Faith in science

Gillette wrote:

... I don't have FAITH that the room light will go on when I flick the switch, or that the elevator will go up and not crash when I press the button. I KNOW it will form past experience
I have lots of prior empirical evidence and evidence form others in my culture that a light will turn on when pressed.
No "faith" required.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. We have plenty of evidence for science and for daily mechanical phenomena.

Let's sharpen our pencils so as to make finer distinctions. As David Hume argued, one cannot prove that the future will be like the present. Past experience just tells us about regularities. It does not guarantee that the light will come on with the flick of the switch.
What kind of faith must I have about light switches, elevators, and rockets?
It is obviously not blind faith, for I have some strong indicators about what will most likely happen that are based on my experience and my understanding of science. Despite all my experience, however, I have no guarantee. So, strictly speaking, this is akin to faith.
Indeed, the faith that the future will be be described by the same natural regularities as the present is the faith (or founding assumption) upon which all science is based. It is not blind faith, but is is still faith.

Christianity is a relationship, not a religion

Some will make the claim:

It is a relationship w/ Jesus Christ. You can be religious and still not make it into the Kingdom of God. Religion can not get you into Heaven only Jesus can. When you die and stand b4 God it wont matter how religious you were, what will matter is if you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Remember the Bible says that everyone who says Lord Lord will not go to Heaven. Religion is false but Jesus is the real deal.

Whenever I hear this "relationship" version of Christianity, it is always expressed in just this way and in almost exactly these words. This consistency of expression clearly points to an organized system of belief. What is religion but organized belief?

Now, why would someone want to claim that Christianity was not a religion? Christianity has a long history of exceptionalism. Hegel is exemplary in this regard.

The motivation, I suspect, is that these "relationship" Christians have an emotional need to feel special. Since there are many religions, as Christians they would be one type of religion person among many. This is hardly special. But, if all the rest were religions and Christianity was unique -- a "relationship" -- then Christians would be exceptional.

Proof text

One proof text does not establish a "Biblical Truth." The Bible says many things, not all of them in logical agreement. You distort its complexity when you proof text.

Jesus tears down walls

Let us consider the historical context to the events leading up to the time that Christians commemorate on Palm Sunday. Passover was (and is) a big deal for the Jews. When Jesus entered the city, many Jews were already gathering in Jerusalem for Passover. Rome responded by sending in extra troops and stepping up their terror campaign of crucifying petty Jewish criminals in hopes of using terror to keep in their place. As Jesus approached Jerusalem he would have been walking past several bodies hanging from crosses on the road leading to the city.

He was walking into a politically charged, terror influenced environment. To the Jews in power, he posed a threat. Jesus threatened to destabilize the uneasy but not completely chaotic balance of power that existed between the Jews and their occupiers.

It is in this context that "King of the Jews" should be heard.

The Jews were expecting a new King. The expected a new Joshua. Jesus shares Joshua's name and Jesus comes from to Jerusalem by way of Jericho. Jesus was also depicted as the new David by way of his two genealogies and the shepard analogies.

Like the Kingship of Joshua and David, the Jews were expecting deliverance here and now in this life and by means of a military victory in this Jewish Kingdom.

Jesus, however, poses a challenge to this Jewish notion of Kingdom. Like Joshua, Jesus also tore down walls, but the walls he tore down were not made of stone and earth, but prejudice. The Kingdom of Jesus was no longer us (Jews) vs. them (Gentiles). In Jesus's Kingdom everyone was welcome. Tearing down these walls was upsetting to some Jews. People like to feel special. As the Passover story reminds them, Jews think of themselves as a special people who have a special relationship with God. Jesus was changing this special status: he touched leapers, he took water from a Samaritan woman at the well, he took license with the law and healed on the Sabbath. As a new baby threatens to divide her parent's attention, so does Jesus' welcoming of outsiders into the Kingdom of God. The Jews are no longer God's special people.

A Hebrew reading of Kingdom of God would suggest that the Kingdom of God was not something up in the sky, but "on earth as it is in heaven". As this notion was communicated to a gentile audience, the language and images would have been Greek. As such, this Hebrew image would have been translated into Greek neoPlatonic language of "ideas" and otherworldly perfections.(Both the Hebrew and the Greek images views have Biblical support. I do not suggest to collapse the two or to argue for one over the other.)

As an alternative to the "King of Heaven" image that is often invoked, I am prompted to ask, what kind of Kingdom would this have been? One answer is the otherworldly Greek image, another comes from Luke 22:27. In this passage, in the Kingdom Jesus was heralding, the greatest is not the ruler at the table, but the servant. To illustrate this, Jesus pointed to himself as the model servant, "Yet here am I among you like a servant."

So often modern Christians set themselves apart from the world and give the impression that they think themselves to be special or uniquely suited to get a special reward in an otherworldly heaven. Against this too common image, I suggest that it is also Biblical to see that the Kingdom that Jesus brought did not have "us" versus "them" distinctions and that the greatest in the Kingdom of God are not the ones that receive the most rewards or who sit in a place of prominence, but are the ones that offer the most in service.

Hebrew and Greek Syncretism

The Hebrew and Greek world views are in many ways different. The Hebrew world view is of a God living with his creation. This life is important. The patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible are promised that their progeny will multiply and prosper. This life in this body is key. References to other realities beyond this one are rare. The Greek world view is different. The Greek world view is not of a God living within creation, but rather representing a perfection above and detached from creation (cf. Plato's Ideas). All those notions of the omni's are Greek notions (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient). When the Hebrew world intersected with the Greek world (at the time the dominant view) Hebrew notions were thought about and written about in Greek terms and the Greek language. (The NT was written in Greek.) This produced a syncretism in which new notions arose as a result of this translation of Hebrew notions into the Greek world view. Principle among these are notions of an other worldly Heaven and a Hades like Hell (but even worse) as well as apocalyptic visions.

Kingdoms

In Jesus' day, there were two kingdoms: the kingdom of Rome and the kingdom of the Jews--aka the Kingdom of God. (Of course, the kingdom of the Jews was subordinate to the kingdom of Rome.) There were also two "sons of God." Cesar declared himself to be the son of God. Jesus' followers also made the politically subversive claim that Jesus was the son of God. To the Romans this would have sounded like Jesus was posing a threat to Cesar's power. This challenge to the throne is part of the motivation that the Jews in power had to turn Jesus over to the Romans for execution: The Jesus movement threatened the status quo of power between the Jews and Rome. When we read the terms "kingdom of God" and "Son of God" out of their historical context we imagine and project onto those terms "otherworldy " meanings that distort their original political meanings.

Scary Thought

Doug Pagitt, in "A Christianity Worth Believing" points out that the "scary thought" type questions such as: "If you died tonight, would you wake up with Jesus?" or "If you died right now, where would you spend eternity?" are similar to the loaded false choice questions such as, "So, do you still steal stuff from work?" Both of these questions pose as legitimate questions while subtly being subversive. Both presuppose a world view that the one being asked the question just doesn't buy. The "scary" questions presuppose heaven and hell. They presuppose the "afterlife interpretation " of the kingdom of God (a view of questionable Biblical authority). Although the question is set in the near present (tonight or the next moment), it nevertheless presupposes that the kingdom of God represents a future condition that comes after death, not one available in the present for the living.

These "scary thought" questions put undue emphasis on certainty. An open, doubting, and questioning spiritual search results in a more genuine and deeper faith than will a quick assent followed by a dogmatic claim to certainty.

You go to church because:

Ask not what your church can do for you (give you salvation, entertain you, introduce you to potential friends, or give you an appearance of respectability in your community), ask what you can do through a church to make the world a better place.

Does the Bible imply that God and Satan are the same being?

1 CHRONICLES 21:1 and 2 SAMUEL 24:1 were written by different authors who each projected their own interpretations upon those events. One saw an act of God, one saw the hand of Satan. There is clearly a difference and clearly a tension that "The Bible" does not resolve. Strictly speaking, however, there is no contradiction. A contradiction can only occur within a single set of premises. Since each of these premises comes from a different book by a different author they don't form a single set and cannot strictly contradict. Is one or both a "mistake "? Since any human attempt to describe reality as it really is bound to fall short, I suppose that both of these descriptions as well as every other description is technically a mistake. But surely that type of criteria takes things too far and deprives the word mistake of its usefulness. Those who seek "contradictio ns" and "mistakes " in the Bible to discredit it and those apologists who spin the text so as to make such "contradictio ns" disappear, both make the same mistake. Both treat the Bible as a single set of propositions. Why? What is the justification for this single set view?

Is witnessing door to door a good idea

One day when I was working on my truck in the driveway, two young Mormon "elders" came by. We had a nice discussion about Mormon beliefs (they were very well versed) and they even offered to help me put my transmission back in. They went to change cloths. (This is not exactly work for white shirts, ties, and dress slacks.) By the time the returned, the transmission was already in. Nevertheless, I respect the two young men for their willingness to be helpful. Helpfulness is part of their mission. I have learned a lot about Mormonism from listening to these and other missionaries. Some time ago another missionary came by (a man and his young son). The man started our discussion out with what was dressed up as a philosophical question: "What do you think it means to be happy?" Of course he did not want to have a philosophical discussion. He came to tell me that I was wrong and that he had the answer. This conversation did not go on for long, nor was it pleasant. Two teenage Jehovah Witness girls stopped by last year to share "a message of hope" from the book of Revelations. "Doesn't that sound nice?" they asked after reading the passage. "Sure," I replied, "but in what context was it written, who said it, and in what way does it relate to me?" I asked. "It is a promise that God is making to you," they replied. To which I replied that they were not taking the Bible seriously by pretending that it was a book written for me. I sent them away with some contradictory passages to give them a sense of the polyphony of voices that make up the bible. They said they would talk these over with their pastor and return the next week. Alas, they never came back. Here is the etiquette for witnessing at my house: (1) If you come to my door to witness, be prepare to listen as well as to talk. (2) Be humble. I recognize that I don't have all the answers, you shouldn't pretend to either. (3) Don't assume that I am a "lost" or "uninformed. " If you want to share your beliefs, I welcome it. Just don't tell me what I must believe. Finally, one last point about attitude: I work in neighborhoods where I occasionally see door to door missionaries. I have noticed that many tend to walk slowly and solemnly. They never speak to people working in their yards, only to people who answer a door. They walk like they were going to the gallows, not delivering the good news. If you really think that you have good news, then let that news liven your walk. To be a convincing messenger of God, you should look at least as happy and walk with as least as much purpose as does the man who is mowing the lawn.

Accidents and mistakes

Progress by "accident " does not imply that you end up with a "mistake. " Sure, a new mutation may arise by accident. But natural selection selects the beneficial mutations from the mistakes. Thus, if you start with enough accidents and allow natural selection time to work, beneficial solutions will emerge. The “mistakes” will be left scattered along the side of the evolutionary road.

Why would God create bacteria?

Have you ever wondered what purpose bacteria serve? I understand that worms and ants are extremely important for the soil. Algae are extremely important as one of the main converters of carbon dioxide into oxygen. But, one might wonder: Why would God make bacteria? Don't bacteria only serve to make more complex organisms sick? Perhaps God does have a purpose for bacteria that is not generally understood. Although many Christians will deny so called "macro evolution" many will acknowledge that evolution takes place at the "micro" level of bacteria. The evolution of bacteria (and virus) is particularly noticeable in the field of health care. Antibiotics that used to work, don't work anymore because the bacteria have evolved. This is hard to deny. So, to return to my question: What purpose do bacteria serve, besides making us sick? With this question in the back of my mind, I read "Acquiring Genomes" by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan. Here I discovered that bacteria function as the "test labs" (my word, not theirs) of evolution. Every little thing that more complex organisms can do (metabolism, light sensitivity, conversion of sunlight into chemical energy, etc.), was first done (and still is done) by a bacteria. Upon recognizing that bacteria are breaking evolutionary ground, I came to see that they have an important role. More complex organisms don't have to "stumble upon" a new genetic code by random mutation in order to acquire a new trait or start a new species. All an organism has to do is acquire and incorporate into its genetic code a genome that was tested out in the fast paced evolutionary test labs of bacteria. In cases where such an acquisition doesn't make the organism sick, it may serve to provide a benefit. Bacteria provide the "intelligent design" that drives evolution. Beneficial changes remain due to natural selection. It was eye opening to discover that bacteria play an important role: they drive evolution. So, if the question is: Where do new genetic codes come from? The answer is from the trial and error and quick reproductive cycles of evolving bacteria. Micro-evolution enables macro-evolution.

Judgment day

I tend to think that Judgment day is (and will always be) a future event. That is, I don't think anyone will ever see it. It is a future event like tomorrow is a future event. It is an event always deferred. It is an ideal, never realized.

Evidence of the soul

Introspection is the evidence for the existence of the soul. You have experience. That proves that the soul exists. But, I think you are asking, What is the evidence a) that your soul is immortal? or b) that your soul survives the death of the body? or c) that your soul is separable from the body? These are more difficult questions to provide evidence for.

When my grandmother was in a care home and suffering from dementia, she would occasionally mention things that had recently taken place at the house she previously shared with my mother. Somehow my grandmother knew that furniture had been rearranged--and in what manner. She knew that my mother now had a dog--even though no one told her. It was as if her soul would occasionally leave her body during these moments of dementia journey back to her old home and look around. Perhaps death is not a magical change that involves the life of the soul. Perhaps, as Shamans will attest,the soul can take journeys while the body is alive. Perhaps when the brain is comatose or dead, it is like turning off the TV. The soul that was so focused on the program of the life of the body now isn't distracted by the body's program and can have broader experiences.

First, introspection is a kind of evidence. It lacks intersubjectivity, but that does not invalidate it. As for the whether the soul is immortal or can survive the existence of the body or can live without the body, I think there is evidence that speaks to those issues as well. Reports of Near Death Experiences are one form of evidence, though we must be careful no to learn more from them than they can teach. Religious and mystical experiences are also a type of evidence. There clearly are beliefs about these issues as well. A belief may or may not have a relation to empirical evidence.

Gaps in the fossil record

The fossil record indicates leaps, not gradual blending. Thus, following the evidence it would seem that evolution proceeds in jumps too. Additionally, the story of "one" species turning into another is misleading. It seems to suggest that one species exists independently of many others. You very body is not entirely human. Something like 20% (don't quote me on this percentage) of your weight contains living organisms that do not share your DNA. Most of these live in your colon, but some live on your skin, in your eyebrows, etc. A human being is a society of many organisms working together. Generally, these organisms keep their DNA to themselves. In some rare cases, DNA from one of these organisms will slip into the genetic code of another. Generally, this alien DNA is unwelcome and not helpful and is short lived. Rarely, such a mingling of DNA results in a symbiotic organism that is better suited to survival in some particular environment. When this happens, there is an evolutionary jump. Although the advancement of a symbiotic relationship turning into new species is rare, it does occur. Evolution is all about the preservation (via natural selection) of these rare and unlikely symbiotic combinations.

Contradictions, Lies, and Errors

Question: Are you telling me that you believe John 3:13 is a LIE and in ERROR??

Reply:

There is yet another possibility. I argue that John 3:13 need not be viewed as either a Lie or an Error even if Genesis and 2nd Kings are understood to say that Enoch and Elijah both ascended to heaven. How can this be? Here is why: There is no need to be concerned with supposed "contradictions" if we see the Bible as a collection of stories rather than a single set of true propositions.

It seems clear enough that the Bible is a collection of stories. Etymologically, the word Bible comes from "books." It is quite literally a collection of books. One doesn't falsify a book case if two books that it contains disagree. One expects disagreement. It adds interest.

The question is, why would one expect all Biblical statements to be part of a single set of true propositions, none of which contradict. Where does this view come from? Does it have scriptural support? It seems to me to be an extra-Biblical projection.

Was Enoch taken to heaven?

Question:  Show me anywhere in the entire bible it says Enoch want to heaven. Can you?

Reply: 

First off, it should be noted that by asking this question you are avoiding the question I asked. Nevertheless, to I will address the issue you raise and use it to reformulate my question.

I suspect that if most people were to read Genesis 5:24 without reference to John 3:13, as one would normally read a book -- from the beginning to the end -- they would understand it to mean that Enoch, in his old age, did not die but "was seen no more" because he was taken away by God to heaven.

Now, as you so astutely note, Genesis does not say he was taken "to heaven." (2 Kings 2:1, however, does specifically state that Elijah was taken to Heaven. I hope you do not ignore the more difficult case to argue about an easier one.) Perhaps Enoch was taken to Argentina or the moon. But, such possibilities seem fanciful given what was said about Enoch. It is noted that the reason that Enoch was seen no more is that he, in his life, walked with God. One would naturally assume a causal relationship between Enoch walking with God and God taking him away. In light of this, it is a natural reading to assume that God took Enoch to be with Him in Heaven.

This is what a narrative reading of the Bible would suggest.

On the other hand, if the Bible isn't a story, but a series of true propositions, then in order for John 3:13 to be true, Gen 5:24 must not be understood to say that Enoch was taken to heaven. This seems to be your view. My question is, why do you propose that the Bible is a series of true propositions as opposed to a collection of stories. What is your scriptural warrant for such a claim?

Arguments for the existence of God

Since the Enlightenment science has made many considerable advances and discoveries. In recent years, science has taken on certain working assumptions: it acts as though there is no God and it assumes that all things are physical things. Based on such assumptions, science can still not explain either consciousness or free will. While the God of the gaps has been getting smaller as the gaps in human understanding are filled with scientific explanations, I believe that this will eventually stop at just the right size of gap for the God that does exist.

While it is not conclusive proof, I argue that this failure indicates that there may be something besides physical matter that plays a role in our world.

I suggest that besides being a physical body we also are a soul. Now, I am not arguing for a Cartesian dualism that needs a God to explain the otherwise unconnected “thinking thing” and “extended thing.” In its place, I am arguing for a temporal distinction between subject and object. In the present moment, there is an aspect of me that is influenced, but undetermined by my past. This (loosely speaking) is my soul-at-the-moment. It is not a physical thing in that it cannot be seen or detected as it is in itself. As soon as my soul decides/acts, its expressions become part of the physical world. Until that moment, it exists only for itself, not for others.

Is there an analog of the soul’s relation to the body that is God’s relation to the world? While many things can be explained without such an assumption, there are some indications that point towards that possibility: the big bang and the origin of life.

The big bang might be called an ultimate irrationality in that no reason for it can be given. It is unpredictable just like the free actions of the human soul.   

The next phenomena that points even stronger towards the presence of a God is the origin of life. Life seems to possess an internal desire—a will to live. Either life has always been part of the universe or else it was an emergent property that developed with sufficient complexity. I tend to think that life has always been a part of the universe and that God is the soul of the world.

Is it a proof? No, but I maintain that it provides an explanation that has more explanatory power than is possible with an atheistic / physicalistic  world view.

Does worshiping Jesus break the first commandment?

In many places in the Bible, Jesus seems to be other than God. Since both are worthy of worship it would seem that Jesus is very close to being another God and the first commandment forbids worshiping any other God by YHWH.

Of course, to "solve" this embarrassing problem fourth century Christians formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not, however, strictly derived from a reading of the New Testament, but is one of those extra biblical narratives that the reader brings to the text so smooth out the rough edges.

Adult theology kindergarten

There was a megachurch pastor named Carlton Pearson who changed his mind on this topic. It occurred to him that Jesus died to save everyone. He came to realize that a God who would condemn people to Hell was incompatible to what he knew about God and love. He started preaching a gospel of inclusion as opposed to a gospel of exclusion. People walked out on him. His church went from thousands of people every week to only a few hundred. It turns out, that people like Hell. Take away Hell and you take away the draw. Many in his congregation didn't even want to listen to his opinions. Whereas once they were content to "learn" from him, as soon as he said something controversial, he was no longer credible in many of their eyes.

It seems that no matter how much one studies or knows about the Bible or religion, certain fundamentalists will ask you certain qualifying questions. If you answer simply (no room for complications or shades of meaning) and correctly according to their party line, they will listen, so long as you say what they already believe.

Fundamentalists like this remind me of dogmatic kindergarteners who think they know about math. They have been taught about counting and addition and think they know math. An older sibling mentions negative numbers and multiplication and division to them. The dogmatic kindergartener knows that this so called "math" is contrary to what he has been taught. He tells is older sister that she is wrong and refuses to listen to her.

The adult kindergarteners in Pearson congregation were like this. They knew their kindergarten theology and when something contradicted it, they dogmatically refused to listen and consider that just maybe things are more complicated that what is taught in kindergarten.

Why does evolution produce better organisms?

It is not clear that life is evolving "better" creatures. Yes, evolution has brought about more complex creatures that are more capable of introducing novelty into actuality, but it is another question as to whether such ability makes them "better. " Better always carries with it the questions, better for what? and for whom? As to evolution producing creatures more suitable to life, this seems not to be a universal rule. Cockroaches are more suited to life than are humans (it is suggested that they would even survive a nuclear blast), yet they evolved before humans did. It seems that evolution is not always directed towards the production of more hardy life forms. I say that it is directed towards life forms more capable of introducing novelty and experiencing higher forms of enjoyment. I think that this direction is not imposed upon life by an external creator, but is the driving force within life always wanting to live, to live well, and live better.

What is the point to evolution if it all goes back to nothing?

Asking why it goes back to nothing? is only a valid question if there is a final cause that directs it back to nothing. It is legitimate to ask, why did you go back home after work? because people do things for a reason. The reason for a person's action is the final cause of the action. Final causes are the goals that we wish our actions to achieve. If you want to rest, your desire / intension to rest is a final cause. You go home because you wish to satisfy this final cause. Now, ask why a mudslide brought down a pile of rocks onto a mountain road and you get a much different type of answer: you get an answer involving efficient causes. An explanation involving the efficient cause of a mudslide will involve rain causing erosion that loosens boulders from the mountain side and gravity causes them to slide down. Now, what is the point of the mudslide? There is no point because there is no final cause. That is, there is no intention that brought it about. (Note that I am not implying that it is random, just that it was not brought about by a final cause.) As for their being a point to life in general, that is an open question. We cannot assume that there is some final cause behind it or else we beg the question. Similarly, we cannot assume that there is no final cause. The principle of Occam's razor seems to be able to go both ways on this question. Creation is a pretty simple answer to state, but it makes a big assumption: God the creator. A bottom up evolution involving quantum particles that desire to express themselves in novel ways and eventually evolve into cellular organisms is less easy to understand, but it doesn't require a supernatural origin. Indeed, it is no more speculative than are suggestions about the also unseen (but inferentially suggested) Higgs Boson--the particle that the CERN Large Hadron Collider is looking for. Perhaps there is a God shaped hole precisely at the origin of life in the universe. If so, we might have reason to suspect that there is a God that can act as the missing organization and direction that we seem to observe in nature. Even if there is such a God, there is no reason to make the leap that such a God must be the God of the Bible, for such a God seems more likely (and less speculatively) to be the God of Deism.

What started life?

In asking, what started life? you have landed on the "dirty little secret" of evolution. Evolution accounts for change. It doesn't provide an account of the origin of life in general. Some outspoken proponents of evolution will tend to gloss over this limitation of the theory. In place of a scientifically based theory they will suggest that life originated as an accident of organic chemistry where the organic compounds accidentally got so complicated that they crossed the threshold from nonliving to living. Personally, I disagree with this account. I argue that there are good reasons to suggest that there never was a time in which there was no living thing. While certain forms of life such as bacteria and single and multi cell organisms have not always existed, other more basic forms have. Now, what are these more basic forms, and what do I mean by a living thing in this context? Life is characterized by the ability to introduce novelty into actuality. The more basic forms are those minute entities that are present throughout the universe and that account for the observed "uncertainty " in quantum mechanics. These entities, I argue, are basic life forms that have always existed. This pushes the question of the origin of life off our planet and back to the Big Bang. Now, since the Big Bang produced novelty, we could also say that it exhibits the capacity to introduce novelty into actuality too. Hence, all of creation is alive.

Would someone hold a belief knowing it to be inferior?

If someone did think that another faith was better (as opposed to just different) then it might seem likely that such a person would adopt certain of those "better" elements in that "better" faith or else convert to it. It seems unlikely that anyone would continue to hold an "inferior" position once they know that it is inferior.

But is it really unlikely?

What about the person who has too much of a vested interest in an inferior position, such as a person who has professed it for a long time and has their identity wrapped up in this faith? Such a person might continue to profess an inferior faith.

I think people have certain religious needs--certain questions that since childhood beg to be answered.  Once they find an answer (even a weak one), many will stop looking because the search is so hard and so unsettling: every question opens up more possibilities rather than cosing them down.

When faced with contradictory evidence, a person holding what they know to be a weak position (but won't admit it) will most likely deny the evidence, attack or marginalize it, or else witness to themselves (publicly) that they have privileged information.

While it is certainly possible for them to go back to the drawing board and reconsider everything. This is extremely difficult and unsettling. Hence, most would rather live knowing that there are holes in their understanding that are better left alone. They even give these holes names such as "mysteries." They exalt those who can live with such mysteries as "faithful."

To profess a faith that you know to be flawed is to be a hypocrite. I dare say that hypocrites are the religious majority. If I am right about this, then most people think they have a inferior position. They just don't have the courage of intellect to question their fundamental assumptions in slim hopes of finding something better.

You don't open Pandora's box unless you are quite sure that you can close it again, and from what I know about that box it may not be possible to ever close it again.

Hence, better to hold an inferior view than to lose what tenuous grasp of things unseen that you have.

The myth of the fall

I think we have really gone astray in our interpretation of Genesis 2. I see it more about connecting the dots. It was written by human beings who have to work for their food; have pains of childbirth; are preyed upon by wild animals; and fight amongst themselves.

And yet, they were created by a perfect God.

How can one reconcile these two concepts: A perfect creator and a flawed creation? Pretend for a moment that you don't already know the story of the fall.

How could you connect these dots? It seems that to explain our present, either you need to say that God is not perfect or explain our present condition in some other way. I think this conundrum gave rise to the idea of a fall and original sin. It does help provide an explanation.

Does this make it true? Not necessarily. It may not even be Biblical, as there are passages in the Bible--including some of the words of Jesus--that seem to deny the concept of original sin.  (For instance the story of the blind man who did not have sin.)

It is also possible that the story is beautiful in that it connects the dots in our understanding, even while not being literally true. Perhaps God created us the way we are now: creatures who have to labor and feel pain and are subject to fault. Perhaps this isn't a failure on God's part. Perhaps as Candide proposed: this is the best of all possible worlds. While some will see it this way, others will find it inconceivable that God would have designed things this way. For those people there is the account of the fall.

Here I am

Not "I am" but "Here I am." God called to Moses and Moses responded, "Here I am." God called to Samuel and Samuel responded, "Here I am." The other calls to me and I respond, "Here I am." "Here I am" is emblematic of the origin of my identity as a moral being. It represents my responsibility for the other. This is the general case. Multiply this by all the people in the world, and we have a network of mutual responsibility.

Can God be seen?

The Bible both claims that no one has seen the Father and claims that many have. First, let us examine several passages that make the first claim:

JOHN 1:18—“No man hath seen God at any time.”

JOHN 6:46–“Not that any man hath seen the Father.”

1 TIMOTHY 1:17—“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.”

1 TIMOTHY 6:16—“Whom no man hath seen nor can see.”

1 JOHN 4:12—“No man hath seen God at any time.”

EXODUS 33:20—GOD TOLD MOSES: “You cannot see My face; for no man can see Me and live.”

On the other hand, God can be seen and many have seen God:

Exodus 33:11—“And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.”

Deuteronomy 34:10—“And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.”

Genesis 32:30—“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

Exodus 24:9-11—“Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and did eat and drink.”

Numbers 14:14—“For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face.”

Deuteronomy 5:4—“The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.”

1 Kings 22:19—“I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.”

Job 42:5—“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.”

Isaiah 6:1—“In the year that King Ussiah died, I saw, also, the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.”

Isaiah 6:5—“For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”

Ezekiel 1:27—“And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward....”

Ezekiel 20:35—“And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face.”

Amos 7:7—“The LORD stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in his hand.”

Amos 9:1—“I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake.”

Habakkuk 3:3-5—“God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran .... He had horns coming out of his hand.”

Matthew 18:9—“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”

Exodus 33:23—“And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.”

Judges 13:19-22—“And the LORD did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched... Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”

Some would be tempted to call this a contradiction or ask, Which is it, can God be seen or not. I prefer to listen to the various voices rather than demanding that the Bible (and distorting it to) speak with one voice.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

For a long time it seemed to me that Life (and evolution) was a force that ran counter to the second law of thermodynamics. While everything else in the universe was winding down, loosing order, and leveling energy gradients in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, Life seemed to be going the other way. Living beings organized things. Evolution seemed directed towards greater order. Was life special? Was life an exception to the physical laws?

A couple of years ago I attended a conference where Dorion Sagan (the son of Carl Sagan) was a panelist. Dorion had an interesting view of this conundrum about life being an exception. He suggested that life forms that are more “highly evolved” (I use this term without buying into all it suggests) are actually better adapted to leveling energy gradients than are “less evolved” (again same disqualification). Human beings, for instance, are better adapted to transforming the potential energy stored in fossil fuels into lower potential energy levels through our use of cars and industry. If you look at the effects of our actions, we are “using up resources.” We seem to be “better” at this than are any other life forms. Perhaps life is evolving in service of the second law of thermodynamics.  

Do not Add or Subtract from Scripture

In relation to Revelation 22:18 where God warns, "If any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues, that are written in the book."

It should be noted that Revelations is one of the oldest books of the NT, having been written in the middle of the first century. At least three of the Gospels and several of the epistles were composed after Revelations. The process of canonization (the choice of which books to add and which to subtract from the Bible) continued well into the middle of the third century.

Since Revelations appears at the end of the Bible as we have inherited it, it seems at a naive glance, that the line at the end of Revelations about not adding or subtracting could apply to scripture as a whole. However, when it is seen in its historical context, much of the accepted scripture of the NT was added after this warning was written.

Different types of evidence

Science is based on empirical evidence (observation). If you doubt a certain empirical claim, you can repeat the experiment or verify the observation to see if you get the same result. Because of its "repeatable" criterion, science is said to be intersubjective in that its claims can be communicated between subjects and verified independently by different subjects.

Creationism, conversely, is a doctrine. It is a position one holds, not a theory that a community works to perfect. Creationism claims to be based on the “revealed truth” of a trustworthy text. There are several complications relating to revelation.  There is a popular buzz word now: “Bible-based.” This is a new term for what used to be called “sola scriptura.” The problem with the claim that a view is “Bible-based” is that any text involves two elements: a text and a reader. All texts require interpretation, and it is the interpretation that causes the controversy.

The text itself could be poetry, fiction, literal truth, mythology, primitive science, or allegory. How does one know how it should be taken? “Believers” will claim that such knowledge is given to them by the Holy Spirit. Those who see the text differently are not elect. This knowledge is not like the intersubjective knowledge of the scientist. It is not something that can be communicated.

Whereas scientists need to be cautious about being dogmatic – the recent expose of the global warming “advocates” manipulating data points this out. Similarly, those who argue that their view is Bible-based need to be cautious of what they impose upon the text. It is very common, for instance, for a reader to impose upon the Bible a connecting narrative. Such a narrative is not found in the text, yet colors the reader’s entire understanding. There is no such thing as a view that is sola scriptura.

Is Jesus the messiah that was predicted?

Jesus wasn't the messiah that Isaiah predicted. That doesn't mean that he isn't a messiah. It would just mean that either Isaiah was way off in his prophecy (not 100% accurate) or else there was another messiah that got overlooked (the Bible not the absolute truth).

Question:  If the authors / editors of the Bible wanted to make Yeshua/Jesus appear to be the promised "EMMANUEL" why didn’t they edit the passage from Matthew that reads, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” to read “. . .they shall name him Jesus”?

Answer: If the Bible had been edited by modern day American Fundamentalists, this passage from Matthew probably would have been edited to read, ". . .and they shall name him Jesus. . . ." Some editor probably would have written a triumphant "No Contradictions" in the margin upon making this change.

So why did the actual writers / editors leave it in? Because there seems to have been a guiding rule in Biblical editing that where conflicting stories exist, it is better to include both than to risk choosing the wrong one.

We see this rule at work in the fact that we have three different origin stories, four different gospels, and three (at least) different apocalyptic visions.

Why don’t the gospels mention the destruction of the temple as history?

Ah, so Mark, Matthew, and Luke DO mention the destruction of the temple, they just do it in the future tense, not past tense. Let us put ourselves in the place of the late first century. Our Messiah has just been killed. The temple has been destroyed. What power do we have left? We have story. Story is incredibly powerful.It kept Judaism whole throughout years of political rise and fall. Here in the late first century, we can write a story that is set in the past. We can use this story to give a new context to what we have experienced so as to bring a glimmer of hope to dreary times. Our messiah has been killed. Let us give this horrible event a happy ending: the resurrection. Some of the earliest versions of Mark (and early is thought to be most accurate--right?) conclude with Chapter 16, Verse 8. This is to say it concludes with an empty tomb and a promise (hope) of a risen Christ, but no first hand experience. Later versions (more questionable according to the apologists on this forum) report that the Eleven saw the risen Christ at the table with them. (This addition gives the impression to the reader that the hope is already being fulfilled.) The story becomes more moving with this addition. We followers of Jesus were supposed to be the winners. We were supposed to have the right religion. But, our messiah didn't deliver us as we had hopped. Were we wrong about the messiah? Rather than give up hope and admit error, let's reframe the events of our lives so as to find a hidden meaning -- one that we, the elect, know. To do this, we story tellers can retrospectively put a prophecy of the temple's destruction into our Messiah's mouth to make Him seem prescient. This makes it seem like he knew what was going to happen and that there is a reason for it. With this spin it doesn't look like we were wrong, but just caught in the middle of a time of tribulation that must take place (according to the same man who predicted the temple's destruction) before we will achieve our eventual reward. The Bible is not a no spin zone. I don't fault the early Christians for doing what they needed to do to get through the dark night. Modern Christians do this too. Anxiety makes those who lack confidence cling to weak positions.

Why Four Gospels?

So, why isn't there just one composite gospel that tells your story. There was an earthquake (some mention it some don't). There were two angels (some refer only to one, and the other just wasn't mentioned). The angels were teenager in appearance (that way they could be described both as a young boy and as men). The two Mary's didn't go in alone, they went in with Peter and John, despite the fact that Peter and John were not mentioned as those who entered first. So why not have this single account? You don't seem to think that these differences matter, but 2nd century Christians sure thought they mattered. I think they matter. In scholarship I have been taught to look for these type of discrepancies, not to invalidate the work, but to open it up to layers of meaning and depth to the account. A single mish mash simplified story does not make the Bible better, it would only make it one dimensional. I challenge you to see the depth and hear the multiplicity of voices that come through the text. You do the richness of the Bible a disservice when you read it the way you do. The "No Contradictions in the Bible" claim means: I'm not going to see the Bible in its true complexity. I am going to deny it and imagine a simpler book.

The forbidden fruit

The forbidden fruit was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now, let us think about this philosophically. Bears and wolves occasionally eat people, but we don't say that they are evil. They are just doing what bears and wolves do. They get hungry; they eat. Bears and wolves don't know good from evil. Since they don't, they are not culpable. In theological terms, they can neither sin nor be saved. People, however, are different. How does one account for our moral difference? Well, we can discern (when we are at our best) between good and evil. One of the legal criteria of sanity is the ability to tell right from wrong. Eating from the tree of knowledge turns us into morally culpable humans instead of animals. Wouldn't it be easier to go back to being an infant -- knowing neither good nor evil. An infant is like the wolf and bear (but without the teeth and claws--The infant is morally like the wolf and bear.) Once we grow up and know the difference between good and evil, we carry a burden of maturity to do what is right and to be held accountable if we fail. Having realized this burden, we are no longer in infancy--we have left the crib. In Biblical terms, we have been cast out of the garden and left to fend for ourselves as adults.

Darwin’s Christian Method

Darwin did not live within the context of Christian Fundamentalists who treat the Bible as a magical love letter written just for them and for whom it comes with no reference to tradition.

Darwin’s Christianity was of the nineteenth century variety, which is to say, it was a Christianity that was waking to the realization that scripture was the product of tradition and was shaped by history. (See Lessing, Hegel, Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, and von Harnack to name a few nineteenth century Christian theologians who emphasized this historical turn and the idea of becoming.)

The idea of history was changing in the nineteenth century. No longer was it seen simply as a chronicle of events, it came to be seen as a project that traced the transformation of institutions and emphasized their unique and organic development.

The geologist and mentor of Darwin, Charles Lyell, opposed such developmental thought. He described geology as equilibrium of two types of forces: those forces like earthquakes and volcanoes that raise the earth up and leveling forces such as erosion. For Lyell, science meant becoming aware of the back and forth that occurred between these forces. For Lyell, there was no sense of development. Though he had a notion of time and imagined that these forces had always been working against each other, time for him was the equivalent of t in the equations of  Newtonian mechanics—it conveyed no sense of development.

Darwin opposed the view of Lyell. Instead, he adopted the historicism of Christianity. He was aware that adopting a Christian method amounted to treason against his mentor. Just as the Bible tells a story of transformation of a people and their relationship with God, Darwin’s theory would also describe a transformation.