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
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Creation and evolution are the same story
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
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Ever heard of Putaruru?
We have failed to heed God’s message – God’s fault or ours?
The world is in financial and economic crises – sounds sterile. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are losing their jobs, they and in many cases, their families will suffer real hardship.
Some atheists may ask why God let the evil bankers trick us into spending money we did not have on what we did not need just so that they could get rich.
I may respond and ask why we did not listen to the many voices, Christian and others, which warned that it would not end well? … and perhaps I would admit the voices of churches were not raised very loudly (or did the media stifle them?) to call us to think about increasing number being plunged into abject poverty as we plugged in our flat screen TVs. … yea blame the messenger for not making us listen to God’s word.
Perhaps we all have to concede that the most strident voices calling us to ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’ were those of the fundamentalists – the loony fringe (?) – oh but had we all heeded their cry! Had we been more like Nineveh – certainly we received the same message – and less like Sodom, well who knows …
It is easy to say that Christ preached against the avarice practised by the merchant bankers and others who sowed the seeds of this crisis; it is also easy to say that if we had all followed Christ’s teachings we not be in this sorry state.
Correct me if I am wrong – if we had not been distracted by the new and shiny would we not have been better off living a good Christian or Hindu lifestyle, respecting those around us, even the starving in Darfur? But all of us (me included) did not do that, so …… and the starving still starve and the number of the poor increases.
Do I seem heartless? No, I weep for those who really do and will suffer, I feel nothing but disdain for those who rode the pig’s back and now have to make do on a few million less next year, yet how clear is the sound of their weeping, and so loud that governments around the world have come to THEIR aid – I guess those that really need the aid (like wiping 3rd world debt) have to again rely on the trickle down effect – like Lazarus at the gate of the rich man’s house. Certainly the situation is the fruit of avaricious. Certainly lax regulation opened the gate – blah blah … etc I could rant on, but you know it anyway.
Out of the gloom comes a story of real Christian spirit. In the small New Zealand town of Putaruru the sawmill is to close and around 200 jobs are to be lost. Bad news in a small town with a population around 3500. However, in the neighbouring town of Tokoroa (pop 4000) the workers at the mill there have agreed to restructure their shifts and reduce their hours and take home pay to create about enough new jobs for those laid off in nearby (25kms away) Putaruru.
Now those taking the pay cut are not the management of the corporate parent on $mega packages with bonuses that motivate the cutting of jobs at the first sign of missing their double digit targets. Those taking the 12.5% cut in work hours are giving up their pay at overtime rates, so more than 12.5% of take home, are those who can least afford it, earning generally at or below the average wage.
Is this proof of God, of course not, but it is the message of Christ, “love your neighbour as yourself” at work. Are all those who are making the sacrifice Christians – I doubt it, even with Google Earth showing 7 churches in the Tokoroa & 6 in Putaruru (1 per 600 people). Christ’s teaching is God’s message to all – and is particularly relevant now. Those who will now have jobs for the new year have those jobs because good has triumphed over evil, love over selfishness – these are the fruits of God’s spirit at work within the spirits of the good people of Tokoroa, Putaruru and around the world.
If you pray (or for atheists is it, wish or hope – or does life just happen for you?) for anything next year, perhaps you will join me in wanting more openness in the world to the spirit that moved the workers in Tokaroa.
Now I know most of my visitors are atheists (interesting how visitor numbers soar (& lots more repeat visitors - feel free to comment folks) when I get active on the DC site) so I mean no disrespect to your beliefs but see wishing you and those dear to you a blessed Christmas as a small act of love ...
… so I wish all who have visited here, together with those close to them and my enemies too, a wonderful and blessed Christmas. May the peace of Christ and the blessings of Holy Spirit be with you, in your homes and on your travels; in your anxieties and your joys.
While I look forward to talking with you again next year I will reflect over Christmas about maintaining this blog, or resting it for a while. On the one hand it is hard to find time, on the other I have learned much from you, thank you for time, I am sure it is more valuable than mine and you have given it freely to me, a stranger, as a gift – there I knew God’s spirit was at work in you too!
Hamba kahle
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Of pagan statues, Zeus and other gods
When the pagans figured out that a statue was not God they faced a choice. Either there was no God or God was not a statue. Wisely, most have concluded that God is not a statue and human religion has moved on.
Many atheists point to the apparent roots of today’s religions and struggle to reconcile what appears to be the pagan origins of some it. It is hardly a surprise that as religion and theology evolved peoples’ thinking was influenced by their socio-cultural environment. In the machine vs soul discussion Lee outlines a path of evolution for the concept of the soul. While some may propose other paths, Lee asks how I as a Christian can accept a concept apparently born in paganism. I reply that I have no difficulty.
The "God is not a statue" thinking has prevailed and the concept of a spiritual life with a god or gods has given rise to the major religions of the world and hence a theist majority in the population. This does not suggest blind acceptance. Rather, it means that a multitude of the wise and scholarly of many religious persuasions have pondered the question and decided, on the weight of evidence, that they should continue to seek to better understand God
The multiplicity of religions shows that their thinking has not yet converged on a single theology. However there are signs that convergence is taking place among liberal theologians across the religious spectrum – interestingly around the simple core of Christ’s not unique core message.
Perhaps some atheists have not managed to reject a particular religion/denomination while retaining a belief in God – pity really; after all we devised religions as vehicle for our relationship with God, not the other way round.
Those atheists (like Lee?) who came to atheism by rejecting the fundamentalist evangelical Christian (or other) model of God were right to question doctrine. They conclude, and to a large extent I agree, that the fundamentalist God is not a really good working model of God – it does not stand up to scrutiny.
Atheists then make a choice different from mine. They decide that as the model of God that they have is flawed, there is no God. I decide that just because the model has its faults does not mean there is no God. I reject the model and keep looking for a better one - one that stands up to scrutiny.
Why do I do that? Firstly it is the valid deduction to make. Secondly, the overwhelming weight of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence requires only a small leap of faith to acknowledge there is a God. To dismiss all the evidence – albeit anecdotal and circumstantial – and conclude there is no God requires a leap of faith way too big for me!
Hamba kahle - peace
Thursday, September 25, 2008
At the alters of science, economics and relative morality
Are our cell phones really safe, what about GE foods or new drugs?
The TV reported a court case involving the claimed harm from electromagnetic radiation that was lost on the grounds that it had not been conclusively proven that the specific radiation caused the illness.
Now I find this very interesting. It is of course a product of our enlightened age, where scientific proof is the new God and is the final arbiter on all things. As a society we have accepted this and generally accept it. In doing so have we created the age of pseudo-informed gullibility?
From a public policy perspective seeking conclusive evidence before acting is in my view irresponsible. In a community driven by moral values rather than economic incentives perhaps we could hope for better.
While we now accept that smoking causes cancer it is not understood why in some cases it does not. Indeed the failure of smoking to deliver cancer with scientific repeatability bogged the smoking debate down for years and to some extent still does. Do we have to wait for science stamp of approval before we believe anything?
Of course the true rationalist may argue, for instance, that a “safe” drug later shown to harmful was never proven safe. If causality between cell phone use and neurological damage is eventually established (perhaps at least as well as the smoking – cancer link) then they might argue that the scientists had done a good job in establishing the link and were wise to have been initially cautious, to await proof – they could have been wrong otherwise.
Wrong in what way – scientifically of course, to question the actual morality may require reference to an absolute. After all, why would a company knowingly market a product that may kill off its customers in 10 years – surely the morality of economics is enough to regulate conduct. Why give home loans to people who may not be able to repay them? But wait – it works, the market is correcting itself and all is well, none have been harmed (well not the ones that matter!). Why would a drug company market a diabetes drug that increased the risk of heart attack by 43% - surely there is no economic or moral gain in placing your customers at risk? … but they do have to wait until the risk is conclusively proven.
There are two sides to the proof problem in public health.
First is that we require “proof” when common sense should prevail. Would you sleep under EHV powerlines by choice, or that phone ‘attached’ to your ear all day or continue to take that medication? At some point acting morally to reduce the risk has to be recognised as the preferred option. But it will require a change in the public mindset, a turning away from the God of conclusive proof.
Second in our free market driven world of contestability most research is funded, directly or indirectly, by corporates with a vested interest. That’s good right? They will want to know their products are safe …. Perhaps this provides the reason for the paucity of well funded research in many of the areas of public health – of course if there was a possible pill to counteract the effects of electromagnetic radiation then the science would be there.
Perhaps I have grown cynical? But, while as a society we continue to not believe it because science says it can’t be proven - indeed the very oxygen of atheism – we place ourselves knowingly but unverifiably at risk. While we continue to worship at the alters of science, economics and relative morality perhaps we gain an insight into what lies behind the biblical lesson of the sins of one generation being visited on the next.
Is there a better way?
Hamba kahle - peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
