Christian "science" seems to betray a lack of confidence in Christianity...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The relatively recent, open declaration of a good friend of mine as a full-on Creationist has spurred me to brush up on a wide range of arguments and evidences against Christianity (as Truth), as well as the history of Christianity.

While reading Mark Isaak's Problems with a Global Flood over on TalkOrigins, the subject of this thread occurred to me. I'm quite certain I'm not the first to think of this, and I'm also quite certain others have developed it far more deeply than I have. If anyone has any reading suggestions related to this topic, please share.

Anyway... It just seems strange to me that a person who seriously believes in an entity capable of creating the entirety of the universe and all things within it... would even feel the need to defend that belief with "scientific" explanations.

• How did all those creatures fit on the Ark? God made it bigger on the inside.
• How was proper ventilation handled? God provided all the fresh air.
• Fitness of the creatures? God prevented muscle atrophy and ensured psychological stability.
• Feeding and watering of the animals? God sustained them (can also conveniently solve the waste management issue).

Etc.

Even if these details weren't explicitly stated in the Bible, it seems to me that anyone of faith would prefer divine intervention in these matters as an explanation for the apparent absurdity. Such explanations would serve to strengthen the image of their deity as benevolent and powerful, in control of even the minutest details of the physical world.

But it seems a growing number of believers don't attempt this.

I suspect that even these people recognize that the ridiculousness of such magical explanations is greater than the ridiculousness of the events they're meant to explain, so they attempt a scientifically sound explanation. Even they seem to recognize the weakness of the Bible alone as an explanation; they recognize the explanatory power of a solid scientific hypothesis/theory and wish to attain that level of credibility.

Putting aside the often-fatal flaws in such explanations, they are fairly obvious (if unintentional) attempts to push a more "naturalistic" explanation of Biblical events. These explanations seem to present their deity as being bound, in some ways at least, by the physical laws of reality as we know them.

I actually think this is a sign of significant progression away from the magic and superstition that traditionally defines such religions as Christianity. The need to defend their faith has forced at least some believers to actually think of their faith in terms of the real, physical world. Even if they haven't got it quite right yet.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
Anyway... It just seems strange to me that a person who seriously believes in an entity capable of creating the entirety of the universe and all things within it... would even feel the need to defend that belief with "scientific" explanations.

It's no different than when we atheists use the Bible to argue with Christians. We are trying to use something they say they accept as a pathway to what we want them to accept. We are perfectly happy to grant that parts of the Bible are true - for example, that slavery and warfare existed - and abandon as nonsensical the parts we don't - pretty much all the supernatural stuff.

 

[tsig]

The relatively recent, open declaration of a good friend of mine as a full-on Creationist has spurred me to brush up on a wide range of arguments and evidences against Christianity (as Truth), as well as the history of Christianity.

While reading Mark Isaak's Problems with a Global Flood over on TalkOrigins, the subject of this thread occurred to me. I'm quite certain I'm not the first to think of this, and I'm also quite certain others have developed it far more deeply than I have. If anyone has any reading suggestions related to this topic, please share.

Anyway... It just seems strange to me that a person who seriously believes in an entity capable of creating the entirety of the universe and all things within it... would even feel the need to defend that belief with "scientific" explanations.

• How did all those creatures fit on the Ark? God made it bigger on the inside.
• How was proper ventilation handled? God provided all the fresh air.
• Fitness of the creatures? God prevented muscle atrophy and ensured psychological stability.
• Feeding and watering of the animals? God sustained them (can also conveniently solve the waste management issue).

Etc.

Even if these details weren't explicitly stated in the Bible, it seems to me that anyone of faith would prefer divine intervention in these matters as an explanation for the apparent absurdity. Such explanations would serve to strengthen the image of their deity as benevolent and powerful, in control of even the minutest details of the physical world.

But it seems a growing number of believers don't attempt this.

I suspect that even these people recognize that the ridiculousness of such magical explanations is greater than the ridiculousness of the events they're meant to explain, so they attempt a scientifically sound explanation. Even they seem to recognize the weakness of the Bible alone as an explanation; they recognize the explanatory power of a solid scientific hypothesis/theory and wish to attain that level of credibility.

Putting aside the often-fatal flaws in such explanations, they are fairly obvious (if unintentional) attempts to push a more "naturalistic" explanation of Biblical events. These explanations seem to present their deity as being bound, in some ways at least, by the physical laws of reality as we know them.

I actually think this is a sign of significant progression away from the magic and superstition that traditionally defines such religions as Christianity. The need to defend their faith has forced at least some believers to actually think of their faith in terms of the real, physical world. Even if they haven't got it quite right yet.

I think they are trying to avoid too much goddidit because then someone will ask why god didn't just kill all the sinners and save all the trouble.

 

[Belz...]

It just seems strange to me that a person who seriously believes in an entity capable of creating the entirety of the universe and all things within it... would even feel the need to defend that belief with "scientific" explanations.

Precisely. Whenever you meet people who broadcast their beliefs a little too strongly, you can bet good money that they're compensating for doubt. Me? I just dumped the religion altogether.

 

[Belz...]

I think they are trying to avoid too much goddidit because then someone will ask why god didn't just kill all the sinners and save all the trouble.

The hilarious thing is, "god did it" isn't a bad answer when you believe in magic anyway. No need for evidence when magic is involved, after all. They should stick to that and "it's just what I believe in" rather than look for BS justifications that just make them look silly.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think they are trying to avoid too much goddidit because then someone will ask why god didn't just kill all the sinners and save all the trouble.

People can still legitimately ask that. In the case of the Flood, an all-powerful creator really could have just willed the corrupted humans out of existence, leaving a non-devastated planet that could easily sustain the surviving humans and animals with incredible ease. As a bonus, it would avoid all those uncomfortable questions about the aftermath of, and lack of expected evidence for, such a flood.

The hilarious thing is, "god did it" isn't a bad answer when you believe in magic anyway. No need for evidence when magic is involved, after all. They should stick to that and "it's just what I believe in" rather than look for BS justifications that just make them look silly.

Yep. "God did it" is at least consistent, even if it's not satisfactory to non-believers.

 

[CORed]

The hilarious thing is, "god did it" isn't a bad answer when you believe in magic anyway. No need for evidence when magic is involved, after all. They should stick to that and "it's just what I believe in" rather than look for BS justifications that just make them look silly.

Absolutely. Also, God created the earth 6,000 years ago (or whatever number you like) complete with fossils, sedimentary strata, radioisotopes and living creatures capable of evolving and adapting, such that it only appears that the earth is much older, and that life started out much simpler than it is now. No need for creation "science". God, for reasons that we mere mortals should not speculate about, perpetrated a massive hoax.

 

[tsig]

The hilarious thing is, "god did it" isn't a bad answer when you believe in magic anyway. No need for evidence when magic is involved, after all. They should stick to that and "it's just what I believe in" rather than look for BS justifications that just make them look silly.

Of course if god did it then is he still doing it now, that is, is all this just a puppet show with god on the strings?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Absolutely. Also, God created the earth 6,000 years ago (or whatever number you like) complete with fossils, sedimentary strata, radioisotopes and living creatures capable of evolving and adapting, such that it only appears that the earth is much older, and that life started out much simpler than it is now. No need for creation "science". God, for reasons that we mere mortals should not speculate about, perpetrated a massive hoax.

I think the usual argument against this is that it implies an intent on the part of God to deliberately deceive mankind, which sharply conflicts with the theological belief that all sin and deception stems from the devil or mankind's own doing. The devil might plant bones in the ground to trick us into believing the world is older, but God never would because that is not a thing God would do. It's circular reasoning, but there you have it.

 

[catsmate]

Anyway... It just seems strange to me that a person who seriously believes in an entity capable of creating the entirety of the universe and all things within it... would even feel the need to defend that belief with "scientific" explanations.

Mostly I think it's down to weak faith they need such evidence to prop up their beliefs. It's quite evident in the shroud thread.

 

[Mark6]

Anyway... It just seems strange to me that a person who seriously believes in an entity capable of creating the entirety of the universe and all things within it... would even feel the need to defend that belief with "scientific" explanations.

• How did all those creatures fit on the Ark? God made it bigger on the inside.
• How was proper ventilation handled? God provided all the fresh air.
• Fitness of the creatures? God prevented muscle atrophy and ensured psychological stability.
• Feeding and watering of the animals? God sustained them (can also conveniently solve the waste management issue).

Etc.

Even if these details weren't explicitly stated in the Bible, it seems to me that anyone of faith would prefer divine intervention in these matters as an explanation for the apparent absurdity. Such explanations would serve to strengthen the image of their deity as benevolent and powerful, in control of even the minutest details of the physical world.

In my experience, Orthodox Jews, who also believe world was created 6000 years ago, the flood, etc, generally do not bother with "scientific" explanations, and go straight for "God did it". OTOH, they rarely bother discussing such topics with non-believers at all. May have to do with Judaism being a non-proselytizing religion -- they are not trying to convert anyone.

 

[Belz...]

Of course if god did it then is he still doing it now, that is, is all this just a puppet show with god on the strings?

Didn't say it needed to make sense, but at least you avoid having to add nonsensical layers of science to cover the miracle if it's just miracles all the way down. After all, the ancients thought that nature itself was magical.

 

[Belz...]

I think the usual argument against this is that it implies an intent on the part of God to deliberately deceive mankind, which sharply conflicts with the theological belief that all sin and deception stems from the devil or mankind's own doing.

People who say that clearly have never read the old testament. God lies and deceives regularily.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

People who say that clearly have never read the old testament. God lies and deceives regularily.

Sure, but each of those have their own special pleading explaining why it doesn't count. Usually they boil down to the same assertion that if God did it, it must be a good thing. The simplest example of this is "the devil tempts, but God tests." They both challenge the faithful, but if the temptee gives in it must have been the Devil doing it, and if not it must have been God. Entirely post hoc, but there you have it.