Thursday, November 19, 2009

Creation and evolution are the same story

I post again, a quick note on the creation myth. Roman Catholics believe that their theology must align with the discoveries of science - hence they do not believe the creation myths (yes there are two) in Genesis to be literally true. However I was recently struck by how close to evolution they are.

The parallel is strong between the order of creation and the sequence of evolution. I won't bore you with the detail but check it out if you want.

So if the bible did have the right story why did it not tell it right? Perhaps because it would have been hard to get the complexities of genetics across to a people who were yet to come to terms with the earth being round or to discover Newtonian physics.

Hamba kahle


Friday, September 18, 2009

The real problem of evil rather than the PoE

The PoE is, of itself, not of much interest to me. As stated in its logical form it suffers from problems of definition and logical flaws. I am far more interested in the concept of evil.

Evil is not a topic to be trivialised by intellectual debate and I am concerned that the statement of and refuting (and in my opinion it is well refuted) the PoE does just that.So let me pose a few questions regarding evil.

1. Do atheists (forgive the generalisation) acknowledge that evil exists?

2. If you assert that evil exists, tell me please what it is – from an atheist perspective? It is the breaking of the law, which is criminal and not necessarily evil. Certainly there are theist descriptions aplenty … but I am interested to know how atheists see evil.

Hamba kahle – peace


Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Diversions - good and bad

I have been away from my blog for a long while and I have missed the chance to vent my spleen on 'home turf'.

My diversion to Debunking John Loftus was a mistake. I should have watched to see how the blog developed - it is simply not my style. I may not agree with JWL, but I do not know him, to like or dislike, so I am not comfortable with the personal tone on Debunking Loftus. On the plus side, JWL banned me from DC which gave me the opportunity for his peculiar brand of atheism to flush itself out of my system. That said I have enjoyed interacting with many on DC.

Also on the plus side, freed from DC I have explored many of the increasingly common atheist sites at my leisure. Found some good and some bad - had some challenging discussion on a number of them. Certainly in my travels I have tried to avoid those atheists that seem to base their entire case on an inerrant literal interpretation of the Bible. This avoidance is perhaps the main factor in challenging and developing my theism. It was good to debate with those who actually had a point to make.

While a few have caused me to sit back and ponder my theism, it still comes out as the rational position for me.

Perhaps the discussion that has given me the most food for thought is a point made on "Common Sense Atheism" - itself not normally a font of powerful reasoning, but in this case the provocative challenge slipped in. The point raised was; could I clearly demonstrate the differences in this world attributable to God compared to what would be without God. Easy to dismiss with a cheap shot, but I wonder if it is possible to argue the point at all. After all, our only experience is in this world, with or without a God - what would we objectively use as an alternative frame of reference.

Yes we can develop a set of criteria that will prove our case, but would they pass muster as an objective frame of reference?

Hamba kahle - peace


Monday, March 16, 2009

A change in focus

I have decided to suspend posting here and shift my activity to the blog of Truth be Told - Debunking Loftus – Setting John Straight for the next while.

I started visiting John W Loftus’ DC blog as an enquiring potential atheist. Initially I was drawn by what seemed to be some real reasons to reject theism. I admit to being sceptical, perhaps that is why I visited DC in the first place. Obviously I encountered the work of Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, and began to realise I was finding little of substance there – they are clearly not theologians and should perhaps stick to what they know best. But here was JWL – the ‘insider’ turned atheist – perhaps he had it right. However, as I worked through the arguments of JWL and his DC team I came to realise that his atheist arguments were really just the ‘emperor’s new clothes’.

It was JWL’s site that lead me to the strong theist position I now hold – and I thank JWL and his team at DC for this. So, as I am appreciative of what JWL has done for me personally - why then am I contributing here on Truth be Told’s blog to debunking him? I admit I don’t agree with everything the other contributors there say or even the way they say it, but it is a focused platform and so I will participate …

In part because I am astounded at the lack of scrutiny with which JWL’s ideas are accepted.
In part because I think there is place for rational debate around some of his ideas.
In part because JWL is fond of calling theists deluded - while ignoring his own delusions.
In part because he claims that any one of his arguments are powerful enough to turn a Christian to atheism – I have found the opposite.
In part because his arguments are just bad arguments.

In subsequent posts there I will systematically work through John’s arguments as he presents them in his Why I Am Not a Christian: A Summary of My Case Against Christianity (2008) posted on DC. I have chosen this as the basis because it best lends itself to blog length comments.

While I have mixed feelings about being associated with another blog ... well here goes!

Hamba kahle - peace