The evolution of an atheist.

You have read me correctly. That's what I meant by not reading the Bible like a science text.That's why I queried him calling me a creationist.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

I don't think that either Galileo or Newton thought that the creator was relegated to the natural cause pile as they were both Christian. I sure wish that creationist was the worst thing I've ever been called. To be honest it never occured to me that there was any reason to take offence.

OK. I see what you mean. Well thank you. This may be the first time anyone has spoken highly of my intellect. (Maybe you don't get out enough. )About ID. Certainly I believe in an Intelligent Designer but I'm not a huge fan of the ID movement, as I understand it. I never encounter it here in Canada so I'm not as familiar with it as I could be. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

It's all conjecture but the following from the wiki site makes the most sense to me.

quote:

---

In 1971, Shlomo Pines, a Jewish professor, published a translation of a different version of the Testimonium, quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the tenth century. The manuscript in question appears in the Book of the Title written by Agapius the historian, a 10th-century Arabic Christian and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis Bambyce (Manbij). Agapius' version of the Testimonium reads:

​

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"

---

A non-intelligent designer would be an oxy-moron. Any designer requires intelligence no matter how small or how large the intelligence. A sparrow can design, (a nest for example) a rock can't. Creationism certainly requires a designer. I still say that there either is a designer or there isn't.

OK sort of. Philosopher's still refer to what they call evidence on which they can base their premise.The following quote is from this site. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

quote:

---

The concept of evidence is central to both epistemology and the philosophy of science. Of course, ‘evidence’ is hardly a philosopher's term of art: it is not only, or even primarily, philosophers who routinely speak of evidence, but also lawyers and judges, historians and scientists, investigative journalists and reporters, as well as the members of numerous other professions and ordinary folk in the course of everyday life. The concept of evidence would thus seem to be on firmer pre-theoretical ground than various other concepts which enjoy similarly central standing within philosophy. (Contrast, for example, the epistemologist's quasi-technical term ‘epistemic justification’.)

---

I agree though that philospher's mean something quite different when they speak of evidence. Science it seems as often as not will lead to an answer that is completely non-intuitive, (such as QM), whereas I can't see that happening in philosophy, which I suppose, would make the evidence less rigorous.

I have no problem with any of that. By the way. Don't you ever sleep? It looks like you've been up all night.

I think that if I had all that physics in my head I'd have trouble sleeping too.

Certainly the focus has been on science and it's applications in the last couple of centuries but I can't see philosophy as being the problem. Bikerman was right when he talks about science not reflecting common sense. I think that is what has caused the erosion of confidence in empiricism. Try telling most people that the time for the people in the car driving by is going more slowly than it is for them and they look at you like you have two heads and yet that science is 100 years old. The thing is though, that statement pretty much assumes that all religion is strictly a human invention. If you are wrong and there is a god or gods then the end result of perfect theology is just as true as is perfect science, and certainly worthwhile studying.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I don't see it that way. Another surprise eh We talked about the fact that science doesn't agree with common sense. I think that reason can lead us to a choice of religion. (I of course agree that the surrounding culture tends to cloud our reason.)The world does appear to be designed. I believe that this implies a designer. I cant prove that to be the case but my fallible reason leads me to this conclusion. It makes sense to me that any designer (s) would have an on-going interest in what he/she/it/they created. Now that Ive gotten this far Im inclined to believe that seeing as how I have the ability to reason and the imagination to contemplate the nature of this designer I believe that it is reasonable to believe, (I know thats a lot of believes‘ ), that I can at least learn something of the nature of the designer.There does seem to be an underlying code in our lives. We seem to instinctively recognize fairness and justice. We obviously can and do ignore this code out of self interest, but I think that most of us recognize that there is something there that calls us to something other than a life that is completely about self interest.So when you say that there is no way to tell whether a particular theology is better than another one I suggest that this is a good place to start. Which religion has the premise that best promotes an altruistic life style and to what degree. Which religion eschews power for the sake of power? Also of course it doesnt mean that any one religion has a lock on all truth and that the others are all wrong. I think that that all modern religions advocate altruism to one degree or another.Of course all that only gets you so far and to get from there to Christianity takes a lot more study and a leap of faith. In my case I found that after I became a Christian over the years things happened that I subjectively believe only happened because I seemed to have a connection with God that I didnt have before.As far as Christianity is concerned I think that there is some extremely bad theology around with the prosperity gospel being at the top of the list. I remember hearing it preached one time that there was a lot of wealth around and God would rather that the Christians have it than the non-Christians. I nearly threw up. The point is that there is considerable disagreement amongst Christians themselves.Anyway Ive rambled on here so Ill just finish with listing three very basic books on Christian apologetics that have produced and solidified my Christian beliefs.
Mere Christianity by CS Lewis
Simply Christian by N T Wright
The Reason for God by Timothy KellerOn basic theology I found the best book to be Surprised by Hope by N T Wright.And when it comes to reconciling science and faith; I found John Lennoxs book Gods Undertaker V Has Science Killed God? fascinating. In that field I also have books by John Polkinghorne, Francis Collins, Alister McGrath and others.I just list these books, (all Brits by the way except for Keller and Collins) to give you an idea of the road I have travelled and what has formed my thinking, and hopefully to make the point that it isnt just blind faith and that we can use our reason to come to conclusions about what it is that we believe.

I have no problem with that. I should say that I don't know enough to argue for or against evolution but I'm prepared to accept it as the majority of biologists are in agreement in principle. I agree that there is a naturalistic argument to be made for what exists. I do believe that the laws of physics and biology account for how the earth evolved and how it continues but whether that is due to an external intelligence or not is the question. I believe that it is. The naturalistic explanation for the scientifically determined fine tuning of the universe seems to be the anthropic principle. There seem to be various ways of dealing with this including a multi-verse theory. These are all theories and may or may not at some point be proven. However, if you want to follow Occam's razor it seems to me that this simplest explanation is that God did it. It would simply answer all the questions instead of theorizing the idea of many, if not infinite parallel universes exist, and we just happen to be in the right one. (That is my understanding so if I have it wrong I have a hunch you'll feel free to correct me. ) Why should it be empirical testable. We're talking of something spiritual not something material. We have the ability to make moral choices. If everything was as cut and dry as you would like, there wouldn't be much of a choice to be made. I believe that faith is an important choice. However, I see the NT as being clear that what we are to have faith in is the message of love, forgiveness, justice, truth etc. Obviously you would know the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25. There is nothing in there about the righteous being the ones that have all the correct theology. The righteous are those that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners etc. Also look at Matthew 7 where He says that it is those that do what he says that are part of the kingdom of heaven. He then goes on to say that there will be those who say that they are performing various deeds in His name and He will tell them to leave and that He never knew them. I remember when I read the Book of Buddah it struck me as to just how close the message with that espoused by Jesus. Love your enemy was something that was common to both and something that was uncommon in other world views that I know of. I'm quite prepared to accept that the original Buddha was a prophet of God. I've addressed my views on this a number of times on this forum so I apologise to those who have heard it all before. C S Lewis wrote this.

quote:

---

Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology — the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

​

Miracles Ch 15 CS Lewis

---

The command to love your neighbour as yourself came from the OT. The point there is that not all of the OT is filled with the kind of thing you are talking about. My view is that huge chunks of the OT are about the history of the Jews as told from their perspective. I believe that when it says that God told them to go down and kill every man woman and child that one of two things was going on. Either they believed it and completely misunderstood what they were being told, or the more likely idea that they misused God as a way to justify their atrocities.Jesus said love God and love your neighbour. I believe that we love God by loving what I believe are his attributes as expressed through the ministry of Jesus.As far as not setting aside one letter of the law I believe that what Jesus would be referring to was this statement that he made in Matthew 22: "37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."We also know that he refuted many of the laws around food and Sabbath. Some are - some aren't. Probably the only reasonable test would be to compare them before and after but even that wouldn't be conclusive. I have always been able in my mind to separate in my mind the people in the church from God. I only have to look inside myself to know that. (Basically you have just rephrased the golden rule.) I agree completely but the question is why we believe that to be true. It makes a lot more sense to believe that if there is some greater purpose to our existence than if all that exists is what is apparent to us. (That of course is just my opinion.) I have read 4 of Polkinghorne's books and went to a series of 5 lectures he gave at the University of Victoria a couple of years ago. I have to admit I do find him persuasive.One way in which he profoundly changed my thinking was about how he sees God relates to us in time. He believes, as now do I, that God, by either necessity or choice, created a world of what he calls becoming. That is, that God doesn't know what I am going to have for lunch tomorrow. I guess the best metaphor would be our own raising of kids. We know about them now and in the past but we don't know what their future holds. We relate to them in the now. Polkinghorne has convinced me that this is also true for God's relationship with us. Gerald Schroeder also views it this way as near as I can understand but from a Jewish perspective.

My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the only evidence thatyou view as admissable is empirical evidence. I view the fact that we exist as evidence. I view the Bible as evidence. It isn't evidence that I can prove but it is a place to start. I think that there are different layers of knowing. I know we disagree, on what constitutes evidence.

It does answer the free will question but it is also consistent with scripture. There are many instances in the OT where God's actions are dependent on His created beings. The whole story of Noah is one obvious example. Not necessarily. The universe and this world was created over time according to both science and scripture. Living things came later also according to both. I agree that the deistic position is possible in that God created and allowed it to evolve on its own but personally I favour the idea that God intervened in the evolutionary process. I guess it's like building a car. You know what it is going to finish up like but you still put it together one piece at a time. He knew we would evolve because it was His on-going project. At some point along the way He got us to the point that we became sentient beings with a knowledge of good and evil, with the freedom to choose. I agree that it is far from a perfect metaphor. My point was that essentially we give our kids guidelines to work with but we don't know how they will turn out. I guess a God that is wise enough to create all that we can perceive and give me life is worth calling God. How can we even measure the intelligence required to do that and from our perspective it likely is close enough to infinite that we might as well call it that. My answer would be yes. We did touch on this earlier in this thread. Time is the way we experience change and with our five senses we only know of one way of perceiving change and that is by what we call time. We know that this planet had a beginning and we know it will have an end. God was there at the beginning and he'll be there at the end whenever that it is. The alpha and the omega. Maybe however in another dimension of time, with maybe more and/or different senses change, may be perceived in an entirely different manner and infinity will be the norm. Who knows. We aren't capable of answering all the questions. I do know that when I get to the next life I am definitely going to all the lectures. I do want to reiterate. This is just my opinion on things and my opinions are evolving, and will no doubt continue to evolve.

I absolutely agree with the separation of church and state if for no other reason that if the church becomes a route to power then it will inevitably become corrupt. However, as I believe that there is more truth to be gleaned than just from what we can learn from the scientific method. We just can’t know it in the same way. Just as we should keep looking for truth through science we should keep looking for truth through theology. Fair enough but in the end God exists or He doesn’t. I do want to be clear I most certainly don’t believe that if you don’t get your theology right that you will be damned to hell. I believe that all our paths are mis-aligned. It is just a matter of degree. I don’t know if your path is more or less mis-aligned than my own. I do believe that my own life is less mis-aligned because of my Christian faith. I’m not convinced that happiness is the goal. Frankly I prefer the term joy or even contentment and the measure of my joy and/or contentment should be measured by the joy and/or contentment that I bring to others. I just wish I lived up to that. I believe that at its most basic Christianity is about taking the focus off of the self and putting it on the rest of God’s creation which of course includes our fellow man.Many non-Christians do this far more effectively that do many Christians such as myself. Just the same I believe that the job of all mankind is to bring God’s love, justice, forgiveness, peace, truth etc to the world. As I see it Christians have been given the task of trying to be the carriers of that message. It doesn’t mean that we are any better at it than anyone else, and frankly I am of the opinion that the church is a major disappointment to God in most cases.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Absolutely Essentially yes but I don't think that it would be a great idea to marry someone who adhered to a radically different life style than your own because of their theology. Can you go into more detail. For instance, where else would you suggest looking. I can't agree with that. I would agree with your statement if I knew without doubt that all sacred texts are nothing more than something that someone dreamed. For myself, I do believe that the Biblical writers were inspired by God. That doesn't mean that it was word by word, but I do believe that we should take it seriously and that there is much to be learned from it. I realize that by not taking it literally, but seriously, means that it requires a lot more study than it would otherwise. What is historical? What is metaphorical? What changed from the OT to the NT? The questions go on and on.On the other hand I agree that we shouldn't allow the baggage that we pick up along the way from any source to prevent us from learning something new which requires us to adjust our beliefs. Frankly there is nothing to appreciate. That has been the position of people from Augustine to Lewis, and currently people like N T Wright. The view that it isn't getting our theology right that makes us right with God is solidly scriptural. Thanks for that. I would add though, that I'm a Christian because I fervently believe the basic tenets of the Christian faith. I have no doubt that there are many people with other beliefs that lead a far more, so called, Christian life style than I do. In the end I do believe that there is a final truth on the matter and that some people are closer to that truth than others. The point being, is that I think it is more than just what works for me or you. However, I certainly agree with you that it isn't about judging one another. I'll leave that to God. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.