coin was found with his image and name on it - now more on him has been discovered

I think just this year a named official in the book of Esther (maybe Daniel) was discovered in official script from that time, evidently the more we discover the more the bible is proven true - not the reverse

I had a friend that spent all his spare time on Digs in the middle east - he always carried a bible - he was not a Christian but he claimed the bible is true in all its information about cities, wars etc.

We have to remember that Noah and Abraham for a while were alive at the same time as was Methusalah and Noah - on what basis do we think stories had to be invented when the generations were so few - I think such does not stand up in the light of the facts

Keith

[jpurssey]

Keith,

we obviously have differing views on

• what is meant by the inspiration of the bible
• its literary genres
• the use and value of biblical analysis
• the need for and the amount of internal consistency
• the use and incorporation of oral traditions
• Jesus' divine and human nature

It is not surprising that we come to different conclusions.

I don't need the parables to be stories of actual events. For me their truth does not depend on it, and is unnecessary. Yours is a minority viewpoint. That does not make it incorrect, but it seems unlikely to me, including what is known as the good Samaritan.

Some archaeology has confirmed aspects of biblical stories, some archaeology conflicts with them as to e.g the time a city existed and was destroyed. Your amateur archaeologist friend should be aware of this.