ReasonedFaith
Student
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 31
Hello all, new member here! I don't know how long these posts can be, but I sent Randi a long response to his anti religion commentary, (along with a small library of books). I'm going to try and post it here. Hope the format works OK.
Mr. Randi,
As a fellow skeptic, AND an orthodox evangelical Christian, (for want of a better label), I read with interest your commentary of July 25.
While I greatly respect much of your excellent work at the JREF, (including your exposure of phony "faith healers" like Popoff and similar within pseudo Christendom), your commentary about religion in general , with it's apparent emphasis on Christianity in particular, does not do justice to your own standards of fair analysis and debate.
Much of what is said in your commentary, greatly mischaracterizes the current state of serious Christian literature, belief, doctrine, scientific position, thought, and world view. I'm speaking of scientific and philosophical work authored by highly credentialed, respected and published authors, experts in their fields, particularly in areas related to science, evidence, and argument from logic and reason.
While it would take a library of volumes, and a lifetime of debate, to adequately respond to all the issues you raised in your commentary, I would like to address a few in brief. Perhaps the most fundamental of these points is your assertion that ..."Religious people can't be argued with logically, because they claim that their beliefs are of such a nature that they cannot be examined, but just are.. "
Additionally you allude to religious beliefs being primarily dependant on "blind faith", and "fear" (of a malevolent deity), and of course irrationality, non reason, illogic, ignorance, etc..
I would strongly take exception to all these premises, and assumptions, regarding my own, and millions of other Christian's faith. One could just as easily, (more easily in my view), adopt similar arguments to your own, in denigration of Neo Darwinism, atheism, and materialist cosmology, using similar arguments toward materialists, which you direct toward persons of religious faith.
"Fantastic" and "silly" can just as easily be used in connection with a "blind faith" belief that an irreducibly complex, completely interdependent subsystem organ like the human eye, developed itself in increments via time / chance / natural selection / mutation. Clearly the iris, musculature, optic nerve, visual cortex, rods and cones, lens systems, aperture controls, etc. , must all exist in maturity, functioning as an interdependent complex whole, in order to provide the advanced sight human's enjoy. Yes I've seen the famous "eye" evolving examples starting with an optically sensitive cell and going through all the extraordinarily impossible phases of quantum leap complexity from there, I don't buy it.
Sexuality and reproduction, the DNA molecule, the enormous complexity of every single cell's biochemical machinery, the immune system...and a few hundred other complex life form systems and subsystems, all came about by some amazing undirected, chance and time process, in the (relatively) minute time frame of a mere few hundred million years? In my view, this is not the climbing of 'Mount Improbable', it is the climbing of Mount Impossible. "Silly" and "fantastic"...and without compelling and proven observable scientific evidence.
One might just as well postulate that given enough time and windstorms, (and punctuated equilibrium), all the critical elements of a Mercedes Benz would come together and form a perfect vehicle complete with a custom paint job, full tank of gas, and a spontaneously generated worldwide road system, and be warmed up and running awaiting it's lucky finder to get in and drive away. And all with no designer of course. After all, the Mercedes is of far less complex design than the human being.
I'm already relatively familiar with most of the evidence and argument re macro evolution as a cause for all life forms, and all life diversification. I've read many of the better known materialist world view books on Neo Darwinian evolution, including Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker", "The Selfish Gene", and "Climbing Mount Improbable". Also the entire archives of "Talk.Origins" and "CSICOP", as well as many independent Darwinist / materialist websites and articles.
Of course, like all educated adults, I have also had a lifetime of continuous dogmatic bombardment of propagandizing, unproven, "fantastic" assertions of macro evolutionary "fact". In virtually every science course I have ever taken. Every "Nature" show I have watched. Every article in National Geographic, Science, Discover, or any other popular media source for "pop" science. My frame of reference is not without consideration of the opposing views. I find the vast majority of this material, incredible conjecture based on the scantest, shakiest bits of "evidence". Virtually no honest consideration is given to opposing evidence, no matter how compelling.
I'm constantly amazed for example, that any dogmatic evolutionary researcher can confidently assert that a few fossilized fragments of whale bone from an ear and jaw structure, conclusively proves that humans and whales evolved from some common ancestor. Oh, and further conclusive proof is provided via a mutated fin which suddenly becomes a vestigial "leg" of said common ancestor. The evolutionary scientist knows that when he makes such fantastic assertions of "fact", he will not be challenged or held to the same proof standard that any other speculative assertion will.
Evolutionist/materialists don't generally even bat an eyelash, by way of asking for verifiable proof of such morphological assertions through currently testable means. It just "must be" because the morphology fits the ever evolving (no pun intended), Neo Darwinist, dogma for classification of findings. Any fantastic claim gets a free pass and any opposing view is labeled illogical "lunatic fringe".
Why is a progressive creation model, using similar mechanisms for similar functionality, so much more a stretch, then unverifiable morphology conjecture by those who once told us the Coelacanth was a several millions years extinct missing link?
Cambrian explosion of thousands of diverse multiple life forms spontaneously erupting into the fossil record without supporting transitional forms? No problem! The tortured logic of "punctuated equilibrium" and magical mutations will be invoked, mysteriously GUIDED by metaphysical attributes of intentionality ascribed to time, chance, self organization, mutations, and selfish genes. No PROOF by experiment or conclusive verifiable evidence required. This is a bizarre double standard.
Since when did unproven fantastic assertion become "good science"??? To the serious minded, scientifically informed Deist, it appears that even the most hardened anti religion skeptic will welcome any and all extraordinary Darwinist evidence of macro evolution with open arms, as long as it supports the underlying materialist dogma. This is science by Randi's definition of testable assertions and proof? This macro evolution meets the million dollar challenge? And further, abiogenesis "just happened"? Even though thousands of brilliant scientists can't repeat this miracle today even with the best advanced technology, most controlled conditions, and most creative of experimental methodologies?
I really would like to know how abiogenesis has been test-ably proven, and/or how it can be assumed by a rational mind to be the only logical rational choice. Perhaps the oft invoked Miller Urey experiments of half a century ago, which we now know were based on incorrect assumptions about a reducing atmosphere? Those experiments have no value in demonstrating that currently known early earth "primordial soup" conditions could ever ...in a trillion years let alone a few hundred million....generate the first self replicating, living organism. Or lead to a replicating RNA precursor to the DNA molecule. Yet we are told that chance and time "created" and even mysteriously "guided" the ever more complex formation of life forms. How is it that this assertion of fantastic unproven and unrepeatable speculation, being labeled as a known "fact", is somehow the only rational and logical view? It's pure dogma. It fits a pre conceived model of materialist cosmology, therefore it is just assumed as a "must be". Yet, an opposing view belief in intelligent design is absurd, irrational, illogically silly nonsense?
Someone let me know when scientists replicate early earth conditions in the lab, and then observe a self replicating organisms, self assemble themselves from some molecular protein building blocks (which also self assemble), through a series of unguided, deaf dumb and blind, and un-designed processes. I think we're in for a pretty long wait. A few billion years is not enough, and a few trillion won't likely do the trick.
What of some of the other most fundamental tenets of humanistic materialism. Completely accepted without question as the only logical and "rational" view of cosmology? If we begin at the beginning with the mutually accepted, (I assume), well proven "big bang" creation event of our current universe, what is the cause of this event? What is a truly logical and rational view of the cause?
It is a formal logic contradiction, to postulate a self created universe. From no defined cause, and out of nothing, the universe burst into existence, and self created everything? This is a fallacious formal logic contradiction.
However, if we postulate an eternally pre existent cause, set apart from physics, namely God (in the view of many), created our universe, this is not a formal logic contradiction. If God exists OUTSIDE the boundaries of a created space/time/matter continuum, and he exists eternally without beginning, as is biblically claimed, (and thus without need of cause or beginning), then it is not formal logic contradiction to assert he is first cause for our universe. A self created universe with no cause however, is indeed an illogical contradiction.
Bertrand Russelesque endless regression theories, or current vogue theories of a virtual infinite multiverse, obfuscate but do not solve this ultimate "first cause" logic violation issue for the materialist. Yet the deist is assumed the irrational violator of logic and reason, on every count of origins, by the materialist.
Moving past the question of beginnings, into the realms of scientific evidence supporting macro evolution, (I'm not referring of course to adaptive evolution WITHIN families, species, and subspecies, which is certainly reasonable and proven with repeatable testable evidence, and also fully supports a creation view of creator endowed, adaptive survival mechanisms as well), we now in recent decades appear to have a divergence among orthodox mainstream science. Away from the classic scientific principles you yourself espouse in your definition of true science, into a rigidly dogmatic, Neo Darwinian orthodoxy. One that rather fiercely resists reasoned debate over the best current state of the evidence.
I am not referring here to the straw man, young earth "Scientific Creationist" Gish / Morris camp, which evolutionist orthodoxy is so fond of easily discrediting. I am referring instead to serious recent works from highly respected and credentialed scientists. Works which pose devastating arguments (from both evidence and reason), against Darwinian macro evolution, and materialism as being the "factual" scientific explanation for abiogenesis, or the creation of all diverse life with its families, classes, orders, phyla, ...or ultimately the origin of man himself.
I'm talking about deistic scientists who believe that ALL well proven scientific fact, will easily fit a rational creation by intelligent design model. Facts such as a Universe ranging from 12 to 18 billion years in age, Earth around 5 billion years, astrophysical evolution of the stars and galaxies, etc. Such scientifically tested and proven facts, must be considered completely valid in the context of any rational world view, whether or not that view embraces a creator.
Recent scholarly works by such highly accomplished and credentialed Ph.D. scientists from respected universities, pose devastating evidentiary arguments against Neo Darwinian materialistic cosmology in areas that include Microbiology, Genetics, Biochemistry, Astrophysics, Mathematics, Anthropology, Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, and also associated topics in disciplines of logic and philosophy.
A few examples of the works I am referring to, are such recent volumes as;
1) "The Fingerprint of God" , "Creation and Time", "The Genesis Question", and many other works, Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Astrophysicist.
(his excellent website at http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml )
2) "Intelligent Design", (and other works), William A. Dembski, Ph.D.'s in mathematics and philosophy.
3) "Darwin's Black Box", Michael Behe, Ph.D. Biochemistry
4) "Icons of Evolution", Jonathan Wells, Ph.D's, Yale / Berkley, in Molecular and Cell Biology
5) "How Blind Is the Watchmaker", Neil Broom, Ph.D., Prof. Chemical and Materials Engineering
6) "Evolution, a Theory in Crises", Michael Denton, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist
Inconvenient though it may be, the above works and many dozens of others, can not be dismissed with the ease that Dawkins and other materialistic atheists invoke, to disprove the pseudoscience of the discredited "scientific creationist", young earth, flood geology crowd.
Far too often, Darwinian macro evolutionists disingenuously focus on the discredited "Young Earth" crowd, as the standard of work by which "Scientific Creationism" should be defined and judged. Indeed they do this for obvious reasons to make that group synonymous with the term. A rigid dogma advocating tactic worthy of politics, not science. Yet they give little proper attention to the serious and compelling work of true scientists who reject Neo Darwinist macro evolution and materialism, and support intelligent design as the origin and cause of life, as a progressive creation.
I will be forwarding a few of the above works to the JREF, for your library, in the chance that you may not have had the opportunity to yet review in detail, all the scientific and evidentiary argument put forth in them. While you may or may not be persuaded on any particular point by any of these works, at the least they may be helpful in providing an understanding of the rationale, thinking, argument, logic, and reason, behind a Christian world view which embraces ALL genuine science. And embraces all genuine pursuit of truth, seeking always to honestly reconcile the same to their religious faith.
Speaking of faith. It is not a "blind faith" that I and other thoughtful analytical Christians embrace. It is not a "blind faith" that God expects. It is not a "blind faith" that Jesus, the Apostles, the Prophets, or the Bible teach. Rather, faith and trust in God is always taught as being within the context of a foundation of belief that rests on what God has already done, demonstrated, and proved, to the one who places his faith in him going forward.
For example, when the Old Testament Prophets ask the nation of Israel to put their faith in God's direction, they remind Israel of the miracles performed by God through Moses in delivering them from the slavery of the Egyptians. It is always a reminder of what God has already shown to them, that is the basis of their future trust. Similarly, Jesus performed specific miracles for a specific reason. Namely, to validate his message as being genuinely divine, so that those who witnessed and recorded it, could not mistake it for a counterfeit. He didn't ask the Apostles or disciples for "blind" faith, but instead for faith based on what they had already seen. His resurrection was the ultimate life changing miracle for them.
On to the argument of condemnation for those who have never heard of Christ, or the God of the bible, or the bible itself, etc., Here we see two arguments put forth in the biblical book of Romans, that indicate "blind faith" is not the requirement of God. The first argument is that God has placed the knowledge of himself within mankind, via a moral conscience. Regarding those who would profess to have no physical evidence of God, Romans 1:20 states "For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse". Men who don't know about God explicitly, will not be judged to an explicit standard.
That Romans 1 passage is interestingly relevant today. Particularly to Neo Darwinist, humanistic materialism. Self worship, creation worship, and other forms of idolatry, are themes timelessly addressed. Paul goes on to say, that though they know of God, they do not honor him as God, but instead, .... "became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise , they became fools, and exchanged the glory of incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four footed animals and crawling creatures".
My point here however, is not to proselytize for my faith, but to explain with a couple of brief examples (out of many hundreds I could cite), that the God of the bible has never asked his followers for a "blind faith". This is true even in such cases as the oft cited atheist reference to God's (supposedly cruel), test of Abraham's faith. Requesting he make a sacrifice of his son Isaac, but intervening before completing same. It was Abraham's faith in what God had done for him on all other previous occasions, upon which Abraham based his faith in God. It was not a "blind" faith request, as would have been the case if requested of someone who had no personal historical frame of reference on which to base such complete trust.
As to testable and verifiable evidences of the Christian faith. I agree with you that the spiritual afterlife and eternal life aspects of such faith are not independently testable by science. Nor should they be expected to be, since such stands outside the boundaries of physical laws of our universe. However, there is a wealth of independently verifiable information to confirm the authenticity of God's work and intervention in this world during times of special revelation. These evidences of biblical truth include archeological finds, external and internal evidences for biblical authenticity that elevate this "world's most published" and "most numerous ancient manuscripts" work to a level that surpasses other "literature".
Then there is biblical prophecy. There are numerous hundreds of fulfilled and very specific prophecies, which are in no way analogous to Nostradamus or the modern day phonies you so rightly debunk. Biblical prophecies have been verified as specific, accurate, and properly dated, by numerous valid methods, as being predicted long before the events occurred. For example, numerous future conquests of specific kingdoms by name and by means. The numerous very specific Messianic prophecies, of Christ's first coming, death, and resurrection. The destruction of Jerusalem followed by the Diaspora.
More amazingly for our current generation, the very specific prophesies that after Israel rejects the Messiah, the fall of Jerusalem and temple destruction, and the dispersal of the Jews to all other nations, a future day would come when the nation of Israel would be re-established. The Jewish people would return to their land from all otehr nations, and becoming a "stumbling block" to "all nations". This prophecy was fulfilled in 1948 through today, in the most unprecedented rebirth of an ancient nation and people, in recorded human history. After 2000 years no less.
There are too many hundreds of volumes dealing with these subjects for me to address here, but the bottom line is, there is powerful historical evidence, biblical textual evidence, archeological evidence, and prophetic fulfillment evidence, to support the claims of an authentic Christian faith. There is also the evidence of authentic Christianity being life changing on a grand scale, for those who adhere to a genuine biblically based faith. As to science, in my view and that of millions of others, factual scientific findings only strengthen my faith, and never detract from it.
With this somewhat lengthy preamble, I would like to address a few of the specifics in your commentary. Lengthy, but still inadequately short by a few million words...but we are after all dealing with the most important issues of mankind. Origins, eternal destiny, eternal life and death to believers. Or at the least, an objective search for purpose, or even ultimate empirical truth for atheist or believer alike. So then, to comment on some of your points that may unfairly characterize the positions of thoughtful and analytical Christians;
RANDI >> The structure of Science itself is also in a constant state of development; ideally, it does not have an "orthodox" state into which it settles down comfortably and complacently. It only takes something like a new statistical standard or an observational innovation to change its approach to any event or decision with which it was formerly — tentatively — satisfied, but the true scientist does not regret nor refuse such improvements in approach or technique, rather embracing them and adjusting to the new-and-better understanding of the world that is now available. Religion, in contrast, is repelled by honest doubt, preferring naïve, unquestioning acceptance. <<
There are millions of adherents to the Christian faith, (this Aerospace Engineer and hundreds of scientists, academics, philosophers, etc. included), who would NEVER accept a belief system or cosmology that violates logically reasoned, objectively empirical truth. True Christianity is a search for and embrace of ultimate truth, not a repelling of same. In many cases where historical Christian thought has become irreconcilable with objective known truth, the manmade heresies were discarded and corrected.
The reformation for example, brought the Christian faith back to "sola scriptura" and away from the perverse teachings that had resulted in the crusades, inquisitions, bizarre superstitions, and such. As you know, many great early scientists were men of faith, Galileo, Newton, many others.
It was a warped and perverse set of man made false doctrines, that caused a heretical self serving church hierarchy, to condemn the truths Galileo had discovered. Falsely labeling HIM the heretic. Jesus in his day condemned virtually all the similar false, hypocritical, and heretical leaders of Judaism at that time. Judaism wasn't the culprit since Jesus taught, and verified as authentic, every word of Old Testament revelation.
The Pharisees and Scribes heresy wasn't the fault of their historical scripture and faith, or true "religion". It was the fault of corrupt men who had fallen away and replaced biblical doctrine with egocentric false doctrines for self serving purposes. No different than the cultists, heretics, false religions, and extremists of today.
Certainly, elements within Christendom exist today who are heretical hypocrites. Pedophile priests for example. But the true church consists of those who are genuine truth seekers.
Within the true church, there are also naive and well meaning (but misguided), "young earth creationists", who don't understand hermeneutical principles of biblical interpretation. Principles which reconcile an infallible written revelation of God, with the also infallible physical revelation of God in his created work. Reconciling both within a reasonable, verifiable model. For example, the "7 days of creation" (where "day" in the text is the Hebrew word "Yom"), can (and in full context, MUST), be interpreted as 7 periods or "ages" of progressive creation. This is perfectly consistent with the way "Yom" is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to long periods of time in some contexts. Indeed, there is NO OTHER WORD in the Hebrew language that could be used to denote long ages of progressive creation. You may say "it says what it says", but a proper interpretation of what it says, demands a proper application of the Hebrew language and sound hermeneutics.
Astrophysicist and expert in biblical exegesis Dr. Hugh Ross, devotes an entire book to the issues in early Genesis. Issues which are commonly mischaracterized by exegetically & scientifically naive Christians, and unbelievers alike.
RANDI >>.. Yet, the Earth is round, not flat, nor is it the center of the Universe<<
The biblical authors used non scientific phenomenal language to illustrate points, just as we do today. We say the color of that BMW is a beautiful metallic blue. We even call the car itself a beautiful blue color. We don't say, the blue portion of the sun's light spectrum reflecting off that BMW's paint constituents is a pleasing color". Likewise, we say beautiful "sunset" instead of beautiful "earth revolving".
The bible does not explicitly teach a flat earth, any more than we do today when we revel in a sunset. Also, as to the Earth as center of the universe, it is just as legitimate a center of the universe as any other point in the universe, as most astrophysicists will explain. There is no "center" of the universe, or point of origin, in the way we commonly define such, unless every place is "center". Further though, if mankind is God's highest creation in this universe, then we are the center of same from his perspective.
RANDI >> I'm Iocked into a world-view that demands evidence rather than blind faith, a view that insists upon the replication of all experiments<<
So am I. Particularly when it comes to any issue of objective and proven scientific fact. That's the very reason I believe that it is an incredible position for scientists, (and atheists), to state with authority that the universe is self created. Nothing X No One = Everything? Irreducibly complex interdependent designs and systems are a result of chance + time + incremental natural selection, or mutation driven change?
Un testable, non experimentally unverifiable, wild conjectures about human origins from pond scum primordial soup, MUST be accepted as scientific "fact" by all rational minds? And all that in spite of a huge volume of excellent contradictory evidence, well exposited by credible scholarly scientists, as referenced in the above works.
Certainly it is fair to require un testable, non experimentally verifiable, (and fantastical) conjectures as those expounded by Neo Darwinian evolutionists, flatly stated as assumed fact in every basic science text and article, to be held to the same standards of experiment, testability, and incontrovertible proof, as all other accepted scientific fact.
What we see in reality however, is rigid materialistic humanist dogma, unwilling to hold origin of universe statements, abiogenesis, and macro evolution, to the same scientific standards as any other field of discipline. "Icons of Evolution" expounds on this hypocritical double standard at length, and quite effectively, as do many more recent works and articles which expose the rampant fraud and dogma that occurs so frequently in Neo Darwinist work.
RANDI >> As a child, I was told to believe that savages were doomed to boil in molten sulfur if they did not accept the "merciful" deity that was described to me, even if they had no opportunity of knowing about him/it! That deity, from what I was told, suffered from many serious defects that I was told to avoid. He/it was capricious, insecure, jealous, vindictive, sadistic, and cruel, and demanded constant praise, sacrifice, adulation, and ego-support, or the penalties could be very severe. I found, early on in my observations, that religious people were very fearful, trembling and wondering if they'd committed any infractions of the multitude of rules they had to follow. They were — and are — ruled by fear. That's not my style. <<
As mentioned earlier, Romans 1 makes it clear that even mankind who has not been given explicit revelation about God, Jesus, the gospel, can still have a relationship with God, by responding to God's creation and inner conscience, and giving God (rather than himself), the credit for same. "Savages" wouldn't be held to the same standard of knowledge and choice.
Further, as already mentioned, God's desire for mankind is a relationship of love. The "fear" aspect, properly defined, is simply an acknowledgement in humility, of his universal position vs. ours.
The same holds for the worship, glorification, praise aspects. God doesn't "need" these from mankind. We need to express them in order to have a right understanding of his position in the universe vs. our own. Further, as to eternal destiny, there are various viewpoints in Christendom regarding unbelievers. My own, and many others is that unbelievers are condemned to "eternal separation" from God, because that is a conscious choice they make here, which determines their destiny.
RANDI >>But it was the incredible stories I was told, that really made me rear back in disbelief. For examples, they told me, some 2,000 years ago a mid-East virgin was impregnated by a ghost of some sort, and as a result produced a son who could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and multiply loaves of bread and fishes. All that was in addition to tossing out demons. He expected and accepted a brutal, sadistic, death — and then he rose from the dead. <<
Many cult leaders, schizophrenics, frauds, etc. have claimed to be sent from God or to be God themselves. God's pattern for verification of authenticity, (once again) , is that anyone making such extraordinary claims, will have an accompaniment of extraordinary miraculous evidence for verification. Even Jesus detractors acknowledged the authenticity and amazement of his miracles. They were never anything like the phonies of today. The healings were things like a man genetically blind from birth, healed to full, complete, and immediate sight. No one today performs such miracles as no one today is revealing new Revelation from God.
The same applies to Moses (who did not cause frogs from the sky!). Moses as the primary author of the Pentateuch, God's initial written revelation to man, his pronouncements from God such as the 10 commandments, were accompanied by specific, and undeniable miracles, too grand in scope to be explained by trickery, or replicated, (though the Egyptian magicians tried their best to do so). Such miracles will not occur again until the 2 prophets described in the book of Revelation, who arise during the end times of the tribulation.
Virgin birth by the Holy Spirit, Jesus death and resurrection? Yes, all fundamental to the Christian faith. The apostles with Christ (10 of whom abandoned him on the night he was betrayed), were witnesses to Christ's resurrection, and later appearances (and ascension), and it changed their lives in the extreme. All of these 10 were later martyred for the faith they placed in Jesus after his resurrection.
RANDI >>I find that skeptics, generally speaking, eschew belief in metaphysical, untestable, unscientific hypotheses, but credophiles prefer to believe that — when pressed — we skeptics will confess to having adopted at least some degree of metaphysical outlook. This can only be the credophiles' desperate attempt at wishful thinking, a declaration that they cannot believe that not everyone is credulous. It's just something they can't relate to, nor accept. <<
I don't understand this and your following paragraph's assumptions, about what Christian's "prefer to believe" as to what or how skeptics or atheists think. I am never amazed when someone dogmatically considers their own materialist world view the ultimate authority, atheist or not.
It is normative for fallen "natural man" to seek to avoid, rationalize, and explain away God, rather than embrace him. Are Christians are indulging some wishful thinking fantasy that atheists are believers and deists at heart? Hardly. None that I know, or study, believe such, nor are they surprised at any atheist's world view. Long before Darwin or the higher critics, humanity was embracing worshipful idolatry of himself and the creation around him, in lieu of worship of the creator. Romans chapter 1 again, referenced earlier, among many hundreds of other biblical passages.
RANDI >>And materialism can be tested — a feature the credophiles often say is not acceptable nor necessary within their supernatural world-view. <<
Materialism can be tested? The random "no intelligent cause" of the Big Bang is testable without faith? Macro evolution of irreducibly complex systems is testable without faith? Abiogenesis is testable without faith? I disagree. It would appear that only the current understood physical laws of this universe are testable as to effect (but not as to cause). While they explain much, they fail to explain such fundamental questions as origin of life or origin of the universe, or even the underlying cause of it's measurable physical laws/properties. I've read Stephen Hawking and co., but I'm still waiting for them to explain the cause, origin, and fundamental processes behind the strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, photons, gravity, various quantum phenomena, etc.
RANDI >>Skeptics do not allow the invention of convenient but untestable situations or entities to establish a claim, nor do they accept that mental or spiritual properties can be ascribed to physical matter<<
Well, they certainly do. Invention of convenient and un testable statements of "fact" regarding abiogenesis for example, or the formation of DNA, or macro evolution as postulated by Dawkins, are all readily accepted by most skeptics without question.
When I hear about the truly amazing attributes of intentionality ascribed to "chance" by skeptics and atheists, and all the things that "chance" and "time" and "self organization", and "selfish genes" are capable of doing, (to give the "appearance of design"), it sure gives the appearance of convenient un testable metaphysical attributes. Only they are credited to nothing (random chance), instead of a cause (intelligent design) .
I am incredulous. At the incredible ability of inert matter to organize into the current creation we observe. Out of nothing, and from no designer in intelligence, came everything? Including irreducibly complex life systems? Sure sounds like "chance" and "time" are being credited with attributes of intentionality to me.
RANDI >>..Aristotle, upon whose teachings much of Christianity is based..<<
Please. Can we be honest about what authentic Christian beliefs are based on? The teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, prophets, and other biblical authors, as revealed in the canon of biblical scripture.
Virtually zero Christian doctrinal belief is based on Aristotle. Augustine and other early church philosophers/theologians, had significant influence on current doctrinal interpretations, as did the reformation thinkers like Calvin and Martin Luther, but their doctrinal beliefs remained grounded in a biblically based authority, even when and if their world view was philosophically influenced by the gonsticism or dualism of Plato, Aristotle, and others .
RANDI >>Religion is behind so many of the major tragedies of humanity.<<
No, false religion is behind some of the lesser tragedies of humanity. I can't speak to all religions here. Some of them, particularly Islam, seem to foment extremist violence on a regular basis and on a cross global / cross cultural scale. Perhaps this is due to the Koran's teaching of the virtues of forcing Islam on unbelievers. Lumping true Christianity into the mix, is again an unfair characterization. The crusades (which ironically were a defensive reaction to the violent spread of Islam), was a product of heretical teaching and politics. Much like the more modern so called Protestant / Catholic violent rivalry of Northern Ireland in more recent times.
More to the point, the world view and politics of post modern materialism, i.e. Darwin, Nietzsche, Marx, et al, have led to far greater human suffering and death on this planet than any deistic world view could ever match. Around two hundred million + dead at the hands of Communists, in the last century alone, is by a wide margin, the greatest holocaust against humanity in world history. One entirely based on a materialistic world view, partly grounded in Neo Darwinist inspired materialism. Understandable and expected, considering a materialist world view has no sound basis for any transcendent type of morality. This is Neo Darwinist materialism, taken to its logical conclusion.
If the universe and mankind are purposeless mistakes of chance, what higher purpose or morality can ever be invoked beyond selfish desire or survival of the fittest? If one mans version of survival means wiping a few million "inferiors" away to gain genetic advantage, who is to say he is any more right or wrong than anyone else? And on what basis? The greatest good for the greatest number maybe? So humanity can survive longer in ignoble nobility? Why?
How credible is it, that this "religion has caused human tragedy" argument, is so commonly raised to attack Christianity when Christ himself, and all of new testament doctrine, clearly taught that faith in him is personal? Never to be a result of force, political coercion, violence, or duress?
Considering that atheistic, materialist based socio / political systems have wrought far more horror and death on humanity, (and still do in places like North Korea), than all world religions put together over all of recorded human history, I never cease to be amazed that this tragedy of religion argument, is considered a "rational" argument to use for attacking Christianity. It casts serious doubt on the integrity and credibility of those who use it, in their efforts to advocate the "moral superiority" of a materialistic world view.
RANDI >>The credophiles try to establish a parallel between science and religion. This is a useless pursuit; these ideas are exact opposites of one another. <<
I simply could not disagree more. True proven science and a true faith in God need never disagree on any testable verifiable fact. Spiritual issues, and past miracles aren't testable by science as you yourself state, and proven scientific fact does not contradict an informed and reasoned faith either. In fact, science is constantly strengthening my faith when I consider how unlikely and impossible, the supportable conditions we observe for life are, and how mandatory design is for the observable creation.
RANDI >>Consider: a man believes — beyond any doubt — that his god is the only god, is all-powerful and all-knowing, has created him and the entire universe around him, and is capricious, jealous, vindictive, and violent. That same god offers the man a choice between burning in eternal agony in a fully-defined hell, or living forever in a variety of paradises.... Examine the notion of a "loving god." This god only loves you if you follow the rules. No questions, no doubts, no objections, are allowed.<<
Well the above statements not only mischaracterize, but essentially teach the precise opposite of everything Christianity and the bible teach regarding the attributes of God. God is defined as both totally loving of humanity, and simultaneously just regarding evil. Does he allow and encourage free will, including evil choices? Yes. Will those who choose to reject him live with that choice eternally? Yes. But that is what they desire. This is just.
Eternal fire or torment? A controversial doctrine. Many Christians including great theologians like J.I. Packer, believe that the bible teaches annihilation and/or eternal separation, not eternal proactive suffering for unbelievers. God harshly punishes his beloved children for the slightest sinful infraction? Hardly. Quite the opposite. It is his grace that provides Christ as the mediation for human sin, forgiving ALL of it in any who choose to be reconciled to him, by grace through faith.
RANDI >>Author Krakauer, in his book "Under the Banner of Heaven," dealing with the premise that violence and fanaticism can be found readily available in religion, writes:
Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be especially prevalent among those inclined by temperament or upbringing toward religious pursuits<<
I'm surprised you would use this kind of fraudulent statement in a summary of your commentary. It is at once, easily verifiable as historically proven false. On a grand scale. We already discussed the unprecedented magnitude and scope of horror and death visited on humanity over the past century, by those "inclined by temperament or upbringing" (or education), toward materialistic based socio political pursuits.
One need only once again review the magnitude of dogma, extremism, horror, and genocide born of the atheistic world views of Marxists (atrocities unmatched in human history), to give lie to this attribution of religion as the scapegoat of most of man's irrational violence toward man. To scapegoat religion with this honor of fomenting more extremist irrational dogmatic violence, than we have objectively observed from atheist materialists, is a dishonest denial of history.
I have only brushed the surface with this response to your commentary. Provided to the JREF, no strings attached, are a few of the latest works of serious scientists who are committed deistic believers in the logic, evidence, and rationality, of intelligent design. These works by serious and respected scientists, can not be dismissed so easily by the "straw man" arguments raised against irrational believers, which have been referenced in your commentary.
My hope is that you will avail yourself of some of this provided scientific work. Perhaps leading to more fairly characterizing scientific minded, deists in the future. Illogical, irrational, blind faith adherents, they are not. Neither are several hundred million rational like minded religious believers. Our faith in what has been demonstrated as trustworthy, may not always overlap scientific issues, but it is not a "blind faith". And it does not stand in opposed contradiction to, proven, demonstrable, science, nor does it oppose objective empirical truth.
Regards
Mr. Randi,
As a fellow skeptic, AND an orthodox evangelical Christian, (for want of a better label), I read with interest your commentary of July 25.
While I greatly respect much of your excellent work at the JREF, (including your exposure of phony "faith healers" like Popoff and similar within pseudo Christendom), your commentary about religion in general , with it's apparent emphasis on Christianity in particular, does not do justice to your own standards of fair analysis and debate.
Much of what is said in your commentary, greatly mischaracterizes the current state of serious Christian literature, belief, doctrine, scientific position, thought, and world view. I'm speaking of scientific and philosophical work authored by highly credentialed, respected and published authors, experts in their fields, particularly in areas related to science, evidence, and argument from logic and reason.
While it would take a library of volumes, and a lifetime of debate, to adequately respond to all the issues you raised in your commentary, I would like to address a few in brief. Perhaps the most fundamental of these points is your assertion that ..."Religious people can't be argued with logically, because they claim that their beliefs are of such a nature that they cannot be examined, but just are.. "
Additionally you allude to religious beliefs being primarily dependant on "blind faith", and "fear" (of a malevolent deity), and of course irrationality, non reason, illogic, ignorance, etc..
I would strongly take exception to all these premises, and assumptions, regarding my own, and millions of other Christian's faith. One could just as easily, (more easily in my view), adopt similar arguments to your own, in denigration of Neo Darwinism, atheism, and materialist cosmology, using similar arguments toward materialists, which you direct toward persons of religious faith.
"Fantastic" and "silly" can just as easily be used in connection with a "blind faith" belief that an irreducibly complex, completely interdependent subsystem organ like the human eye, developed itself in increments via time / chance / natural selection / mutation. Clearly the iris, musculature, optic nerve, visual cortex, rods and cones, lens systems, aperture controls, etc. , must all exist in maturity, functioning as an interdependent complex whole, in order to provide the advanced sight human's enjoy. Yes I've seen the famous "eye" evolving examples starting with an optically sensitive cell and going through all the extraordinarily impossible phases of quantum leap complexity from there, I don't buy it.
Sexuality and reproduction, the DNA molecule, the enormous complexity of every single cell's biochemical machinery, the immune system...and a few hundred other complex life form systems and subsystems, all came about by some amazing undirected, chance and time process, in the (relatively) minute time frame of a mere few hundred million years? In my view, this is not the climbing of 'Mount Improbable', it is the climbing of Mount Impossible. "Silly" and "fantastic"...and without compelling and proven observable scientific evidence.
One might just as well postulate that given enough time and windstorms, (and punctuated equilibrium), all the critical elements of a Mercedes Benz would come together and form a perfect vehicle complete with a custom paint job, full tank of gas, and a spontaneously generated worldwide road system, and be warmed up and running awaiting it's lucky finder to get in and drive away. And all with no designer of course. After all, the Mercedes is of far less complex design than the human being.
I'm already relatively familiar with most of the evidence and argument re macro evolution as a cause for all life forms, and all life diversification. I've read many of the better known materialist world view books on Neo Darwinian evolution, including Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker", "The Selfish Gene", and "Climbing Mount Improbable". Also the entire archives of "Talk.Origins" and "CSICOP", as well as many independent Darwinist / materialist websites and articles.
Of course, like all educated adults, I have also had a lifetime of continuous dogmatic bombardment of propagandizing, unproven, "fantastic" assertions of macro evolutionary "fact". In virtually every science course I have ever taken. Every "Nature" show I have watched. Every article in National Geographic, Science, Discover, or any other popular media source for "pop" science. My frame of reference is not without consideration of the opposing views. I find the vast majority of this material, incredible conjecture based on the scantest, shakiest bits of "evidence". Virtually no honest consideration is given to opposing evidence, no matter how compelling.
I'm constantly amazed for example, that any dogmatic evolutionary researcher can confidently assert that a few fossilized fragments of whale bone from an ear and jaw structure, conclusively proves that humans and whales evolved from some common ancestor. Oh, and further conclusive proof is provided via a mutated fin which suddenly becomes a vestigial "leg" of said common ancestor. The evolutionary scientist knows that when he makes such fantastic assertions of "fact", he will not be challenged or held to the same proof standard that any other speculative assertion will.
Evolutionist/materialists don't generally even bat an eyelash, by way of asking for verifiable proof of such morphological assertions through currently testable means. It just "must be" because the morphology fits the ever evolving (no pun intended), Neo Darwinist, dogma for classification of findings. Any fantastic claim gets a free pass and any opposing view is labeled illogical "lunatic fringe".
Why is a progressive creation model, using similar mechanisms for similar functionality, so much more a stretch, then unverifiable morphology conjecture by those who once told us the Coelacanth was a several millions years extinct missing link?
Cambrian explosion of thousands of diverse multiple life forms spontaneously erupting into the fossil record without supporting transitional forms? No problem! The tortured logic of "punctuated equilibrium" and magical mutations will be invoked, mysteriously GUIDED by metaphysical attributes of intentionality ascribed to time, chance, self organization, mutations, and selfish genes. No PROOF by experiment or conclusive verifiable evidence required. This is a bizarre double standard.
Since when did unproven fantastic assertion become "good science"??? To the serious minded, scientifically informed Deist, it appears that even the most hardened anti religion skeptic will welcome any and all extraordinary Darwinist evidence of macro evolution with open arms, as long as it supports the underlying materialist dogma. This is science by Randi's definition of testable assertions and proof? This macro evolution meets the million dollar challenge? And further, abiogenesis "just happened"? Even though thousands of brilliant scientists can't repeat this miracle today even with the best advanced technology, most controlled conditions, and most creative of experimental methodologies?
I really would like to know how abiogenesis has been test-ably proven, and/or how it can be assumed by a rational mind to be the only logical rational choice. Perhaps the oft invoked Miller Urey experiments of half a century ago, which we now know were based on incorrect assumptions about a reducing atmosphere? Those experiments have no value in demonstrating that currently known early earth "primordial soup" conditions could ever ...in a trillion years let alone a few hundred million....generate the first self replicating, living organism. Or lead to a replicating RNA precursor to the DNA molecule. Yet we are told that chance and time "created" and even mysteriously "guided" the ever more complex formation of life forms. How is it that this assertion of fantastic unproven and unrepeatable speculation, being labeled as a known "fact", is somehow the only rational and logical view? It's pure dogma. It fits a pre conceived model of materialist cosmology, therefore it is just assumed as a "must be". Yet, an opposing view belief in intelligent design is absurd, irrational, illogically silly nonsense?
Someone let me know when scientists replicate early earth conditions in the lab, and then observe a self replicating organisms, self assemble themselves from some molecular protein building blocks (which also self assemble), through a series of unguided, deaf dumb and blind, and un-designed processes. I think we're in for a pretty long wait. A few billion years is not enough, and a few trillion won't likely do the trick.
What of some of the other most fundamental tenets of humanistic materialism. Completely accepted without question as the only logical and "rational" view of cosmology? If we begin at the beginning with the mutually accepted, (I assume), well proven "big bang" creation event of our current universe, what is the cause of this event? What is a truly logical and rational view of the cause?
It is a formal logic contradiction, to postulate a self created universe. From no defined cause, and out of nothing, the universe burst into existence, and self created everything? This is a fallacious formal logic contradiction.
However, if we postulate an eternally pre existent cause, set apart from physics, namely God (in the view of many), created our universe, this is not a formal logic contradiction. If God exists OUTSIDE the boundaries of a created space/time/matter continuum, and he exists eternally without beginning, as is biblically claimed, (and thus without need of cause or beginning), then it is not formal logic contradiction to assert he is first cause for our universe. A self created universe with no cause however, is indeed an illogical contradiction.
Bertrand Russelesque endless regression theories, or current vogue theories of a virtual infinite multiverse, obfuscate but do not solve this ultimate "first cause" logic violation issue for the materialist. Yet the deist is assumed the irrational violator of logic and reason, on every count of origins, by the materialist.
Moving past the question of beginnings, into the realms of scientific evidence supporting macro evolution, (I'm not referring of course to adaptive evolution WITHIN families, species, and subspecies, which is certainly reasonable and proven with repeatable testable evidence, and also fully supports a creation view of creator endowed, adaptive survival mechanisms as well), we now in recent decades appear to have a divergence among orthodox mainstream science. Away from the classic scientific principles you yourself espouse in your definition of true science, into a rigidly dogmatic, Neo Darwinian orthodoxy. One that rather fiercely resists reasoned debate over the best current state of the evidence.
I am not referring here to the straw man, young earth "Scientific Creationist" Gish / Morris camp, which evolutionist orthodoxy is so fond of easily discrediting. I am referring instead to serious recent works from highly respected and credentialed scientists. Works which pose devastating arguments (from both evidence and reason), against Darwinian macro evolution, and materialism as being the "factual" scientific explanation for abiogenesis, or the creation of all diverse life with its families, classes, orders, phyla, ...or ultimately the origin of man himself.
I'm talking about deistic scientists who believe that ALL well proven scientific fact, will easily fit a rational creation by intelligent design model. Facts such as a Universe ranging from 12 to 18 billion years in age, Earth around 5 billion years, astrophysical evolution of the stars and galaxies, etc. Such scientifically tested and proven facts, must be considered completely valid in the context of any rational world view, whether or not that view embraces a creator.
Recent scholarly works by such highly accomplished and credentialed Ph.D. scientists from respected universities, pose devastating evidentiary arguments against Neo Darwinian materialistic cosmology in areas that include Microbiology, Genetics, Biochemistry, Astrophysics, Mathematics, Anthropology, Evolutionary Biology, Paleontology, and also associated topics in disciplines of logic and philosophy.
A few examples of the works I am referring to, are such recent volumes as;
1) "The Fingerprint of God" , "Creation and Time", "The Genesis Question", and many other works, Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Astrophysicist.
(his excellent website at http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml )
2) "Intelligent Design", (and other works), William A. Dembski, Ph.D.'s in mathematics and philosophy.
3) "Darwin's Black Box", Michael Behe, Ph.D. Biochemistry
4) "Icons of Evolution", Jonathan Wells, Ph.D's, Yale / Berkley, in Molecular and Cell Biology
5) "How Blind Is the Watchmaker", Neil Broom, Ph.D., Prof. Chemical and Materials Engineering
6) "Evolution, a Theory in Crises", Michael Denton, Ph.D., Molecular Biologist
Inconvenient though it may be, the above works and many dozens of others, can not be dismissed with the ease that Dawkins and other materialistic atheists invoke, to disprove the pseudoscience of the discredited "scientific creationist", young earth, flood geology crowd.
Far too often, Darwinian macro evolutionists disingenuously focus on the discredited "Young Earth" crowd, as the standard of work by which "Scientific Creationism" should be defined and judged. Indeed they do this for obvious reasons to make that group synonymous with the term. A rigid dogma advocating tactic worthy of politics, not science. Yet they give little proper attention to the serious and compelling work of true scientists who reject Neo Darwinist macro evolution and materialism, and support intelligent design as the origin and cause of life, as a progressive creation.
I will be forwarding a few of the above works to the JREF, for your library, in the chance that you may not have had the opportunity to yet review in detail, all the scientific and evidentiary argument put forth in them. While you may or may not be persuaded on any particular point by any of these works, at the least they may be helpful in providing an understanding of the rationale, thinking, argument, logic, and reason, behind a Christian world view which embraces ALL genuine science. And embraces all genuine pursuit of truth, seeking always to honestly reconcile the same to their religious faith.
Speaking of faith. It is not a "blind faith" that I and other thoughtful analytical Christians embrace. It is not a "blind faith" that God expects. It is not a "blind faith" that Jesus, the Apostles, the Prophets, or the Bible teach. Rather, faith and trust in God is always taught as being within the context of a foundation of belief that rests on what God has already done, demonstrated, and proved, to the one who places his faith in him going forward.
For example, when the Old Testament Prophets ask the nation of Israel to put their faith in God's direction, they remind Israel of the miracles performed by God through Moses in delivering them from the slavery of the Egyptians. It is always a reminder of what God has already shown to them, that is the basis of their future trust. Similarly, Jesus performed specific miracles for a specific reason. Namely, to validate his message as being genuinely divine, so that those who witnessed and recorded it, could not mistake it for a counterfeit. He didn't ask the Apostles or disciples for "blind" faith, but instead for faith based on what they had already seen. His resurrection was the ultimate life changing miracle for them.
On to the argument of condemnation for those who have never heard of Christ, or the God of the bible, or the bible itself, etc., Here we see two arguments put forth in the biblical book of Romans, that indicate "blind faith" is not the requirement of God. The first argument is that God has placed the knowledge of himself within mankind, via a moral conscience. Regarding those who would profess to have no physical evidence of God, Romans 1:20 states "For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse". Men who don't know about God explicitly, will not be judged to an explicit standard.
That Romans 1 passage is interestingly relevant today. Particularly to Neo Darwinist, humanistic materialism. Self worship, creation worship, and other forms of idolatry, are themes timelessly addressed. Paul goes on to say, that though they know of God, they do not honor him as God, but instead, .... "became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise , they became fools, and exchanged the glory of incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four footed animals and crawling creatures".
My point here however, is not to proselytize for my faith, but to explain with a couple of brief examples (out of many hundreds I could cite), that the God of the bible has never asked his followers for a "blind faith". This is true even in such cases as the oft cited atheist reference to God's (supposedly cruel), test of Abraham's faith. Requesting he make a sacrifice of his son Isaac, but intervening before completing same. It was Abraham's faith in what God had done for him on all other previous occasions, upon which Abraham based his faith in God. It was not a "blind" faith request, as would have been the case if requested of someone who had no personal historical frame of reference on which to base such complete trust.
As to testable and verifiable evidences of the Christian faith. I agree with you that the spiritual afterlife and eternal life aspects of such faith are not independently testable by science. Nor should they be expected to be, since such stands outside the boundaries of physical laws of our universe. However, there is a wealth of independently verifiable information to confirm the authenticity of God's work and intervention in this world during times of special revelation. These evidences of biblical truth include archeological finds, external and internal evidences for biblical authenticity that elevate this "world's most published" and "most numerous ancient manuscripts" work to a level that surpasses other "literature".
Then there is biblical prophecy. There are numerous hundreds of fulfilled and very specific prophecies, which are in no way analogous to Nostradamus or the modern day phonies you so rightly debunk. Biblical prophecies have been verified as specific, accurate, and properly dated, by numerous valid methods, as being predicted long before the events occurred. For example, numerous future conquests of specific kingdoms by name and by means. The numerous very specific Messianic prophecies, of Christ's first coming, death, and resurrection. The destruction of Jerusalem followed by the Diaspora.
More amazingly for our current generation, the very specific prophesies that after Israel rejects the Messiah, the fall of Jerusalem and temple destruction, and the dispersal of the Jews to all other nations, a future day would come when the nation of Israel would be re-established. The Jewish people would return to their land from all otehr nations, and becoming a "stumbling block" to "all nations". This prophecy was fulfilled in 1948 through today, in the most unprecedented rebirth of an ancient nation and people, in recorded human history. After 2000 years no less.
There are too many hundreds of volumes dealing with these subjects for me to address here, but the bottom line is, there is powerful historical evidence, biblical textual evidence, archeological evidence, and prophetic fulfillment evidence, to support the claims of an authentic Christian faith. There is also the evidence of authentic Christianity being life changing on a grand scale, for those who adhere to a genuine biblically based faith. As to science, in my view and that of millions of others, factual scientific findings only strengthen my faith, and never detract from it.
With this somewhat lengthy preamble, I would like to address a few of the specifics in your commentary. Lengthy, but still inadequately short by a few million words...but we are after all dealing with the most important issues of mankind. Origins, eternal destiny, eternal life and death to believers. Or at the least, an objective search for purpose, or even ultimate empirical truth for atheist or believer alike. So then, to comment on some of your points that may unfairly characterize the positions of thoughtful and analytical Christians;
RANDI >> The structure of Science itself is also in a constant state of development; ideally, it does not have an "orthodox" state into which it settles down comfortably and complacently. It only takes something like a new statistical standard or an observational innovation to change its approach to any event or decision with which it was formerly — tentatively — satisfied, but the true scientist does not regret nor refuse such improvements in approach or technique, rather embracing them and adjusting to the new-and-better understanding of the world that is now available. Religion, in contrast, is repelled by honest doubt, preferring naïve, unquestioning acceptance. <<
There are millions of adherents to the Christian faith, (this Aerospace Engineer and hundreds of scientists, academics, philosophers, etc. included), who would NEVER accept a belief system or cosmology that violates logically reasoned, objectively empirical truth. True Christianity is a search for and embrace of ultimate truth, not a repelling of same. In many cases where historical Christian thought has become irreconcilable with objective known truth, the manmade heresies were discarded and corrected.
The reformation for example, brought the Christian faith back to "sola scriptura" and away from the perverse teachings that had resulted in the crusades, inquisitions, bizarre superstitions, and such. As you know, many great early scientists were men of faith, Galileo, Newton, many others.
It was a warped and perverse set of man made false doctrines, that caused a heretical self serving church hierarchy, to condemn the truths Galileo had discovered. Falsely labeling HIM the heretic. Jesus in his day condemned virtually all the similar false, hypocritical, and heretical leaders of Judaism at that time. Judaism wasn't the culprit since Jesus taught, and verified as authentic, every word of Old Testament revelation.
The Pharisees and Scribes heresy wasn't the fault of their historical scripture and faith, or true "religion". It was the fault of corrupt men who had fallen away and replaced biblical doctrine with egocentric false doctrines for self serving purposes. No different than the cultists, heretics, false religions, and extremists of today.
Certainly, elements within Christendom exist today who are heretical hypocrites. Pedophile priests for example. But the true church consists of those who are genuine truth seekers.
Within the true church, there are also naive and well meaning (but misguided), "young earth creationists", who don't understand hermeneutical principles of biblical interpretation. Principles which reconcile an infallible written revelation of God, with the also infallible physical revelation of God in his created work. Reconciling both within a reasonable, verifiable model. For example, the "7 days of creation" (where "day" in the text is the Hebrew word "Yom"), can (and in full context, MUST), be interpreted as 7 periods or "ages" of progressive creation. This is perfectly consistent with the way "Yom" is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to long periods of time in some contexts. Indeed, there is NO OTHER WORD in the Hebrew language that could be used to denote long ages of progressive creation. You may say "it says what it says", but a proper interpretation of what it says, demands a proper application of the Hebrew language and sound hermeneutics.
Astrophysicist and expert in biblical exegesis Dr. Hugh Ross, devotes an entire book to the issues in early Genesis. Issues which are commonly mischaracterized by exegetically & scientifically naive Christians, and unbelievers alike.
RANDI >>.. Yet, the Earth is round, not flat, nor is it the center of the Universe<<
The biblical authors used non scientific phenomenal language to illustrate points, just as we do today. We say the color of that BMW is a beautiful metallic blue. We even call the car itself a beautiful blue color. We don't say, the blue portion of the sun's light spectrum reflecting off that BMW's paint constituents is a pleasing color". Likewise, we say beautiful "sunset" instead of beautiful "earth revolving".
The bible does not explicitly teach a flat earth, any more than we do today when we revel in a sunset. Also, as to the Earth as center of the universe, it is just as legitimate a center of the universe as any other point in the universe, as most astrophysicists will explain. There is no "center" of the universe, or point of origin, in the way we commonly define such, unless every place is "center". Further though, if mankind is God's highest creation in this universe, then we are the center of same from his perspective.
RANDI >> I'm Iocked into a world-view that demands evidence rather than blind faith, a view that insists upon the replication of all experiments<<
So am I. Particularly when it comes to any issue of objective and proven scientific fact. That's the very reason I believe that it is an incredible position for scientists, (and atheists), to state with authority that the universe is self created. Nothing X No One = Everything? Irreducibly complex interdependent designs and systems are a result of chance + time + incremental natural selection, or mutation driven change?
Un testable, non experimentally unverifiable, wild conjectures about human origins from pond scum primordial soup, MUST be accepted as scientific "fact" by all rational minds? And all that in spite of a huge volume of excellent contradictory evidence, well exposited by credible scholarly scientists, as referenced in the above works.
Certainly it is fair to require un testable, non experimentally verifiable, (and fantastical) conjectures as those expounded by Neo Darwinian evolutionists, flatly stated as assumed fact in every basic science text and article, to be held to the same standards of experiment, testability, and incontrovertible proof, as all other accepted scientific fact.
What we see in reality however, is rigid materialistic humanist dogma, unwilling to hold origin of universe statements, abiogenesis, and macro evolution, to the same scientific standards as any other field of discipline. "Icons of Evolution" expounds on this hypocritical double standard at length, and quite effectively, as do many more recent works and articles which expose the rampant fraud and dogma that occurs so frequently in Neo Darwinist work.
RANDI >> As a child, I was told to believe that savages were doomed to boil in molten sulfur if they did not accept the "merciful" deity that was described to me, even if they had no opportunity of knowing about him/it! That deity, from what I was told, suffered from many serious defects that I was told to avoid. He/it was capricious, insecure, jealous, vindictive, sadistic, and cruel, and demanded constant praise, sacrifice, adulation, and ego-support, or the penalties could be very severe. I found, early on in my observations, that religious people were very fearful, trembling and wondering if they'd committed any infractions of the multitude of rules they had to follow. They were — and are — ruled by fear. That's not my style. <<
As mentioned earlier, Romans 1 makes it clear that even mankind who has not been given explicit revelation about God, Jesus, the gospel, can still have a relationship with God, by responding to God's creation and inner conscience, and giving God (rather than himself), the credit for same. "Savages" wouldn't be held to the same standard of knowledge and choice.
Further, as already mentioned, God's desire for mankind is a relationship of love. The "fear" aspect, properly defined, is simply an acknowledgement in humility, of his universal position vs. ours.
The same holds for the worship, glorification, praise aspects. God doesn't "need" these from mankind. We need to express them in order to have a right understanding of his position in the universe vs. our own. Further, as to eternal destiny, there are various viewpoints in Christendom regarding unbelievers. My own, and many others is that unbelievers are condemned to "eternal separation" from God, because that is a conscious choice they make here, which determines their destiny.
RANDI >>But it was the incredible stories I was told, that really made me rear back in disbelief. For examples, they told me, some 2,000 years ago a mid-East virgin was impregnated by a ghost of some sort, and as a result produced a son who could walk on water, raise the dead, turn water into wine, and multiply loaves of bread and fishes. All that was in addition to tossing out demons. He expected and accepted a brutal, sadistic, death — and then he rose from the dead. <<
Many cult leaders, schizophrenics, frauds, etc. have claimed to be sent from God or to be God themselves. God's pattern for verification of authenticity, (once again) , is that anyone making such extraordinary claims, will have an accompaniment of extraordinary miraculous evidence for verification. Even Jesus detractors acknowledged the authenticity and amazement of his miracles. They were never anything like the phonies of today. The healings were things like a man genetically blind from birth, healed to full, complete, and immediate sight. No one today performs such miracles as no one today is revealing new Revelation from God.
The same applies to Moses (who did not cause frogs from the sky!). Moses as the primary author of the Pentateuch, God's initial written revelation to man, his pronouncements from God such as the 10 commandments, were accompanied by specific, and undeniable miracles, too grand in scope to be explained by trickery, or replicated, (though the Egyptian magicians tried their best to do so). Such miracles will not occur again until the 2 prophets described in the book of Revelation, who arise during the end times of the tribulation.
Virgin birth by the Holy Spirit, Jesus death and resurrection? Yes, all fundamental to the Christian faith. The apostles with Christ (10 of whom abandoned him on the night he was betrayed), were witnesses to Christ's resurrection, and later appearances (and ascension), and it changed their lives in the extreme. All of these 10 were later martyred for the faith they placed in Jesus after his resurrection.
RANDI >>I find that skeptics, generally speaking, eschew belief in metaphysical, untestable, unscientific hypotheses, but credophiles prefer to believe that — when pressed — we skeptics will confess to having adopted at least some degree of metaphysical outlook. This can only be the credophiles' desperate attempt at wishful thinking, a declaration that they cannot believe that not everyone is credulous. It's just something they can't relate to, nor accept. <<
I don't understand this and your following paragraph's assumptions, about what Christian's "prefer to believe" as to what or how skeptics or atheists think. I am never amazed when someone dogmatically considers their own materialist world view the ultimate authority, atheist or not.
It is normative for fallen "natural man" to seek to avoid, rationalize, and explain away God, rather than embrace him. Are Christians are indulging some wishful thinking fantasy that atheists are believers and deists at heart? Hardly. None that I know, or study, believe such, nor are they surprised at any atheist's world view. Long before Darwin or the higher critics, humanity was embracing worshipful idolatry of himself and the creation around him, in lieu of worship of the creator. Romans chapter 1 again, referenced earlier, among many hundreds of other biblical passages.
RANDI >>And materialism can be tested — a feature the credophiles often say is not acceptable nor necessary within their supernatural world-view. <<
Materialism can be tested? The random "no intelligent cause" of the Big Bang is testable without faith? Macro evolution of irreducibly complex systems is testable without faith? Abiogenesis is testable without faith? I disagree. It would appear that only the current understood physical laws of this universe are testable as to effect (but not as to cause). While they explain much, they fail to explain such fundamental questions as origin of life or origin of the universe, or even the underlying cause of it's measurable physical laws/properties. I've read Stephen Hawking and co., but I'm still waiting for them to explain the cause, origin, and fundamental processes behind the strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, photons, gravity, various quantum phenomena, etc.
RANDI >>Skeptics do not allow the invention of convenient but untestable situations or entities to establish a claim, nor do they accept that mental or spiritual properties can be ascribed to physical matter<<
Well, they certainly do. Invention of convenient and un testable statements of "fact" regarding abiogenesis for example, or the formation of DNA, or macro evolution as postulated by Dawkins, are all readily accepted by most skeptics without question.
When I hear about the truly amazing attributes of intentionality ascribed to "chance" by skeptics and atheists, and all the things that "chance" and "time" and "self organization", and "selfish genes" are capable of doing, (to give the "appearance of design"), it sure gives the appearance of convenient un testable metaphysical attributes. Only they are credited to nothing (random chance), instead of a cause (intelligent design) .
I am incredulous. At the incredible ability of inert matter to organize into the current creation we observe. Out of nothing, and from no designer in intelligence, came everything? Including irreducibly complex life systems? Sure sounds like "chance" and "time" are being credited with attributes of intentionality to me.
RANDI >>..Aristotle, upon whose teachings much of Christianity is based..<<
Please. Can we be honest about what authentic Christian beliefs are based on? The teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, prophets, and other biblical authors, as revealed in the canon of biblical scripture.
Virtually zero Christian doctrinal belief is based on Aristotle. Augustine and other early church philosophers/theologians, had significant influence on current doctrinal interpretations, as did the reformation thinkers like Calvin and Martin Luther, but their doctrinal beliefs remained grounded in a biblically based authority, even when and if their world view was philosophically influenced by the gonsticism or dualism of Plato, Aristotle, and others .
RANDI >>Religion is behind so many of the major tragedies of humanity.<<
No, false religion is behind some of the lesser tragedies of humanity. I can't speak to all religions here. Some of them, particularly Islam, seem to foment extremist violence on a regular basis and on a cross global / cross cultural scale. Perhaps this is due to the Koran's teaching of the virtues of forcing Islam on unbelievers. Lumping true Christianity into the mix, is again an unfair characterization. The crusades (which ironically were a defensive reaction to the violent spread of Islam), was a product of heretical teaching and politics. Much like the more modern so called Protestant / Catholic violent rivalry of Northern Ireland in more recent times.
More to the point, the world view and politics of post modern materialism, i.e. Darwin, Nietzsche, Marx, et al, have led to far greater human suffering and death on this planet than any deistic world view could ever match. Around two hundred million + dead at the hands of Communists, in the last century alone, is by a wide margin, the greatest holocaust against humanity in world history. One entirely based on a materialistic world view, partly grounded in Neo Darwinist inspired materialism. Understandable and expected, considering a materialist world view has no sound basis for any transcendent type of morality. This is Neo Darwinist materialism, taken to its logical conclusion.
If the universe and mankind are purposeless mistakes of chance, what higher purpose or morality can ever be invoked beyond selfish desire or survival of the fittest? If one mans version of survival means wiping a few million "inferiors" away to gain genetic advantage, who is to say he is any more right or wrong than anyone else? And on what basis? The greatest good for the greatest number maybe? So humanity can survive longer in ignoble nobility? Why?
How credible is it, that this "religion has caused human tragedy" argument, is so commonly raised to attack Christianity when Christ himself, and all of new testament doctrine, clearly taught that faith in him is personal? Never to be a result of force, political coercion, violence, or duress?
Considering that atheistic, materialist based socio / political systems have wrought far more horror and death on humanity, (and still do in places like North Korea), than all world religions put together over all of recorded human history, I never cease to be amazed that this tragedy of religion argument, is considered a "rational" argument to use for attacking Christianity. It casts serious doubt on the integrity and credibility of those who use it, in their efforts to advocate the "moral superiority" of a materialistic world view.
RANDI >>The credophiles try to establish a parallel between science and religion. This is a useless pursuit; these ideas are exact opposites of one another. <<
I simply could not disagree more. True proven science and a true faith in God need never disagree on any testable verifiable fact. Spiritual issues, and past miracles aren't testable by science as you yourself state, and proven scientific fact does not contradict an informed and reasoned faith either. In fact, science is constantly strengthening my faith when I consider how unlikely and impossible, the supportable conditions we observe for life are, and how mandatory design is for the observable creation.
RANDI >>Consider: a man believes — beyond any doubt — that his god is the only god, is all-powerful and all-knowing, has created him and the entire universe around him, and is capricious, jealous, vindictive, and violent. That same god offers the man a choice between burning in eternal agony in a fully-defined hell, or living forever in a variety of paradises.... Examine the notion of a "loving god." This god only loves you if you follow the rules. No questions, no doubts, no objections, are allowed.<<
Well the above statements not only mischaracterize, but essentially teach the precise opposite of everything Christianity and the bible teach regarding the attributes of God. God is defined as both totally loving of humanity, and simultaneously just regarding evil. Does he allow and encourage free will, including evil choices? Yes. Will those who choose to reject him live with that choice eternally? Yes. But that is what they desire. This is just.
Eternal fire or torment? A controversial doctrine. Many Christians including great theologians like J.I. Packer, believe that the bible teaches annihilation and/or eternal separation, not eternal proactive suffering for unbelievers. God harshly punishes his beloved children for the slightest sinful infraction? Hardly. Quite the opposite. It is his grace that provides Christ as the mediation for human sin, forgiving ALL of it in any who choose to be reconciled to him, by grace through faith.
RANDI >>Author Krakauer, in his book "Under the Banner of Heaven," dealing with the premise that violence and fanaticism can be found readily available in religion, writes:
Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be especially prevalent among those inclined by temperament or upbringing toward religious pursuits<<
I'm surprised you would use this kind of fraudulent statement in a summary of your commentary. It is at once, easily verifiable as historically proven false. On a grand scale. We already discussed the unprecedented magnitude and scope of horror and death visited on humanity over the past century, by those "inclined by temperament or upbringing" (or education), toward materialistic based socio political pursuits.
One need only once again review the magnitude of dogma, extremism, horror, and genocide born of the atheistic world views of Marxists (atrocities unmatched in human history), to give lie to this attribution of religion as the scapegoat of most of man's irrational violence toward man. To scapegoat religion with this honor of fomenting more extremist irrational dogmatic violence, than we have objectively observed from atheist materialists, is a dishonest denial of history.
I have only brushed the surface with this response to your commentary. Provided to the JREF, no strings attached, are a few of the latest works of serious scientists who are committed deistic believers in the logic, evidence, and rationality, of intelligent design. These works by serious and respected scientists, can not be dismissed so easily by the "straw man" arguments raised against irrational believers, which have been referenced in your commentary.
My hope is that you will avail yourself of some of this provided scientific work. Perhaps leading to more fairly characterizing scientific minded, deists in the future. Illogical, irrational, blind faith adherents, they are not. Neither are several hundred million rational like minded religious believers. Our faith in what has been demonstrated as trustworthy, may not always overlap scientific issues, but it is not a "blind faith". And it does not stand in opposed contradiction to, proven, demonstrable, science, nor does it oppose objective empirical truth.
Regards
as some would have us believe.
But not, it appears about orthodox evangelical Christianity, or whether its possible to tell this from "false Christianity" whatever that is.
