CHRISTIANITY VERSUS ATHEISM

Dialogue with Atheist pboyfolyd from previous post

2012-01-05T14:01:00.000-08:00

These are some longs comments fromthe previous post by pboyfloyd.

I have decided to post them herefor all to easily see.

Comment

"Atheism, on the other hand, is also a belief, belief (withoutproof) that God does not exist."

Atheist

No, I think not. I do not believe that there are any gods, not even theone. This is simply disbelief in every sort of theism.

Now notice the response, I sayatheism is a belief, our atheist then says NOit is not, but then contradicts himself by saying he does believe, just in thenon-existence of Gods? He believes inno Gods. Now which is it? What does our atheist friend mean by believe? Becauseit is very unclear how he uses the phrase. How can he say I do not believe andthen say he believes in nothing? Very Confusing?

But lets anticipate his responsehere. He might say, non-belief is not a belief. But this is just semantics, belief in nothing is still abelief. Furthermore if this is actually what he wants to go by, then the theistcould say likewise that he does not believe in God, he just affirms God. In theexcat same way an atheist denies God.

Comment

"Henceforth this simple doctrinal statement has nothing left torestrain anyone from making the claim that they can kill someone because of thebelief that there is no God."

Atheist

Atheism isn't necessarilly [sic] a doctrine, saying that it's a'doctrinal statement' doesn't necessarilly [sic] make that true. for [sic]example, no one taught me or instructed me to say that there are no gods, ifanything the opposite is true!

What carefully worded word porridge. I can claim that I can kill someonebecause of the belief that there is no God? There is nothing stopping anyone atall from making such a claim whether they believe what they're saying or not.

My first question to my atheist friendis if it is not necessarily a doctrine, then what is it? My second question ishow does this refute the point I made?

Comment

"This essentially is my point."

Atheist

I'm not 'getting' your point. You could claim that you can kill someoneif you claim that your God inspired you to go ahead and kill someone, as I'msure that most who killed in the name of God or Jesus would be happy to say, sowhat?

Cleary my point is lost. Letsstate it again. The Christians Doctrine tells us not to kill people, thereforekilling in the name of the Christians God is not Christian. This is as clear asI can be.

Comment

"Christianity should be judged on its written doctrines nothumanistic interpretations of them, just like the classic music composers ofthe elk of Mozart."

Atheist

That's ludicrous. Aren't you judging Christianity on your interpretationof it's written doctrines?

Comment

No not at all. I am judging themon how the Bible judges them. This is the first principle the biblicalinterpretation, sola scripture.

Atheist

And how should the 'classic music composers of the elk of Mozart' bejudged except by peoples' interpretation of what they hear, or read, if theyread music?

Definitely not by a child forstarters. It should be judges as you say, by all people, performance masters,written scholars, historians, etc. Just the same process as Christianity

Atheist

Are you denying that you read doctrines, or music or listen to the musicand interpret it to something meaningful?

No not at all, your point?

Atheist

How is this reading without interpretation accomplished? One letter at atime with no interpretation of the meaning of the words?

It never is, however the scienceof interpretation is always employed. Content is the key not just to meanings phrasesbut to very definition of words found in the phrases.

Atheist

I said, 'Surely the 'face' of Christianity at different points inhistory are reflected in what people did in the name of their faith accordingto their interpretation of that faith.'

To which you reply, "No not at all."

Are you saying that there is no way that different people interpret theBible in different ways?

No not at all. However, if thedoctrines in the bible are interpreted by the Bible in a certain way and peopledisagree then clearly this is not a Christian interpretation.

Comment

"This is akin to arguing that a child playing Beethoven on thepiano very poorly, is a reflection of Beethoven's music?"

Atheist

I disagree that it is akin to that. You must imagine that mostChristians are akin to children playing Beethoven on the piano very badly,since a majority of Christians wouldn't agree with your interpretation of theBible 100%(for example which parts are literal, which parts poetic and whichparts figurative or metaphorical.)

Again, I am not asking Christiansto agree with me just the doctrines and how the scriptures interpret them. Andas to your questions about different genres being employed within scripture themarkers are quite distinctive.

Atheist

In fact you must imagine the Jews, every single one, as akin to ineptchildlike piano players giving bad performances when it comes to theirinterpretations of their Holy Books, no?

Not at all, I don’t know how youmade that leap. Looks like you trying an ad hominine argument style here. And Ithought you did not like trying to score cheap points. However, to answer yourquestion, the Jews fundamentally deny Jesus is God’s Son, yet affirm heperformed miracles, and was worshiped as God. Both interpretations theChristians doctrines agree with as do I. The interpretations of Jesus is notthe problem, rather their failure to worship him as God.

Comment

"There is no logical flow of that point."

Atheist

There's nothing illogical about what I said at all. A crappy renditionof a musical piece by a child is a terrible analogy considering the hugevariety of interpretations of the Bible, from both a Jewish and Christian pointof view, each of which were or are considered seriously by those proposingthem.

It doesn't mean anything to compare Scripture or Doctrine to music, wasthat what you meant by 'no logical flow'?

Well let me be clear. Yourpoint is that we can judge Christianity based on people’s expression of them,correct? (If I have misunderstood then please let me know). My reply is that wedon’t do this at all in any other field, musical interpretation was the examplegiven. Your response is that this is not the same because we have manyinterpretations of doctrines and people are serious about them? This does notmake sense at all, nor does it have any logic behind it at all let alonelogical flow. What does a plethora of interpretations have to do with judginginterpretations on humanistic expressions?

Comment

"so how would an atheist prove Tomorrow? If they had an answer forthat then maybe the theist could give them a suitable proof of God."

Atheist

I'd chat with a friend in Australia. I'd ask him/her what day it was.He/she would tell me it's tomorrow for me. I'd say, "I can't just takeyour word, long story, show me the view of tomorrow from a video cam. And thereI'd see tomorrow. Proof positive that there is a tomorrow!

Now, show me your video of God!

I like this response. There are aleast three things wrong with this proof. Firstly you would not be watchingyour tomorrow. You would be watching your friends present. From his standpointit is your tomorrow but from your position you are looking at his present. It’sa little thing Einstein call general relativity.

Secondly, physics aside, the proofthat the earth has different time zones is in no way proof tomorrow exists. Forexample an Island recently in the pacific changed its time zone effectivelyloosing a day compared to the rest of the world. But how can you loose a day.This is just again a relationship problem with time zones not a comment on themetaphysical problem of gaining or loosing an actual day.

Thirdly, how would a TV show beproof or evidence, how would you be certain the your friend was not fabricatingeverything.

Now I don’t have a video of Godbut I have a letter about him from people who watching him in the flesh, wouldyou like to read it?

Comment

"For example argue your point for me, why is the denial of God apolitical doctrine. I would infer no God, no need for progress, therefore haltmodernity and kill those that disagree?"

Atheist

Well, I don't want to play a game of 'spot the murderous atheist regime',with you here, but certainly all the regimes which are radically different fromtheir previous state are going to go through a period of unrest. I don't thinkthat the USSR 'halted modernity' at all, for example.

I am not asking you to play games.Please read my comments carefully. I asked you to argue you point, not look athistorical examples. Please make that case that denying God restrains your fromkilling people.

Atheist

Why is the denial of God a political doctrine? But you're dragging me incircles here. Only a comment ago I was saying that atheism WASN'T a doctrine.

Sure and I pointed out that thatyou must be using atheism in another way to the dictionary. Please define atheismfor me if my dictionary is not to be relied on for this discussion.

Atheist

Now 'denying' God has two possible meanings, denying that there are suchthings as gods or denying that a particular god is real or good or deservesworship and so on, so I think you are introducing unnecessary complicationthere.

I sorry you have chosen to thinkthis way. I am after clarification, remember it is you that have said you don’tunderstand the points I am making, clarity is the key here.

Causes of Violence - Nothing to do with religion

2011-09-15T17:57:00.000-07:00

This snippet is taken from Koinonia News September 13 2003

The Mexico City news daily El Universal reports that violent crime now tops the cause-of-death list for young Mexicans between the ages of 15-29. The slaughter of Mexico's youth is the result of Mexico's drug wars, which are absolutely not based in religion. According to Mexico's federal government, 1,638 young people were killed in drug cartel-related attacks in 2008. That number rose to 2,511 in 2009 and 3,741 in 2010.

Have people been slaughtered in the name of religion? Certainly. Yet, the Crusades are a drop in the bucket compared to the massive death toll caused by atheistic regimes. The leaders of the French Revolution shoved God out of their social justice crusade, and the result was a blood bath. Stalin is responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million of his own people, and Mao Zedong's death toll runs upwards of 40-70 million. From Pol Pot in Cambodia to the Kims in North Korea, governments freed of "religion" – those utopias of atheistic communism - have murdered millions upon millions of people. People of various religions continue to fight all around the world, but, anti-God governments streamline human death. Any time people get starry-eyed about imagining "no religion too" they need a little history lesson.

Are Atheists really arguing for a violence free world if there was no religion? This is one of the most silly propositions ever.

The Dubious History of Richard Carrier Concerning Christianity

2011-05-26T23:00:00.000-07:00

Since doing more research I have returned to Richard Carrier’s ‘Not the Impossible Faith,’ to begin a much more in-depth look at his argument. What I found has startled me even more than I previous thought or suspected.

In Carrier’s first paragraph and indeed his initial point; he suggests that J.P. Holding’s question, ‘Who on earth would believe a religion centred on a crucified man?’ can be answered simply by looking and the so-called Babylonian Queen God, Inanna. Who, according to Carrier, was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to Hell her lover.[1]

Whilst this sounds strong and powerful a quick reference check to Carrier’s sources demonstrates that Carrier is not getting the information from a primary source, at all. Rather a work about histories first events? This should immediately raise some suspicion. What’s more when I looked at the The Sumerian "Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld" or the Akkadian parallel "Ishtar's Descent." I found Carriers little summary to be completely false. Here is a summary of the Descent of Inanna myth from the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Mircea Eliade: cited by Phil Vaz [2]

"Inanna, the queen of heaven, sought to extend her power over the underworld, ruled by her sister, Ereshkigal. As in the Akkadian text, Inanna descends through seven gates, at each removing an article of clothing or royal regalia until, after passing through the seventh gate, she is naked and powerless. She is killed and her corpse hung on a hook. Through a strategem planned before her descent, she is revived, but she may not return above unless she can find a substitute to take her place. She re-ascends, accompanied by a force of demons who will return her to the land of the dead if she fails. After allowing two possible candidates to escape, she comes to Erech, where Dumuzi, the shepherd king who is her consort, appears to be rejoicing over her fate. She sets the demons on him, and after he escapes several times, he is captured, killed, and carried off to the underworld to replace Inanna." ("Dying and Rising Gods", volume 4, page 525-6, emphasis mine).

As Phil Vaz points out with his bold emphasis Carrier has got the story completely wrong. Inanna is not stripped naked and crucified, rather she descended to the underworld slowly removing her clothing piece by piece and at which point she was killed! Carrier even acknowledges that Holding knows that Inanna was not crucified and simply restates his point, ‘Holding has tried to protest that Inanna wasn’t really crucified. But being stripped naked, killed, and nailed up in shame amounts to the same thing to any reasonable observer.[3]

What should be made of Carrier’s first rebuttal against Holding? Was he aware of his sources but chose to ignore them or was he unaware and choose not to follow through on Holding’s original protest?

Carrier then moves onto a direct discussion the cult of Attis in support of people following a disgraced king, a eunuch in this case, but we can leave this aside as shown Carrier original point has not refuted Holdings.

Page 24 marks a continuation of the disgraced King worship in which Carreir argues that. ‘the early Christian appear to have come from disgruntled poor or middle class, who had grown disgusted with the fundamental injustices in their society and government.’ Carrier cites the desire of the Apostle Paul in the book of Acts to support this point. Interestingly enough however, Paul himself did not fit this mould. Him being a upper class Jew with impeccable credentials and at the fore front of justice to his people with specific reference to Christians. Furthermore Luke, the physician, a doctor clearly not poor and upper middle class at worst does not fit this model either. How can one argue possible desires trump actual accounts? Again what are we to make of Carrier’s point here? Its as if some major details escape his methodology?

Whilst I must admit here that Carrier does make some accurate claims that Christianity did find strength in the poor and oppressed and Holding does have some oversimplifications to address, clearly it cannot be as Carrier attempts to suggests the case is. To illustrate this point completely on page 34 Carrier argues that many people expected a humiliated Savior.[4] Carrier feels confident to make this point because the scripture, the Old Testament, says plainly that. This point Carrier thinks is a reasonable claim to assume that at best, ‘ a large number of people had been prepared by Jewish scriptures to expect that someone would suffer a most humiliation execution at the hands of the wicked elite, despite his complete innocence and that this person would be the Chosen One of God, a Son of God.[5]

Not only is this the only piece of evidence that Carrier gives to state his point but he fails to consider a whole range of counter evidence against this possibility. Firstly, for Carrier point to hold water he must show that these texts he refers to was in line with what was actually taught in the first century Jewish synagogue, something a trained historian should be able to accomplish. Secondly, if Carrier cannot present data to confirm this then he must show teaching in line with that text as presenting texts as evidence is nothing to show adherence for an illiterate culture. Thirdly, Carrier must give evidence as to why ALFRED EDERSHEIM, M.A.Oxon., D.D. Ph.D. who wrote, ‘THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH,’ is wrong when he argues…

It were an extremely narrow, and, indeed, false view, to regard the difference between Judaism and Christianity as confined to the question of the fulfillment of certain prophecies in Jesus of Nazareth. These predictions could only outline individual features in the Person and history of the Messiah. It is not thus that a likeness is recognised, but rather by the combination of the various features into a unity, and by the expression which gives it meaning. So far as we can gather from the Gospel narratives, no objection was ever taken to the fulfillment of individual prophecies in Jesus. But the general conception which the Rabbis had formed of the Messiah, differed totally from what was presented by the Prophet of Nazareth. Thus, what is the fundamental divergence between the two may be said to have existed long before the events which finally divided them. It is the combination of letters which constitute words, and the same letters may be combined into different words. Similarly, both Rabbinism and - what, by anticipation, we designate - Christianity might regard the same predictions as Messianic, and look for their fulfillment; while at the same time the Messianic ideal of the Synagogue might be quite other than that, to which the faith and hope of the Church have clung.

Carrier continually makes points of showing Holdings research to be faulty and disingenuous however I cannot see Carrier performing any better myself. This chapter is not a careful rebuttal of Holding; it is a one sided, ill thought out rhetorical snap at Holding points and casts long shadows over the rest of this work and the money paid to produce it.

[1] Carrier, Richard. Not the Impossible Faith. Lulu.com, 2009. p.17.

[2] http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCarrier.htm

[3] Carrier., p.19

[4] The title of the last section in chapter 1. Carrier., p.34

[5] Carrier., p.43

The Other Dark Side of Religious Education

2011-05-13T15:56:00.000-07:00

If media coverage in anything to go by, then the recent secular scorn over religious education in public schools in Australia is a certain ‘hot potato’ issue at the moment. A recent online poll of the Age Newspaper in Melbourne put only 19% of people in favour of religious education in schools. These numbers are in no way as damning as the comments that accompany them. Letters to the editor and online forum comments from the Age, are extremely damning of both the Anglican Arch Bishop of Melbourne and the Chief executive officer of Access Ministries, Dr. Evonne Paddison. Comments include…, ‘dump these fanatics NOW. this is an affront to all that is reasonable’ and ‘Is anyone really surprised by this? This is nothing less than child abuse. To indoctrinate children (is there scare involved as well?) before they have developed their critical faculties is a form of child abuse - and at the moment it's State sponsored child abuse. [R]espect the child !!’

I find these comments and polls rather surprising and I suspect completely ill informed. I say this because I spent three years myself as an Anglican Chaplain in a secondary public school under the Chaplain government-funding grant issued by the late Howard Government and my experience could not have been more opposite to what is being described through public opinion.

Initially, I began my association with the school as a volunteer Piano teacher, which I have qualifications for whilst working in a local Anglican Church. After a full school year, the Chaplain funding grant was passed and I applied through the vice Principal directly to the government and not through Access Ministries. The grant was successful and the School were given the full $10’000 for three years. This meant that I was employed as the School Chaplain for 1 and ½ days a week for three years.

I was placed under the direction of the School ‘Well Fare’ Coordinator (a public and professing Atheist) and I was to report to her whilst also teaching more children the Piano for free in class time.

In my preliminary meeting with the ‘Well Fare’ Coordinator I was instructed not to take any initiative with any children in the School. I was to wait in a room shared by a council paid community worker and a school psychologist and wait for referrals from her to me from Children. I was instructed not to approach any child, and if they approached me, I was to refer it back to Coordinator of ‘Well Fare’ and she would decide if this was a good topic to discuss. It was also decided that they only topic I was qualified to comment on was grief in the face of death and this would be my only brief in the school. At no stage was the job description for a School Chaplain from the government web site consulted. At no stage was free speech by myself given as viable option. At no point was I offered the place to give my opinion of even able to answer questions from any child that might have an enquiring mind. My time was spent driving buses, playing board games with socially dysfunctional children, teaching piano, helping the sport coach, and many, many hours sitting in a room doing nothing all the time wasting tax payers dollars.

It appears impossible and quite stupid to describe my chaplain experience as fanatical, unreasonable, proselytizing, indoctrinating, disrespectful or abusive. The simple facts are is that the hierarchy of this particular public school were all of these things done under the guise of materialistic Atheism, which was the ideology of the coordinator of the ‘Well Fare’ at the school. At not stage was my position even considered worth defending or explaining, public justice was sorely missing and children were denied their basic human rights to question denial of set beliefs in a public forum, which I would hazard is a mild form of abuse.

What really is happening behind the curtain of religious education? My experience was nothing but deliberate religious marginalisation in the face of misplaced fear and ill-informed opinion. I heartily agree that public indoctrination is wrong in our government schools, but clearly so is the fundamentalist assumption that atheism is the correct default position and consequently denial to access of free speech. What is next, censorship of access to religious web sites in our schools? Evidently there is another side to religious education in schools is not getting enough airtime.

Recent scientific discoveries deliver a broadside blow to Atheism in favour of Christianity

2011-03-09T16:30:00.000-08:00

Until recently there was no non extra Biblical evidence that the Biblical characters of David and Solomon ever existed. This fact was used the delight of atheist around the globe as apparent evidence that the characters in the Bible were mere myths. However, as it seems to be the recent case with Christianity, science is now being used to make dynamic ground in favour not only of the truthfulness of the Old Testament but of a literal reading of the ancient scripts. In December 2010 National Geographic [a secular popular scientific magazine] published a cover article in favour of new discovers in the Holy Land.

The article favoured five key archaeological finds in favour of biblical history. These are as follows.

House of David. A stela appearing to be inscribed with the words ‘house of David’ was found at Tel Dan in 1993. Few archaeologists argue that this does not refer to the David of the Bible accounts.
City of David. In 2005 Eilat Mazar uncovered a monumental building in Jerusalem and identified it as David’s palace based on its location and pottery. Whilst the date of construction is contested the location and size strongly suggest this as recorded in the biblical accounts.
Ancient Copper Mines. Thomas Levy is excavating a large copper-production site dating to the tenth and ninth centuries B.C., strongly implying that this is the famed King Solomon’s mines. Critics argue though that this mine proves no connection with Israel however.
City of David Gates. Yosef Garfinkel is excavating ruins in Shaaraim [a biblical city with two gates] there and has found olive pits and pottery he dates to David’s time. His dig also uncovered to gates noted in the bible as near where the battle of David a Goliath took place. Only 5% has been explored so the verdict is still out on this site as to what ultimately it will reveal.
Fortified Cities. In 1960 an archaeologist named Yigael Yadin had identified six-chambered gates at all three sites and proclaimed them built by Solomon. In 1996 there was an alternate proposal suggested and this debate still continues.

Whilst the dating of the sites leaves room for interpretation the staggering weight of new evidence clearly points to a truthful literal Old Testament account of King David and Solomon. Thus while this does not prove that there is a God is clearly deals a strong blow to simply materialistic Atheist claims concerning the nature of reality.

John’s Response to my OTF Critique, Finally!

2011-01-05T15:17:00.000-08:00

It has taken almost two years for John (John W. Loftus, atheist and author/blogger) to respond to my critique of his Outsider Test of Fat (OTF). Below you will find his responses to my objections and my critiques of them. My real hope in this is that people will see how John's argues his point and what really the OTF is about. Thank you John for taking to time to respond to my objections

Objection 1.

The OTF is not as powerful if you begin from the inside.

John’s Response.

John was on the inside but now the outside so clearly this is wrong. Also other people have been on the inside and now on the outside so this is a problem.

Critique of John’s Response to 01

But why assume John that you infallible and the test is not. The assumption here is that when you take the test, you pass and the test is not at fault. When I take the test, and do not fail, it is I who am at fault. This is just arrogance and a silly way to answer this objection. Many people have left Christianity like you say, and many more have become Christian from the outside. Your response here does not answer the objection.

Objection 2.

The OTF is powerful in its epistemological problems. Meaning if you understand the problems it looses it power.

John’s Response

Because it is so powerful and you fail [and] you have a double standard.

Critique of John’s Response to 02

Again John you have not grasped what I am saying. I acknowledge the power in its epistemological deficiencies. By you arguing for my acknowledgement of power and failure means a double standard is just dogmatic rhetoric.

Objection 3.

The burden of proof is not on a religion in this test but rather in its adoption through culture.

John’s Response to O3.

The one true faith should show to the others that it is true. But this is not the OTF! Why?

Critique of John’s Response to O3

This is a change in the OTF and why its paradigms are deliberately ambiguous. Where does the test require one religion to prove its truthfulness to another? What’s more Christianity (against which you blog and books are directed) claims that this is not what it will do? You are deliberately building a straw-man argument for religion to knock down. You cannot judge a religion on something it itself does not adhere to.

Objection 4.

Religion [Christianity/Bible] predicts people will follow other God’s.

John’s Response

The question the OTF asks of you is why you think Paul’s words are God’s words.

Critique of John’s Response to O4

I thought the test required me to justify why people in cultures follow their cultural religion. To ask why I believe Paul’s words are inspired by God, is a insider test for Christianity. What I think John is trying to ask is why I think the Bible is God’s words and not say the Koran’s? The answer is easy Mohammed never claimed to be God, die and rise from the dead and then appear to Paul, Jesus did.

Objection 5.

The OTF begs the same standard on atheism. If the OTF shows religion to be bogus then the ITA should show why beyond a doubt.

John’s Response

This has got to be one of the most ignorant things that a believer does not understand. The standard is, was, and always shall be what is most probable rather than what is impossible.

Critique of John’s response to O5

So why is Atheism the default position, why not agnosticism. And if its mostly probable rather than impossible why spend so much time writing and blogging if it was true as apposed to probable. Is this a money making venture or a profile enhancer? It is completely illogical to claim atheism is certain based on probability.

Objection 6.

The OTF makes the weak case against religion but says nothing for atheism, therefore why the leap into atheism?

John’s Response

But in the end, if no religion can pass the OTF then no religion can pass through the skeptical filter I have for accepting a belief as true, and that's it. And if no religious faith can pass through that filer then my skepticism allows me to accept the label atheist because I am a non-believer, an a-theist.

Critique of John’s Response to 06

But John you are assumption is that nothing is wrong with your skeptical filter. I am showing you that there is. Your filter is faulty and therefore you conclusions based on you filter are incorrect. Also you should adopt agnosticism not atheism this is a more honest position of your current skepticism.

Objection 7.

The test has a high level of ambiguity. What precisely does John mean by religion.

John’s Response

They all think that they are the rational ones and that they are right. This ignorance utterly dumbfounds me. All one needs to do is to talk to people of other faiths. If he gets a chance talk to Tom Cruise or John Travolta about Scientology. Come on now. the Rev. simply cannot dismiss the views of others on evidential merit when all religionists share a faith based reasoning.

Critique of John’s Response to O7

John again makes the mistake of lumping all religions in together here and wants to position his argument. But notice here the fragrant ambiguity of his position Whilst Australia and America have sanctioned that Scientology is a Religion, France, German, England etc have not. Now why is this the case? Do I take the OTF is Australia and include Scientology, but if I take it in England do I discount it? John bases this response on sincerity of adherents but this is flawed. We must never look at sincerity but rather what are the doctrines of set religions.

Objection 8.

What is the working definition of religion for the OTF

John’s Response

‘is one in which there are supernatural beings or forces or processes at work in the world.’

Critique of John’s response to O8.

John finally gives us a working definition of Religion. So we can now look at these beliefs of supernatural forces working in the world. I wonder does John consider cognition as a supernatural force in the world. Clear thoughts are not material. There not natural in the sense humans seem to be the only ones with them. The impact the world and are at work? Again seems far to ambiguous for a serious test to be taken.

Objection 9.

Most people believe in religion, based on statistics then would it not be preferable to assume religion is true?

John’s Response

I see no reason why a scientist should ever accept what the majority of people believe as counting for anything when experiments prove otherwise. Just because people believe means nothing if we adopt a science based rather than faith based reasoning.

Critique of John’s Response to O9.

The problem is John that all scientists accept something until it is proved false. For example early experimenters is the field of electrostatics reported that the electrified rods became sticky, as ‘evidenced’ by small pieces of paper sticking to them? However now we know that these reports are mistaken as we now have different observations on attractive and repulsive forces acting at a distance. So if a lot of people see a miracle it should be scientifically justified as a miracle until it is falsified just like science.

Objection 10.

Why is Religion only found in humanity

John’s Response

I have no clue what the Rev. means here.

Critique of John’s Response to O10.

There is not really anything to say except to clarify the objection. The objection goes, if religion is false then there must be a purely naturalistic reason for its existence. Be it fear of death, reason to comprehend the world, align meaning and purpose to life on this planet. What the naturalistic reason it does not matter, what does matter is that why don’t we find this behavior in other animals on the same planet, under the same circumstances, living in the same conditions, evolving from the same chemicals given at the dawn of the planet. Apart from cognition and higher morality, I am unaware of any other function that humans do that is not possessed by another species on the planet we share.

Christianity is not to blame for the Crusades

2010-12-29T14:45:00.000-08:00

Is Christianity to be blamed for the crusades? The ‘New Atheists’ would have you believe that it did? But when you look at the historical facts about the brutal war you will find that Christianity had almost nothing to do with it.

For example Steven Runican the author of the largest medieval verdict on the crusades writes, ‘the Holy War is a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is the sin against the Holy Ghost.’[1]

Christianity, according to Runican, was used as an ideology for war, material gain and social status, which has nothing to do with Christianity. This is no where more clear than in The Latin translation of the bible which makes a distinction between a private war and a public one, the former being adopted in the bible and the latter never used. What’s more the term ‘Just War’ never appears within the bible and was borrowed by Aristotle whom first coined the phrase ‘Just War’ in his work ‘Politics.’

The abuse of Christianity to promote unjust power hierarchy is most clearly illustrated when Christianity went to Rome after the conversion of Constantine. It became clear that their protector, Rome, was synonymous with Christian Peace. Henceforth there became a distinction between the Christian clergy being exempt from war and Christian laity being encouraged to fight for the Christian empire, again a sad misrepresentation of true Christianity.

Perhaps the strongest reason why the ‘New Atheists’ attribute Christianity to the Crusades is because Christianity’s figure heads at the time, Pope Leo IV (847-855) & Pope John VIII (872 -882) offered penitential indulgences for those who fought and died ‘for the truth of the Faith the salvation of souls and defence of Christendom against pagans and infidels.’[2] But figureheads sometimes misrepresent Christianity and have done so here. What was really happening at the time of the Crusades is that the reforming Popes sought to claim control over not just all the churches but also over states and laymen. This move invited opposition, which resulted in the direct physical violence with temporal weapons; this lead directly to the first Crusade. Accounts of pope Urban’s speech for the first Crusade reveals that he offered material gain if one went to war.

Pope Gregory the VII was one of the most militant Popes who furthered the cause of a Holy War. His favourite verse Jeremiah 48:10 gave a moral argument to war. A Holy and Just war was based on loyalty to a Lord, defence of the vulnerable and defence of the Church. But this verse can never be used to justify going to war in a brutal fashion.

War was not a fundamental part of the Christian faith, however with Islam it was. There are two types of Jihad, the spiritual and the military, but there is only the spiritual with Christianity.

So why do many aggressive Atheists want to blame Christianity for the Crusades? Who can say? But what is clear is that the facts do not support such a conclusion and therefore the Atheists needs to look at his/her own motivation for such misguided attacks, are they just a misguided as the Crusaders were?

[1] Runciman, S. A History of the Crusades (Cambridge 1951 – 4), iii, 480. Cited in Tyerman,

Christopher. Gods War - A New History of the Crusades,. Penguin, 2007.

[2] Tyerman, p.38.

The problem with the scientific method

2010-11-02T17:01:00.001-07:00

Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins wrote a now quite famous letter to his daughter titled, ‘Good and Bad Reasons for Believing.’[1]

Dawkins’ argument is basically that we should not believe anything unless we have evidence; evidence that has its roots in direct observation. The specialists in deciphering the truth about reality are in Dawkins view the scientists.

But what actually is this thing called science that Dawkins places so much faith in? Is it as reliable as Dawkins claims it is for discovering the truth of reality?

A popular view is that science is knowledge derived from the facts of experience.[2] The facts of experience start from careful, unbiased and repeated observation from which the scientist places naïve induction from the data and births a general principle.

Now there are three major problems with this scientific method as the source of truth concerning our reality.

1) Induction really cannot be justified to form a general principle. Just because there have been many exact occurrences over a wide variety of conditions does not entail anything except strong positive future probability albeit possibly high strong probability. For example just because the earth has been rotating on it axis for thousands of years we cannot be 100% certain that it will keep doing so tomorrow. Induction can only be justified by induction, which is circular and problematic. Consequently when the scientists argue for a universal law, what the scientist actually means is that they have a universal high probability of a future occurrence. The probability of course is limited to the past examples that in some case are small.

2) Observation theory has shown that it is not just the case that solely the light entering the observer’s eye determines the experience that observers have when viewing any object. Now this is why the scientific observer must publish his/her observations to see if other scientists verify this finding in the exact same manner. However it has been shown that culture and indeed scientific culture offers paradigms that warp observational experiences within its own field. Therefore what is being observed is not really a naïve person but rather someone with an established and performing agenda already enmeshed within his/her framework. For example, early experimenters is the field of electrostatics reported that the electrified rods became sticky, as ‘evidenced’ by small pieces of paper sticking to them? However now we know that these reports are mistaken as we now have different observations on attractive and repulsive forces acting at a distance.

3) The problem of falsification. The above two issues are usually acknowledged as the criteria that leads to a new theory being developed. However falsification can only happen through observation, which as we have seen has its problems and can only occur once it has been observed. The scientist has no guarantee that his/her theory will be falsified because induction cannot make such a claim. Therefore falsification is always a possibility.

As it is shown science grounds its truthfulness in a belief that what was seen will be seen again; that is it. Is it better than other from of knowledge say revelation? Not really, knowledge claims base their truthfulness on a belief system of some form.

[1] McGowan, le. Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion. Ed.

Dale McGowan. AMACOM, 2007. p.13

[2] Chalmers, A. F. What Is This Thing Called Science? An Assessment of the Nature and Status of

Science and Its Methods. 2nd ed. Hackett Publishing Company, 1995.

Anglican Diocese of Melbourne Atheism Brochure

2010-10-11T17:00:00.000-07:00

Here is the brochure written by me as part of the Christianity and Atheism Committee for distribution for the Parishes of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne.

Enjoy.

Can Someone Help this Atheist?

2010-10-07T18:37:00.000-07:00

There has been some comments over at Daylight Atheism about a post of mine in the Genesis account.

Here is what one commenter posted.

Some do try and reconcile the timeline. I encountered Rev. Philip Brown at Debunking Christianity and he pointed me HERE when this came up.

So... "let there be light" is actually supposed to mean, "when living creatures developed the first retinal photosensing [sic – photo-sensing] abilities"... riiighhht.

Comment #17 by: Hendy | October 5, 2010, 4:44 pm

Sounds convincing doesn’t it. I just have one question for Hendy? If in Genesis 1 we have the creation of light and the light was to separate the light from darkness, meaning the sun, and God after He had finished that action he called it a day? What other possible meaning to we get in Genesis 14, where we find ‘let there be lights in the heavens to separate the day from night?’ Hasn’t it already happened? Hmmmm, does anyone have an answer better than Hendy's?

Do miracles happen? Atheist Author John W. Loftus shows his substandard reasoning

2010-10-04T18:13:00.000-07:00

Many atheists and agnostic people find the reading of the Bible unbelievable because of the stories of reported miracles. Most of these are clumped together around the person of Jesus Christ. For example: Jesus turns water into wine, heals people who cannot walk or see, feeds over five thousand people with just a handful of bread and fish, walks on water and the list goes on.

One particular outspoken atheist is John W. Loftus who also authors the blog ‘Debunking Christianity.’ In his atheist tome, ‘Why I Became an Atheist: A former preacher rejects Christianity,’[1] writes…Some miracles are additionally implausible due to the natural sciences: having an axe-head float, walking on water etc…[2]

Observe the rhetoric that John employs here in his assessment of miracles. John wants his readers to think that science here can adjudicate on these claims of miracles thus rendering them implausible. However, as the philosophers of science consistently tell us, science can only adjudicate on things that are repeatable under controlled conditions. Since none of the claims in the Bible can be repeatable science cannot help assess in this matter nor make claims of plausibility or implausibility.

But John does not finish here. John then moves onto the great Scottish philosopher David Hume. In this section John appears to just summarise rather poorly Hume’s argument from his work on an ‘Enquiry into Human Understanding’ in his paragraph entitled ‘Hume offers four “But in Fact” Arguments.’[3] John offers no reference at this point for his summary of Hume so it is rather unclear what exact point he is summarising, though it is clear that this is not a direct quote from Hume. Here is what I believe John is trying to summarise from Hume…

For first, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: all which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.[4]

And here is John’s summary of Hume’s point as found within his book…

I find the following four arguments of Hume persuasive: First, miraculous claims are mainly made by uneducated superstitious people who lack common sense, integrity, or a good reputation.[5]

Now unless John can show that this was not what he was trying to summarise and exactly what he was trying to summarise from Hume it has to be assessed that John re-words Hume to suit his position on miracles. Hume does not say that miraculous claims are mainly made by uneducated superstitious people… on the contrary he asserts that there is no miracles that meets Hume’s criteria of numbers, education, good-sense, undoubted integrity, such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; attesting facts performed in such a public manner.

John has not grasped what Hume is actually getting at in this section and fails to summaries him adequately. Is it any surprise that John then states that Hume’s arguments, when in reality they are not Hume’s at all but John’s own, persuade him?

Lastly, even if John had understood Hume correctly, is it plausible to apply this rationale to eyewitness accounts as Hume does? What Judge in court will only accept eyewitness account from people with Hume’s list of amazing criteria? Answer none of them; the list is impossible to meet.

What keeps being made clear is that ‘The New Atheism’ keeps messing things up, quotes, arguments, summaries etc… Why is it that the ‘New Atheists’ argue Christians to look at the evidence for religion when they themselves do not?

[1] Loftus, John W. Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity. Prometheus

Books, 2008.

[2] Ibid., p.199f

[3] Ibid., p.202

[4] http://18th.eserver.org/hume-enquiry.html#10

[5] Ibid., Loftus, p.202

Isn’t science the only reliable knowledge?

2010-10-04T16:34:00.000-07:00

You’ve probably heard it asked, ‘How can we trust the Bible? It opens with a completely unscientific account of the origins of this planet. Where are the dinosaurs, evolution, things of that sort?’ When one looks at Genesis (the first book of the Bible) from a theological, literary and cultural point of view, it becomes apparent that Genesis is not attempting to present a scientific account of the beginnings of life. Perhaps surprisingly, something similar is true of science. Eminent scientist and author Paul Davies has written:

Clearly then, both religion and science are founded on faith – namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.[1]

[1] First published as an Op-Ed piece by The New York Times, November 24, 2007.

Can you prove God exists?

2010-10-04T03:41:00.001-07:00

The most common objection raised by the ‘New Atheists’ is that there is no sufficient proof that God exists and therefore no need to believe in Him. Behind this objection lies a problem relating to the nature of proof. The problem concerns the kind of proof that ‘New Atheists’ are looking to find. For example, the Bible describes Jesus as the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). What form of proof might Christians offer in support of this claim? Asking a Christian to provide proof of this would be like asking a person

in the street to provide empirical evidence that yesterday exists. Even though both parties to the conversation would accept that yesterday exists, neither could prove it because it is the wrong type of proof that has been requested. The type of proof that a person might be willing to accept may not necessarily be the type that that is available, because this will necessarily depend upon the nature of the thing being investigated. Excellent grounds for believing the truth of Christianity’s claims can be found in history, morality and its rich cultural heritage. None of these things amount to proof in a scientific sense, but science is inadequate to establish the claim of the truth that Jesus Christ to be God.

Doesn’t Christianity cause violence and wars?

2010-09-30T17:29:00.000-07:00

There can be no doubt that throughout history people have justified going to war under the banner of Christianity. There have been occasions in the past when the church has not only failed to stop injustice, but has also been the cause of it. However, the same can be said of almost any human ideology. For example, it is claimed by Associate Professor Gracelyn Smallwood, the Indigenous Advisor to the Vice Chancellor at James Cook University, in her article ‘The Unrelenting Struggle Of Indigenous Australians’ that there have been occasions in Australian history when scientists have capitalized on the killing of aboriginal people, raiding graves for human remains to be used for the purposes of scientific research. Surely no-one would argue that we should abandon science because it was used to justify grave desecration?

Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins has been quoted as saying that he is ‘not aware of anyone going to war in the name of atheism.’ While Dawkins’ assessment may be accurate, it is also true that people don’t go to stop wars in the name of atheism. However, Christians are known for actively resisting war in the name of God. Take, for example, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was a pastor in the German Lutheran Church. He left Germany in 1939, but soon returned. He knew that war was imminent, and thought that he could not take part in the reconstruction of post-war Germany unless he endured the war there. He joined the German resistance, and worked on a peace plan with England planned to come into place when Hitler was assassinated. He was imprisoned in 1943, and was killed by the Nazis on 9 April 1945, just as the Americans arrived, and three weeks before Hitler’s suicide, as WW II ended in Europe.

IS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE A MONSTER?

2010-09-28T16:04:00.000-07:00

On the surface it seems that some of the things in the Bible cast God in a pretty negative light. However, it can help to bear in mind that many of the things we read in the Bible come to us with a very specific historic and cultural context. One example is Psalm 137, which ends with these surprising words: ‘Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!’ An understanding of the historical context of the psalm, reflected in 2 Kings 24-25, helps us to see that the theology undergirding this cry is concerned with ‘just retribution’ rather than vengeance. Here the psalmist cries out to God for justice in response to the abuses of the Babylonians. We can understand the psalm as a prayer that takes the place of military vengeance. Through psalms of this sort the Israelites were able to express the great pain of forced exile and captivity. In pouring out vivid laments to God they were able to avoid knee-jerk reactions of retaliatory violence. Psalm 137 actually appeals to justice rather than violence, calling upon the judge of all the earth, who will surely do justice when his people have been made the victims of persecution? (See Genesis 18:25)

So before concluding that the God of the Bible is a monster, we should consider carefully the possibility that we have not completely grasped the implications of the cultural or historical context of the text. It may also be possible that we are projecting our own cultural understanding onto the text.

Masses of conversions in the Australia Defence Force.

2010-09-25T22:56:00.001-07:00

A colleague of mine who works in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is observing massive conversion to Biblical Christianity mostly under his ministry. The numbers are over 50 in the past 2 weeks. This of course is a very troubling sign for the atheist. Why is this the case? It is because this phenomena is extremely difficult to explain if you are an atheist. These recruits are not children indoctrinated in a family home and therefore this explanation has no force. Many have higher educational degrees and have high intelligence, so lower intelligence cannot be an issue. Many had to pass hard examinations to get in to the ADF, so they are not considered capable of gullibility. They are not forced to adhere to anything biblical in the ADF, so the state pressure is not evident, and the list goes on.

Notoriously the Australian Army has been noted for its godless behaviour. Why the sudden change? Especially when the ‘New Atheism’ is on the prowl in the Internet and in the bookstore and on the television. Can the atheist explain such conversions? I’ll bet they cannot with any evidence or strength in argument.

What atheists won’t tell you about the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial.’

2010-09-23T17:31:00.000-07:00

If anyone has ever had the courage to challenge materialistic atheists based on Darwinian evolution, then one usually finds oneself hearing about the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ which was an American legal case in 1925 in which a high school biology teacher named John Scopes was accused of violating the state's ‘Butler Act’ which made it unlawful to teach evolution in a state school.

Materialistic atheists basically love the Scopes Monkey Trial because Scope’s lawyer tried to make the issue in court really between fundamental Christianity and Darwinian evolution.

The court actually had to make this statement regarding the trial…

The issues in this case, as they have been finally determined by this court is whether or not it is unlawful to teach that man descended from a lower order of animals. I do not understand that issue involved the Bible. If the Bible is involved, I believe in it and am always on its side, but it is not for me to decide in this case. If the presence of the sign irritates anyone, or if anyone thinks it might influence the jury in any way, I have no purpose except to give both sides a fair trial in this case. Feeling that way about it, I will let the sign come down. Let the jury be brought around.[1]

Consequentially the charge to Scopes was whether it was lawful to teach evolution, the truth of it was never brought into question. The five pro-Darwinian scientists that gave written statements were actually asked to be cross-examined. However Scope’s lawyers objected and since the trail had nothing to do with evolution but teaching in the State School this objection was upheld.

Scopes in the end pleaded guilty and as a technicality there was no room for Bryan to question Darrow on evolution. Darrow all along could have given Scopes the guilty plea from the beginning but in that instance he would not have had a chance for Darrow to use Bryan to challenge Christian fundamentalism. Subsequently Darrow openly questioned Christian fundamentalism and escaped cross-examination for Darwinian evolution.

Clearly, any materialistic atheists are happy with the outcome of this trial but are they really happy with the dishonest tactics that were employed in the courtroom. Sadly when we see the likes of Dawkins, Dan Barker and Hitchens, etc… we see that the scene has not really changed at all.

[1] http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm

Was the Moses Miracle a Fake?

2010-09-21T16:57:00.000-07:00

It looks as though scientists have simulated the parting of the Red Sea by Moses, click here for further.

Now whether this is correct or not is non-consiquential. Why is it that if a physical phenomena describes something that we previously though was impossible does it cease to be a miracle? It reminds me of the miracle of Jesus turning water into wine. Humanity has been doing this for hundreds of years, however, just because there is a natural way to turn water into wine does not mean the miracle the Jesus performed was in any way not a miracle. The same applies here. Just because we may simulate high wings pushing the water away so that the Israelites could cross does in no way lesson the fact that this was done at the command of Moses and in order to save the Israelites. If God can suspend natural events to achieve His purposes then he can also use natural events to achieve his purposes. Either way it is still a miracle by God.

Jesus Existed, beyond the tiniest shadow of doubt.

2010-09-20T18:08:00.000-07:00

Among others, America’s Freedom From Religion co-President Dan Barker: makes the case that Jesus was not a real historical figure in chapter 15 of his book ‘godless.’[1]

Dan Barker firstly puts his case by stating… 1) There is no external historical confirmation for the New Testament stories.[2]

Before Barker we get to these extra Biblical accounts there is a little excurses into how early extra Biblical accounts appear, Dan argues…

Jesus supposedly lived sometime between 4 B.C.E. and 30 C.E., but there is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by the Romans or by the Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. The earliest candidate for extra-biblical confirmation, one small paragraph in Josephus, dates to the mid 90s C.E., which is more than 60 years after Jesus supposedly died.[3]

Now this is more than a trifle misleading. It is not at all uncommon to find historical records written after the death of the significant figure, in fact if one compares Dan’s statement about Jesus with the detailed life of Alexander the Great, surely a significant historical figure! Historians are highly confident that they can reconstruct a detailed biography from two major accounts, Arrian and Plutarch, whom wrote their biographies in the late first – and early - second century of a man who died in 323 B.C., over 400 years later. Does anyone doubt Alexander the Great was a myth because of the time difference between his death and recorded accounts? Dan Barker thinks this point casts doubt of the existence of Jesus but in historical reality the written accounts of the life of Jesus appeared very quickly in comparison to other historical figures. So Dan’s point really has no force at all and should be dismissed.

Dan Barkers first attack is on the history according to Philo. Dan makes the case that Philo was present in the time of Jesus and that Philo should have seen a whole host of things if the Jesus story was true and subsequently should have recorded them. Since Philo did not record anything about Jesus, but again this shows nothing about whether Jesus was real or not. As every history student knows, no evidence does not mean evidence of nothing.

Dan moves on from Philo to Justus of Tiberius. Again Dan makes the same argument with Justus, and again the same answer should be given.

Dan then load both barrels and takes aim, as many atheists likewise do, at the historian Flavius Josephus. Dan delights in the apparent Christian tampering done to Josephus and argues as follows.

Josephus' works contain sections in reference to Jesus of Nazareth. However, many scholars agree that the sections of this text by Josephus shows signs of Christian tampering. The text in question appears below, with the parts that appear to have been tampered in red.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was [the] Christ]. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

What seems to be in debate is how reliable we can trust Josephus' words concerning Jesus Christ at this point. Mr. Barker in his book 'godless' takes seven points of concern with reference to Josephus, they are...

1. The paragraph is empty from most early manuscripts.

2. Josephus would not have called Jesus the Christ.

3. The passage appears out of context.

4. The phrase 'at this day' has to be a later interpolation.

5. Josephus appears to know nothing more about Jesus.

6. Josephus neglects to mention who the prophets were.

7. The hyperbolic language in uncharacteristic of a careful historian.

Mr. Barker goes further and concludes his argument against Joesphus by stating that we should remove the paragraph and therefore be left with evidence against historicity of Jesus Christ. Mr. Barker does however note that some Christian scholars debate that one can remove the tampered sections and arrive at a honest account from Josephus. Mr. Barkers asks 'How do Christians prove it was part of the paragraph, and not the entire thing, that was dishonestly added to the Antiquities? And even if they can, doesn't this prove too much,'[4]

However John Dickson. In his book 'The Christ Files' Dr. Dickson examines this very problem with Josephus. Dr. Dickson shows that an important Arabic manuscript uses more hesitant words... 'he was perhaps the messiah Christ,' and 'they reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive.'

Dr. Dickson then argues that since no Christian would enter these hesitant words there is a great case to argue for this translation being the very one Josephus used, for more see Schlomo Pines. Furthermore the tampered sections would no longer be creations of Christians rather improvements of hesitant or skeptical texts.

In conclusion Mr. Barker's challenge to deal with Josephus is answered by the historian Dr. Dickson. Moreover, Mr. Barker's concluding remarks that if Josephus could be rescued then it would only prove that Christian tamper with text, so we can assume that the Gospels are tampered with, holds little water as careful textual analysis of these texts will show little tampering.

Dan then moves his historical analysis to the second century and again makes the case that if the following ancient historians were true, the time frame is simply to large to offer credible evidence for Jesus. Again something current professional historians do not doubt.

Dan dismisses Suetonius because he argues that the connection between the professing Christians and the commotion surrounding Chrestus could be anyone not just a misspelling of Christ. But even if it is a misspelling then Suetonius may have been referring to the Jews who were expecting a messiah and not Jesus Christ.[5] Notice how Dan argues from a may here. Which is a terribly slim thread to dismiss a historical text upon. Furthermore Dan really does not make sense. If this Chrestus really was a mistaken Jewish Messiah then why would he have been in connection with a new Religious belief, the Christians? Dan really here does not make any sense what so ever and concludes with ‘It is only eager believers who jump to the conclusion that this provides evidence for Jesus.’[6]

Clearly however as anyone can see it is Dan who eagerly dismisses this piece of historical data.

Dan takes a very brief look at Pliny the Younger and concludes this the most amazing and untrue statement I have found within his entire book. ‘In 112 C.E., Pliny (the younger) said that “Christians were singing a hymn to Christ as to a god…” That’s it. In all of Pliny’s writings, we find one small tangential reference, and not even to Christ, but to Christians.

Dan obviously thinks that no one will go and check the truth of this statement because a quick reading of Pliny’s letters shows Dan to be entirely wrong. Pliny writes much more about Christ and Christians and anyone that has this work knows it. Dan’s simple quote shows the fragrant lie that he tries to sell to his readers and like a shoddy second hand car salesman it is easy to see through him.

Pliny writes…

They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal.[7]

So not only is Dan wrong about the limit of the quotes but as you can see the Christians that Pliny encounters follow directly the exact teachings of Jesus Christ. No fraud, theft, adultery, lying, but praying and sharing communion together. If this was another Christ as Dan wants us to believe then he is an exact carbon copy of Jesus Christ. Clearly the more reasonable conclusions is that these Christians were following the Jesus Christ of the Gospel accounts, not s second rate Christ that might of appeared.

Dan then looks to the famous and most reliable Roman historian Tacitus. Is his history Tacitus records that a Christus was put to death by Pontius Pilot. Dan’s way to deal with this little piece of confirming evidence is to argue again that Tacitus does not have first hand knowledge of Jesus therefore his text is highly dubious. Again Dan repeats his original argument that unless we have an eyewitness account of we can dismiss this historical account.

Dan quotes a fragment of a personal letter from a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion to his son in prison. The letter records that the Jews of the time had killed their ‘wise-king.’ Dan again hastily and dishonestly dismisses this because he argues that we know from the New Testament that it was the Romans who killed Jesus not the Jews therefore this piece of evidence can be disregarded. Dan however fails to note that the Jews did have an arrest notice issued for Jesus found in the Mishnah from the Talmud. So all Dan does here is play a little semantic word game for people that really want not to believe rather than investigate the truth. The reality is that the Jews did want Jesus killed and the Romans felt compelled to act of what the Jews wanted.

Sadly Dan is not alone in his deliberately fraudulent attempt to argue that there is not good external evidence for Jesus’ existence. It is common amongst the ‘New Atheists’ and it clearly shows that anger and frothing at the mouth really is useless is deciphering the truth.

[1] Barker, Dan. Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists.

Ulysses Press, 2008.

[2] Ibid., p.252

[3] Ibid., p.253

[4] Ibid., p.258

[5] Ibid., p.259

[6] Ibid., p.259

[7] Title: Letters of Pliny. Author: Pliny Translated by William Melmoth [revised by F. C. T. Bosanquet] see, http://promo.net/pg.

The Problem of Evil Shows Atheism to be Wrong.

2010-08-05T20:31:00.000-07:00

Atheists love the problem of evil. They use it all the time in debates and arguments against God's existence. But as David Woods shows [an ex atheist, converted to Christianity after personally investigating the evidence for the resurrection and now teaches philosophy] any formulation of the Problem of Evil, actually reveals not only unproven assumptions and ambiguous terms but atheistic inconsistencies. Here is Woods' argument in my own words...

The atheists argues that pointless suffering shows that there is no God. However, just because we do not have complete knowledge of the present suffering or we cannot think of a particular reason why this suffering is happening, does this mean we have to conclude that there is probably no God. This position stands in stark contradiction to atheists who also argue that its extremely improbable that life formed on its own or the universe is finely tuned for life but come to the conclusion that we do not have a designer [God]. The probability suits the atheists when he/she wants but not when he/she does not want and reveals there inconsistent way of arguing and biased sifting of truth.
No where does an atheist actually define what good means in this problem. Atheists and Humanist Greg Epstein in his Book 'Good without God?' in which you would expect to find a working definition of good does not provide one, in which one can only conclude he cannot. In addition atheists love to banter the word God is good but offer no working definition of what good is and how it applies to God. Usually it means removing suffering and maximising pleasure however the Christian looks at the word good extremely differently to the atheists. The point is, in the formulation of this problem the unsettled ambiguity of the term 'good' suits the atheists rhetoric for a perceived forceful argument but in reality the force is just smoke and light, they themselves do not know what good or bad is, let alone whether God lives up to it.
The argument form the atheist relies on the assumption of awareness that if God has a reason for allowing evil then we not only should be aware of it but it should be available to our awareness. How would any atheist defend this absurd proposition that lies in the presentation of the argument.

As you can see Woods clearly shows that any atheists presenting this argument is actually shooting themselves in the foot when they present this as proof that God does not exists.

Taken from, Licona, Michael, and William A. Dembski. Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science. Ed. Michael Licona, and William A. Dembski. Baker Books, 2010.

Do we now have scientific proof of the soul?

2010-08-03T17:34:00.000-07:00

If there were proof of a soul [an immaterial centre of humanity] then there would be no doubt that the materialists were wrong and at the very least the God hypothesis would be correct. Why the existence of a soul would not necessarily mean Christianity is true, it would totally cancel out not only the atheists but also many other religions.

The new work being done in the field of neurology shows that our subjective mind can alter the objective structure of the brain. Now this can only happen if the subjective mind is not the activity of the objective brain. Meaning something in our makeup [the soul] can a rewire the path of our neurones inside our objective brain. We could not change our circuitry of our brain if all we had was the material object matter of the brain.

To quote one of the leading authorities on the subject...

But findings from science now confirm the notion that the mind can activate the brain's circuitry in ways that change the brain's structural connections, p.7 (Siegel, Daniel J. The Mindful Therapist: A Clinician's Guide to Mindsight and Neural Integration. W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.)

So here you have it irrefutable proof the materialism is incorrect and that it looks beyond a shadow of a doubt that a soul exists.

Emeritus Professor of Physics argues that science and faith are not in conflict

2010-08-02T16:34:00.000-07:00

Professor John Pilbrow is part of an Atheism response committee, of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, I proposed should be established at the last meeting of Synod. While the committee is working away and is taking some of my time, John has agreed that his latest address to the Melbourne College of Divinity would be published on the Diocesan Web Site. But until we get that web site finalised you can see his address here first. Its interesting that this highly decorated and educated man sees as much faith in science as Christianity. For a list of his credentials CLICK HERE

MCD Centenary Conference

Science & Religion Forum 6 July 2010

From Physics to Biology – A Challenge to Theology

AN OPEN UNIVERSE – INSIGHTS FROM PHYSICS TO BIOLOGY[i]

John R Pilbrow, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Monash University[ii]

Ó 2010

ABSTRACT 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1 NATURE OF SCIENCE 2

2 SELECTED EXAMPLES FROM MODERN SCIENCE 3

a PHYSICS 3

b COSMOLOGY 4

c BIOLOGY & EVOLUTION 4

3 THEOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE 5

4 CONVERSATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND FAITH 6

a CREATIVE MUTUAL INTERACTION, NOT CONFLICT 6

b DIVINE ACTION 6

c NATURAL THEOLOGY 6

d CREATION THEOLOGY: 6

e TIME, ETERNITY AND RELATIVITY 7

5 CONCLUSIONS 7

ABSTRACT

It is a popular notion that science and Christian faith (and religion in general) are in conflict, a view propagated both by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and also by creationists. I will argue that this is a false dichotomy, and that there are sound reasons for seeing science and Christianity in consonance and for the need for civil conversation. A first step is to identify the metaphysical assumptions that underpin both theology and science. Secondly we need to find links at the metaphysical level between theological and scientific concepts that relate to the same reality. Particular examples will be drawn from modern physics to biology, focusing on what we now understand by an open universe and its implications for understanding the nature of reality, the nature of God and possible insights into divine action. Finally the nature of the pastoral challenge faced by the 21^st Century Church will be identified.

INTRODUCTION

Congratulations to the MCD on its Centenary.

This Forum gives us an opportunity to consider the relationship between modern science and theology [including faith], and to reflect on its implications for theological education.

My immediate purpose is twofold:-

1. First, I hope to persuade you that our universe is ‘open’ in the sense that it possesses the freedom to yield true novelty and fruitfulness.

2. Secondly, to identify metaphysical assumptions in both science and theology.

I want to touch on the hierarchical scheme proposed by Nancey Murphy and George Ellis[iii] and to draw attention to levels of increased complexity where the laws that operate are not reducible to properties of the constituent parts e.g. biology does not reduce to physics and chemistry[iv].

The outline of my talk will be as follows:-

1. Nature of science

2. Selected examples from modern science

a. Physics

b. Cosmology

c. Biology and evolution

3. Theology in the context of science

4. Conversation between science & faith,

5. Conclusions.

1 NATURE OF SCIENCE

It is actually an act of faith to recognise that science depends on metaphysical assumptions.

1. The scientific method cannot be justified from within science.

2. Science is a valid form of human enquiry.

3. The universe is rational.

4. Critical realism i.e. reality is independent of our personal encounter with it.

5. Science explores what is the case.

6. Deals with how rather than why questions.

7. Laws of nature describe observable patterns.

8. Counter intuitive ideas needed e.g. wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement.

Methodology

1. Experiment and Observation [e.g. astronomy, fossil record].

2. Employs methodological, but not ontological, reductionism.

3. Employs hypotheses, models, metaphor and analogy.

4. Establishes theories to explain existing phenomena and predict new phenomena.

5. Abduction[v] [inference to the best explanation].

6. Employs principle of falisification.

7. Assumptions and methodology refined through feedback.

8. Science builds on the work of others!

What do we discover?

1. Science is a universal activity.

a. Scientists come from all cultures and religious traditions, or no religious tradition at all.

b. They share a commitment to scientific methodology.

2. Peer reviewing of scientific papers ensures published science is a body of knowledge that is not a matter of personal opinion[vi].

3. God is not invoked as part of scientific explanations!

4. Worldviews influence what we think about the significance of science.

5. The consensus amongst scientists about the science challenges post-modernist ideas that there is no objective reality.

6. Metaphysical questions arise such as “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

7. Love, forgiveness, altruism[vii], aesthetics, music, purpose, good and evil, right and wrong all lie outside the purview of science.

2 SELECTED EXAMPLES FROM MODERN SCIENCE

Now to some examples from modern science.

a PHYSICS

Classical physics still works in everyday situations, but at a deeper level is an approximation to results from quantum mechanics and relativity.

Modern physics involves concepts far removed from everyday experience:-

· The mathematical structure of physics points to an underlying order in the universe[viii],[ix].

· Symmetries in nature are subtle[x]^,[xi] e.g. matter won out over antimatter; biologically active molecules are ‘left handed’!

· The universe[xii] is running down[xiii] thermodynamically, becoming less ordered. However, systems that receive energy from their surroundings can become more ordered, without which, life could not exist.

· In special relativity[xiv], time, the 4^th dimension of spacetime, is not absolute. Observers moving relative to each other measure different times. Our ordinary sense of time [i.e. cosmic time] is not affected.

· Relativisitic effects matter for objects travelling close to the speed of light e.g. such as electrons accelerated in the Australian Synchrotron.

· General relativity, gravity as the curvature of space-time is even more counter-intuitive.

o This accounts for the bending of light close to massive stars, exploited by astronomers as gravitational lensing.

· Quantum mechanics encapsulates the dual wave-particle character of the world of the very small. ‘Particles’ appear to be particle-like in some circumstances, wave-like in others[xv].

o Consequently we cannot know simultaneously the speed of an electron and its location or when a radioactive nucleus will decay. This is encapsulated in the well-known Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle[xvi].

o Information cannot transmit faster than the speed of light, yet pairs of entangled particles[xvii] retain a memory of their interaction[xviii], even when light signals cannot traverse the distance between them! Such entangled quantum states hold great promise for quantum computing and revolutionary computational power[xix].

· Classical physics also provides surprises[xx]!

o Chaos theory, which arose in the context of long-range weather forecasting, results from our inability to specify precise initial conditions for non-linear systems.

o Self organisation of macro-molecular systems is thought to have some bearing on the origin of life.

What do we learn from this?

· The deterministic clockwork universe of classical physics has given way to a new understanding of an unpredictable world at the atomic and sub-atomic level which, coupled with chaos theory, complexity theory and self-organizing principles of matter, points to a profound degree of openness to new possibilities and fruitfulness in the universe.

b COSMOLOGY

Cosmology reveals a large, finite, expanding and 13.7 billion year old universe, consisting of some 100-200 billion galaxies, each containing about 100 billion stars! Planet earth, 4.5 billion years old, orbits the Sun, an ordinary star far from the centre of a typical spiral Galaxy. As our sun will become a red giant in about 5 billion years, life will be impossible long before that[xxi].

Carbon based life was not possible until after the deaths of 2^nd generation stars some 3.8 billion years ago. Stars continue to be born while others die. Nuclear fusion inside 1^st generation stars converts hydrogen to helium. The other 90 elements have been produced by nuclear fusion in later generation stars.

The history of the universe from near time zero, when space, time and matter came into existence is what is called Big Bang Cosmology. The picture involves general relativity, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics and, indeed, much of the rest of physics. It is confirmed by two critical observations.

1. Galaxies continue to move away from each other; the further away they are, the faster they move, information that allows the age of the universe to be determined.

2. The faint microwave ‘hiss’ from the very early universe, discovered in 1964

See WMAP image.

Big Bang Cosmology is incomplete, in part because we don’t know why only 5% of the matter in the universe is observable[xxii]!

What do we learn from this?

· The universe is vast.

· The earth is not the centre of the universe [known since the time of Galileo].

· We are made from the ‘stuff’ of burnt-out stars.

· We don’t throw Big Bang Cosmology away because it is incomplete.

c BIOLOGY & EVOLUTION

Theodocius Dobzhansky [an Orthodox Christian] said some 80 years ago, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Biology and evolution are inseparable.

From today’s vantage point, it seems incredible that Darwin was able to arrive at the theory of ‘descent with modification’ without any knowledge of genetics, and also totally of unaware of Mendel’s work on principles of inheritance known at that time! Evolution involves consideration of morphology, geographical isolation, embryology, the fossil record, natural selection and, increasingly, molecular genetics.

Natural selection occurs within populations. Those ‘organisms’ that survive possess a reproductive advantage. It is not always so simple e.g. in the case of sickle-cell anaemia, protection from malaria does not guarantee longevity! Consciousness and intelligence are believed to be emergent properties of the evolutionary process.

The discovery of the DNA double-helix in 1953 was a landmark for biology. DNA molecules involve sequences of just four bases [A,G, C or T] while the genetic code [1961] is based on ‘triplets’ such as AAG, GCG etc., each of which code for particular amino acids in proteins.

Natural selection depends on mutations[xxiii], the simplest involving a change of just one base. They can be caused by cosmic rays, X-rays, from copying errors during transcription or, in the case of rapid evolutionary changes, from ‘jumping genes’, where whole sections of DNA relocate. This latter process occurs in the immune system[xxiv].

Comparison of gene sequences confirms our common ancestry[xxv] indicating that our genetic history is recorded in our genomes. For example, we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees! Some 8%[xxvi] of our genome consists of non-active retroviral genes[xxvii] which have been traced as far back as 100 million years. We also share Hox genes with fruit flies, instructions that determine our anatomy from head to tail[xxviii].

A dominant view in modern biology is that evolution is a mindless chance process, without direction. However, noted Cambridge paleontologist, Simon Conway Morris, argues that evolution is not totally random but shows evidence of convergence[xxix] i.e. there are some structures that simply don’t work while others have evolved independently several times, such as the camera eye. He also points out that some 3000 transitional forms are known from the fossil record[xxx],[xxxi].

There is apparent waste in evolution, extinctions galore and also much suffering[xxxii]. This appears to be the price that has to be paid to allow for a universe endowed by the Creator with considerable freedom.

To avoid discussions at cross purposes regarding evolution, I suggest the following distinctions:

1. The fact of evolution

2. Mechanisms involved in evolution

3. The theory of evolution.

Richard Dawkins and young earth creationists assert that evolution necessarily leads to atheism. This involves a metaphysical assumption that fails to acknowledge limits to science and consequential category errors.

What do we learn?

· Evolution, though constrained, continues to provide on-going novelty in an ‘open’ universe where not everything is determined.

· The genetic code is common to all life.

· We are intimately connected to the rest of creation.

3 THEOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE [xxxiii]

Here, as with science, the need to assume metaphysical assumptions is an act of faith.

1. Theological principles cannot be derived from within theology.

2. God is the ground of being.

3. The rational universe exists by the will of God.

4. God interacts with the created order, providentially, in history, in prayer etc...

5. Critical realism.

6. As rational beings, we can reflect on God, life and the world.

7. Counter intuitive ideas often involved e.g. forgiveness, trinity, creatio ex nihilo.

Methodology

1. Theology potentially uses tools and methods from all forms of human enquiry:- philosophy, linguistics, history etc..

2. Abduction⁵

3. Employs models, metaphor and analogy.

4. In relation to science, theology explores biblical concepts such as creation, light, time, and life.

a. I recognise this is only a small part of the theological landscape!

5. Assumptions and methodology refined through feedback.

What do we find?

· A widely held view is that the ‘evolving world (is) to be understood theologically as a world allowed by the Creator to make itself to a large degree’ (Polkinghorne[xxxiv] p43).

· There is a growing dialogue between theology and science, where methodologies and claims of science are explored without making dogmatic conclusions the goal.

4 CONVERSATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND FAITH

a CREATIVE MUTUAL INTERACTION, NOT CONFLICT [xxxv]

I have emphasised the need to lay out metaphysical assumptions involved in science and theology before effective conversation or creative mutual interaction[xxxvi] can occur. Science and theology deal in particular ways with their own data and finding connections needs care.

Conflict or disagreement most usually arises through category errors. Science is not ‘all there is’ and religious views, in particular, Christianity, provide a complementary way of looking at ourselves and the world.

If we believe science is God’s providential gift to the world, an additional metaphysical assumption is needed for science.

Science gains its legitimacy from God, the ground of all being.

Why should we explore the world in its diversity and complexity? Polkinghorne puts it this way,

“..since the world is God’s creation, it is a fitting duty for religious people to study it’ .

b DIVINE ACTION

Both quantum uncertainty and chaos theory have been considered as possible sources of God’s non-interventionist objective divine action[xxxvii]. Amplification of microscopic effects would be required to achieve necessary macroscopic changes. How God’s intentions might be achieved and what we can say about God’s foreknowledge were also considered.

c NATURAL THEOLOGY

While the natural world reveals something of God’s nature[xxxviii], and the universe exhibits meaning and an underlying structure, these are not proof that God exists. Deism is a more likely outcome[xxxix]. It is also recognised existence of life and of our universe requires fine tuning of the laws of nature [anthropic principle]. Neither is this proof of God’s existence.

In last year’s Gifford Lectures, Alister McGrath[xl] argued for a theology of nature, not to try to prove God’s existence, but rather as an outworking of a Christian understanding of reality[xli]. The late Charles Coulson[xlii] understood this long ago. I quote,

"When we come to the scientifically unknown, our correct policy is not to rejoice because we have found God; it is to become better scientists."

d CREATION THEOLOGY:

Foundational biblical creation texts include Genesis 1:1-2.4a, John 1:1-18 & Colossians 1:15-20 whose primary message is theological, not scientific or historical. Without God neither we nor the universe would exist. Creation theology is not about scientific processes[xliii], but about ontology, why there is a universe at all.

Genesis 1 explores our relationship to God, to each other and the world from a monotheistic viewpoint, in contrast to stories of warring gods from other ancient creation myths. In Creation, God creates something other than himself[xliv]. The prologue in John 1 employs the concept of the Logos[xlv], identified with Christ, in developing an argument around the powerful image of ‘the Word of God’. This provides a link between the life of faith and the reality investigated by science. Colossians 1:15-20 also identifies Christ as Creator. Scripture needs to be read in the light of what science tells about a universe ‘open’ to novelty and fruitfulness.

I note that creation theology within a trinitarian framework can be found in books by Denis Edwards[xlvi] and John Haught[xlvii].

One frequently hears the term, theistic evolution[xlviii], which is really a metaphysical claim aimed at linking theology and process. Bishop Antje Jackelen argues for a theology of evolution[xlix], which is better, while famous geneticist Francis Collins speaks of bio-logos.

e TIME, ETERNITY AND RELATIVITY

From extensive reading I have found little evidence that relativity has influenced theological reflections on time, eternity or resurrection[l]. Remarkably, most authors tend to refer back to Augustine’s insights regarding time! The situation is changing[li].

5 CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, biology, geology and cosmology contribute to a grand historical narrative of our universe[lii]^,[liii]. Evidence that we are intimately connected to the material world is provided by Both Big Bang cosmology and evolution. Our human dignity[liv] is not about how we evolved but is secured in the words of John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh and lived among us”.

Should we be surprised that the universe exhibits openness, a level of unpredictability and evidence of on-going change[lv]? It is after all our daily experience!

Meaningful conversation between science and Christian faith & theology is possible only when relevant metaphysical assumptions are clarified[lvi]. Francis Collins[lvii] puts it like this, “Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science. He made it all possible. So let us together seek to reclaim the solid ground of an intellectually and spiritually satisfying synthesis of all great truths”[lviii]^,[lix]. None of this should blind us to appreciate a beautiful sunrise or sunset, a Bach Cantata or a Beethoven Symphony!

My own journey has been enriched and challenged by the words in Colossians 3:17, “..whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus[lx], giving thanks to God the father through him” [NRSV].

I want to end with a quote from a sermon preached at a service celebrating the 350^th Anniversary of the Royal Society by Abp Rowan Williams.

"Faith, our Christian faith, presupposes that we are indeed as human beings attuned to truth and to growth, made by a God whose love has designed us for joy, and discovering that this directedness towards joy mysteriously comes alive when we look into the living truth, the living wisdom, of the face of a Christ who drives us back again and again to question ourselves so that we stay alive".

[i] Word Count[i] 2765 = 3024-259 Aim for £ 2817 words for 25 minutes

[ii] Immediate Past President of ISCAST [Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science & Technology]

[iii] The bifurcation is very helpful.

[iv] Ontological reductionism rejected.

[v] It is task for a philosopher to adjudicate between as to whether abduction should appear under metaphysical assumptions or under epistemology/methodology.

[vi] This in spite of the fact that scientific data is thought to be theory laden.

[vii] Altruism is somewhat contentious. EO Wilson argues that altruism is embedded in our genetic makeup whereas others contend it is socially acquired. American Methodist theologian, Nancy Howell, sees evidence for basic levels of altruism in other primates.

[viii] Paul Davies refers to the mathematical blueprint for the universe. My question is how can the symbols in mathematical physics have such significant connection to reality?

[ix] The material world is governed by the four forces of nature –gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. The last two were unified by Glashow, Weinberg and Salam in the 1960’s or 1970’s and won them a joint Nobel Prize. Things get much messier when considering the structure of nuclear particles, the strangeness of quarks where the forces between them are stronger the further apart they are.

[x] Much of my own research was to do with the spectroscopy of molecular and crystalline systems that lacked local symmetry!

[xi] Symmetry breaking allows new things to happen. The crucial symmetry breaking in the early universe involved the eventual splitting off of the four forces in nature viz. gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism. A more practical example concerns silicon. Crystals of silicon can be grown to a purity of 1 part in 10¹³. Beautiful though it is, the symmetry has to be broken before one can contemplate a transistor, or more particularly these days, a computer chip. One atom of P or As breaks the symmetry and the presence of an extra electron or one less electron, is the beginning of modern devices we now take so much for granted.

[xii] Closed, finite and expanding.

[xiii] 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics

[xiv] E = mc² the most well-known equation in the world.

[xv] Particles can be both here and there at the same time!

[xvi] An ontological gap or intrinsic unkowability

[xvii] For example, an electron and positron pair emitted during radioactive decay. The first crucial experiment involved polarised photons.

[xviii] Non-locality

[xix] Shor’s theorem.

[xx] Then there is the strange world of fractals, leading to the so-called strange attractor, with many actual examples. This is a phenomenon where there is no absolute scale.

[xxi] This has implications for eschatology.

[xxii] Dark matter and dark energy have been postulated to account for the discrepancy.

[xxiii] Russell, Robert John

[xxiv] Darrel Falk

[xxv] That is why the HGP was so significant.

[xxvi] de Parseval N, Lazar V, Casella JF, Benit L, Heidmann T, J Virol. 2003 Oct;77(19):10414-22.

[xxvii] AIDS is caused by a retrovirus.

[xxviii] Prof Phil Batterham in a lecture at the evolution conference, July 2009.

[xxix] Conway Morris gives the examples of two ancient sabre tooth wolves, one a mammal, the other a marsupial. He points out that if we were confronted by one of them in the dark, it would not matter which one it was.

[xxx] The established long history of the universe should caution us against reading Genesis Chapter 1 as science or history. It seems to me that the issue with creationism goes far beyond attitudes to scripture, or even to the nature of science ie what is or is not scientific. They think they are right and the rest of us are wrong, wrong to the extent that one cannot possibly be Christian if one believes in evolution. Creationists present us with a picture of God that is a far cry from the kenosis seen in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. In that and ID, we have deism or the designer of William Paley.

[xxxi] Simon Conway Morris in lectures 2009; check his book Life’s Solution.

[xxxii] Nicola Hoggard-Creegan has written and spoken about animal suffering in the light of evolution.

[xxxiii] Theology in the Context of Science, JC Polkinghorne 2010. Here the author argues for the interaction of science and theology as another form of contextual theology.

[xxxiv] JCP

[xxxv] The common perception that science and faith are in conflict has not been my personal experience.

[xxxvi] Robert John Russell

[xxxvii] Six volumes

[xxxviii] There are many statements in the psalms and elsewhere but they should not be construed as scientific statements. Their purpose is related to the worship of God.

[xxxix] Probably not theism.

[xl] McGrath, AE TITLE TO ADD

[xli] http://www.abdn.ac.uk/gifford/lecture-texts/

[xlii] CA Coulson ****

[xliii] Must not confuse agency with process. That is really the point.

[xliv] We are not to worship the creation. We are concerned with what is, not what might have been.

[xlv] Translated Word, it can also mean ‘reason’.

[xlvi] Denis Edwards, The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian theology

[xlvii] John F Haught, Finding Darwin’s God

[xlviii] It must not be supposed that there is a different evolution for theists and non-theists. Theists and non-theists see a different purpose [or none] in evolution. The difference comes from different worldviews and therefore different ways of either seeing or not seeing any connection between theology & faith and science.

[xlix] A Jackelen, Theol & Science 2007

[l] Pilbrow article The Impact of Einstein’s Relativity on Christian Thought http://www.iscast.org/.

[li] Theological issues relating to time and eternity are found in the book by Bp Antje Jackelen Time and Eternity and in a recent Masters thesis from NZ by Tim Stewart.

[lii] There is more to it than what we believe as individuals but what is. Erroneous views don’t change the world but will, of course, affect our attitude towards it.

[liii] Polkinghorne has remarked, “the scientists are on to something

[liv] This knowledge in no way diminishes what it means to be made ‘in the image of God’.

[lv] It appears God does not intervene to stop tectonic plate movement that causes earthquakes and tsunamis.

[lvi] There also requires an appreciation of each other’s vocabularies

[lvii] Director of the NIH former Director of the Human Genome Project.

[lviii] Collins, F, 2006, The Language of God, Free Press, New York, p 233.

[lix] There is nothing to fear from science, in fact we should be grateful for it.

[lx] Christianity is a response to the person of Jesus Christ, not to a set of propositions, and at the intellectual level not logically provable.

Why Slavery is not in the Bible nor in Christianity

2010-07-12T18:52:00.000-07:00

Recently I have been in a long discussion about morality with one particular agnostic [though he may not label himself as one] who argues that the morality in the bible is not a valid form of morality. His example of his point came in the form of slavery, slavery sanctioned by the bible and in Christianity. After I demonstrated that this clearly was not the same sort of slavery that we saw in America south he still replied that any form on ownership or chattelism is wrong. However it is highly interesting that a work nearly 150 years ago agues in the exact opposite manner.

Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible?, by Isaac Allen argues the exact opposite by carefully looking at the supposed definition of slavery and then its appearance and teaching in the Bible from the Old Testament throughout to Jesus and the New Testament. Here are the relevant conclusions.

Slaver Defined.

What, then, is chattel slavery as understood in American law?

1. It is not the relation of wife or child. In one sense a man may be said to "possess" these; but he can not buy or sell them. These are natural relations; and he who violates them for the sake of gain is branded by all as barbarous and criminal.

2. Not the relation of apprentice or minor. This is temporary, having for its primary object, not the good of the master or guardian, but that of the apprentice or minor, his education and preparation for acting his part as a free and independent member of society; but chattelism is life bondage, for the sole good of the master.

3. Not the relation of service by contract. Here a bond or agreement is implied, and therefore reciprocal rights, and the mutual power of dissolution on failure of either in the terms of mutual agreement; but chattelism ignores and denies the ability of the slave to make a contract.

4. Not serfdom or villeinage. The serf or villein was attached to the glebe or soil, and could not be severed from it, deprived of his family, or sold to another as a chattel; being retained as part of the indivisible feudal community. But the chattel slave is a "thing" incapable of family relations, and may be sold when, where, or how the master pleases.

Chattelism is none of these relations; its principle is "property in man." Its definition is thus given in the law of Louisiana, (Civil Code, art. 35:) "A slave is one who is in the power of his master, to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing,
acquire nothing, but what must belong to his master."

South Carolina says, (Prince's Digest, 446,) "Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, purposes, and constructions whatsoever."

Judge Ruffin, giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, (case of State v. Mann,) says a slave is "one doomed in his own person and his posterity to live without knowledge, and without the capacity to make any thing his own, and to toil that another may reap the fruits."

We now come to the point at issue: Does the Bible sanction this system?

The Old Testament.

These accumulated arguments, each separately weighty and forcible, but collectively insurmountable, we think prove conclusively that the form of servitude among the Israelites was not chattel slavery, and that there is no sanction or authority for it in the Mosaic laws and regulations.

Thus in Jewish history we see the Israelites groaning under Egyptian bondage, and God's arm outstretched to rescue them when fugitives, and punish their pursuers--a warning to all such thereafter; we see laws enacted to prevent the existence of chattelism among them, by restricting the master's power, and securing the servant's freedom at regular intervals, and the opposite doctrine of equality among men asserted; we see the Israelites disobeying these commands, and adopting, with the idolatry of their neighbors, their slavery also, and God's fiery wrath denounced on them for it by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar in the destruction and captivity of the state.

From Jesus

Thus Christ, so far from sanctioning chattelism or property in man in any shape or form, by precept and example taught the opposite, the dignity of labor and the laborer, the common brotherhood of man, and consequent equality, political and religious. Did his apostles indorse this doctrine, or, fearing the result, did they side with the all prevalent system of class legislation and slavery?

From the rest of the New Testament

Thus Christ and his apostles, so far from upholding chattelism in their teachings, denounced the ownership of man by any but God, and inculcated its opposite--love, liberty, equality, and fraternity--by precept and example. And subsequent history showed the result.

Christ said of the teachings of the Pharisees, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Apply this test to the teachings of the apostles and the primitive churches in regard to slavery. When they went forth, "darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people;" slavery sat enthroned in might over Europe; and the cries of the oppressed millions had only had a hearing on the battle or before the throne of God.

When the Reformation came slavery had disappeared in Europe; and the voice of the people was heard asserting their rights, feebly, indeed, at first, but ever since growing stronger and stronger "as the voice of many waters." What has caused this change?

Historians, Protestant and Catholic, ascribe it to the influence of the church, not by direct emancipatory decrees, but, following the example of God through Moses, by gradually restricting the master's power, and protecting the slave; by girdling the poison tree till it withered and fell, though, sad to say, the ruins still disfigure too much field, of the fair fields of Europe and America.

No fact is more patent in history than the truth expressed by Paul to the Corinthians: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY." The whole tendency of the Bible and true Christianity, direct and indirect, is to the liberty and advancement, never the slavery and degradation, of man; and those who have attempted to shield the monster curse of our country and age with the garb of the gospel may find too late, when that awful voice shall ring in their ears, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me," that Christ came not only "to preach deliverance to the captives" and "to set at liberty them that are bruised," but also "the day of vengeance of our God."

It is without a doubt that the atheists like Christopher Hitchens and my Agnostic friend really cannot say the Bible and Christianity condone slavery.

Why I think Richard Carrier is wrong.

2010-07-08T17:08:00.000-07:00

Chapter 11 of Richard Carrier’s ‘Not The Impossible Faith, Why Christianity Didn’t Need A Miracle To Succeed,’ focuses on the role of women in the gospel accounts. Carrier takes great historical pains to show that, counter to Holdings assertions, women were actually trusted and placing them at the empty tomb posed no difficulty if Mark’s gospel was a forgery.

Furthermore Carrier makes his won case for the addition of women at the empty tomb. He argues…

His [The author of the gospel called Mark’s] empty tomb narrative, for instance, is constructed from passages in Psalms, Ezekiel, and 2 Chronicles, with allusions to the Jacob’s Well narrative in Genesis, all in a way that produces powerful symbolic rather than historical meaning…

And the first and foremost reason Mark obviously has women first at the tomb, and first to learn the truth, is to fulfil the very gospel itself that, ‘the least shall become first’ (Mark 9:35 and 10:31). That’s the whole point, (Carries emphasis) not only for this particular narrative, but of the entire gospel.[1]

The first problem with Carrier’s argument is that Carrier gives no reason as to why literally this should be the point of Mark’s Gospel. In addition Carrier does not even give evidence, reason or argument against prominent biblical scholars that argue that the point of Mark’s gospel is Mark 8:29, i.e. Jesus being the Christ/Messiah.

This however could be put down as purely interpretational differences and beholding no proof s to either interpretation being correct or not. But what can be shown is that Carriers point is historically wrong and consequently his point holds no water. In GAIUS PLINIUS CAECILIUS SECUNDUS, usually known as Pliny the Younger, letters to emperor Trajan on his attempts to suppress Christianity in Bithynia, shows clearly that Carrier’s point is in error.

Pliny writes…

I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them. Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ. They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate' in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition.[2]

Pliny’s account shows that Christian women were being tortured for professing Christianity. Now we know that there were Christians in the region before the production of Mark’s gospel but whether or not these particular female Christians had read Mark’s gospel at this particular instant is irrelevant. Cleary the adoption of Christianity put women is a far worse social position. From being slaves in this case to being tortured for their professed belief.

But you might think that this does not discredit Carriers argument here. Simply Carriers position is true and that the women will become great in life after death, i.e. believing in a resurrection of Jesus. But Carrier makes an additional argument that the reason why Christians would have to submit to martyrdom, torture in this case with the women slaves, they would do so not based on the belief of the resurrection of Jesus, but because it is ‘an oblique attack by the powerless against the powers of oppressors’, p. 221.

Now the Problem with this is that the very Christians that Pliny tortures from Bithynia were told explicitly from the Apostle Peter to ‘be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him,’ 1 Peter 2:13f.

So Carrier wants to argue that placing the women at the tomb indicates the lesser will be first, but this could only mean in the next life, heaven [Holdings original point], as shown by the fact that upon receiving the gospel of Mark in Bythynia, no Christian would have accepted this as a valid explanation after women were tortured. Furthermore women would not have even been tortured as Carrier argues ‘to attack the powerful’ because Christianity internally commanded them to submit to that authority, not attack it. The only reason for accepting torture can be that because they believed in the resurrection and eternal life with Jesus.

So Carriers solution while psychologically plausible is historically impossible.

[1] Carrier, Richard. Not the Impossible Faith. Lulu.com, 2009. p. 312f.

[2] Pliny, Translated by William Melmoth [revised by F. C. T. Bosanquet]. Letters of Pliny September, 2001. [Etext #2811] http://promo.net/pg.

Antony Flew’s flight from atheism.

2010-06-27T03:51:00.000-07:00

In an earlier post, I drew attention to the fact that the world’s most famous atheist Anthon Flew had become a believer in a god. Clearly Antony Flew’s conversion has caused many atheists to feel extremely uncomfortable. Some atheists responded to my initial post that his conversion was not to Christianity so that should not count as a valid post. Other atheists pointed out that flew had clearly lost his mind and the book that is under his name There is a God: How the most notorious atheist changed his mind, is really attributed to a believing co-author. Consequently the data presented in this book is either a manipulation or grave misrepresentation of Anthony Flew. But this atheistic myth is busted as Flew himself came out and responded by stating, ‘My names in on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I did not 100 per cent agree with.’[1] So unless the atheists want to question the very word of Flew this opinion of Flew can be disregarded.

But what about the fact that Flew is not a Christian. This is true he is not a Christian, the best way to describe his beliefs is deistic. But the point about Flew is as follows.

1. Atheists like Dan Barker argue that reasoned thinking will release believers from the grasp of indoctrination. Flew proves that this premises is wrong. The process of critical thinking is not the answer to an apparent Christian delusion, if it were Flew would not have been converted to deism.

2. In addition it shows that belief in God has nothing to do with geographical cultural indoctrination. Flew was a believer at the end of his philosophical atheistic career.

3. Flew demonstrates that critical thinking led him to belief, not blind faith as some atheists would have you believe.

[1] Antony Flew, ‘Flew Speaks Out: Professor Antony Flew reviews the God Delusion’, UCCF: The Christian Union, Leicester, 2008: www. Bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/flew-speaks-out-professor-antony-flew-reviews-the-god-delusion.htm

Why is there Suffering and Evil in the Word?

2010-05-31T18:52:00.000-07:00

I found this quote on the net. See what you think? Unfortunately I pulled if of the net a long time ago and cannot remember where I got it from.

Why is there evil and suffering in the world?

The question implies that if a good God exists, then evil shouldn't because God being all powerful should stop it.

We need to ask and answer two questions. First, what is evil? It is that which is against God. It is anything morally bad or wrong. It is injurious, depraved, wicked. Some acceptable examples might be murder, rape, stealing, lying, and cheating. Second, if we want God to stop evil do we want Him to stop all evil or just some of it? In other words, if just some of it then why? If He were to stop only part of the evil, then we would still be asking the question, "Why is there evil in the world?".

Let's suppose that someone was about to commit murder. God would have to stop him, maybe whisper in his ear, or if that didn't work do something a little more drastic like have something fall on him, or stop his heart, or make his hands suddenly fall off. Anyway, God would have to do something.

What if somebody wanted to steal? God would have to stop him too, right? Undoubtedly, God's imagination would permit a more practical method

than I have suggested, but the end results would be the same.What about lying? If someone were to tell a lie, then to be consistent wouldn't you want God right there to stop that person from lying? After all, He couldn't let any evil occur could He?

Let's take it a step further. Suppose someone thought something evil. Then, of course, God would have to step in and prevent him from thinking anything bad at all, right? The end result would be that God could not allow anyone to think freely. Since everyone thinks and no one thinks only pure thoughts, God would be pretty busy and we wouldn't be able to think. Anyway, at what point do we stop, at the murder level, stealing level, lying level, or thinking level? As your questions implies, if you want God to stop evil, you would have to be consistent and want Him to do it everywhere all the time, not just pick and choose. It wouldn't work.

Evil is in this world partly because we give it its place but ultimately because God, in His sovereignty, permits it and keeps it under His control.

Then you might say, "Couldn't He just make us perfect and that way we wouldn't sin?" He already did that. He made a perfect angel, Satan, but he sinned. He made a perfect man, Adam, and he sinned. He made a perfect woman, Eve, and she sinned. God knows what Heisdoing.Hemadeusthewayweare fora purpose. We don't fully understand that purpose, but He does.

God is sovereign; He has the right to do as He wishes. He has the right to permit evil for accomplishing His ultimate will. How can He do that? Simple, look at the cross. It was by evil means that men lied and crucified Jesus. Yet God in His infinite wisdom used this evil for good. It was on the cross that Jesus bore our sins in His body (1 Peter. 2:24) and it is because of the cross that we can have forgiveness of sins. Consider the biblical example of Joseph in the Old Testament. He was sold into slavery by his brothers. Though they meant it for evil, God meant it for good (Gen. 50:20). God is so great that nothing happens without His permission, and in that permission His ultimate plan unfolds. In His plan He is able to use for good what man intends for evil. God is in control.