Help me get this straight

[Zzyzx]

.
Correct me if any of the following are wrong in your case or in the case of Christianity in general

1. You (generic term) deny that a series of small changes can produce big changes over time (evolution and speciation) but accept that an invisible, undetectable "god" poofed the universe into existence.

2. You doubt the honesty and accuracy of scientists worldwide studying anthropology concerning the origin and development of humans but trust the word of unidentified religion promoters who wrote thousands of years ago claiming to know that humans were "created" in present form

3. You dismiss the conclusions of astronomers and astrophysicists who study the universe but accept the claims of preachers who do not study such things and accept the conclusions of ancients who thought the Earth was the center of the solar system and the universe

4. You trust the word of ancient writers who claim that dead bodies came back to life but doubt the word of forensic biologists who say that death is irreversible

5. You propose that scientists and Atheists conspire against religion but do not acknowledge the possibility that religion fanatics conspire to promote your favorite religion

6. You declare that thousands of proposed gods are false but claim to have chosen a favorite that you know is real (with odds of 0.0005 of being correct)

7. You claim that your God is infinitely intelligent but also claim to know about its desires and requirements or its thinking and emotions

8. You critique and criticize the work of scientists who spend decades in advanced study without having studied the subject yourself beyond high school or television level

9. You claim that Christians follow a superior moral code even though statistics on rates of incarceration, divorce and abortion by Christians demonstrate otherwise

10. You accept the benefits provided by science (including modern medicine) but reject any findings that conflict with your chosen religious beliefs

11. You reject tales of competing gods performing superhuman feats but accept tales of your favorite God doing the same things (performing "miracles")

12. You declare that competing religions are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that your chosen religion is real and provides "the one true path to salvation"

13. You realize that humans are imperfect / flawed / "evil" but claim they were created by an omniscient, omnipotent God who could do no wrong and make no mistakes

14. You reject information from geologists that indicates that the Earth is billions of years old but accept opinions of preachers and ancient religion promoters who claim it is thousands of years old

15. You claim that "science does not have all the answers" so religion must be true (God of the Gaps)

16. You demand evidence for anything that conflicts with chosen religious beliefs but furnish no evidence (beyond testimonials and opinions) that support those beliefs

Questions for debate:

A) Do any of the above make sense?

B) Do any of the above NOT apply to your religious beliefs / theological position?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Z, quick first answer....right off the bat..the largest denomination of Christianity, Roman Catholicism, accepts the theory of evolution and does not hold to a literal "6 day creation". They have combined belief in theistic origins, but have concluded that evolution is one of the tools in the Creator's toolbox. Most Catholics, do not view it as an "either or" proposition.

And at first glance, there are several other misconceptions, for one, I don't think many Christians at all believe that the earth is the center of the universe.

I'll get back to ya on some of the others, while others weigh in.

[Pompey]

The Christians who deny evolution are a loud minority (or are at least becoming a minority, I don't have actual statistics on this). I do know that young earth creationists are largely only found in America and 3rd world countries where Christianity is rising. I would guess Christians in Europe are overwhelmingly evolutionist. Of course this is a generalization, but I'm speaking in general.

Most Christians I encounter are not anti-evolution or anti-science, they simply believe the spiritual realm is something in addition to the physical realm, and all things regarding the physical are as scientists generally say. For example, A sophisticated Christian accepts that there are consistent laws of nature, but science cannot answer "why" there are laws of nature at all. Intent behind these laws would be a part of the non-physical realm.

As far as miracles, their claim would be that God, whom is the great intent spoken of and whom resides in the non-physical reality, can influence physical reality on rare and intentional occasions. This doesn't ruin the consistency of the natural laws, as the laws themselves are not producing the miracles somehow, the physical laws are simply on a lower level than than the non-physical law(s) (God).

I've not met a single Christian in my life who believes the earth is the center of the universe. Have you really had someone tell you this?

[scourge99]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Z, quick first answer....right off the bat..the largest denomination of Christianity, Roman Catholicism, accepts the theory of evolution and does not hold to a literal "6 day creation". They have combined belief in theistic origins, but have concluded that evolution is one of the tools in the Creator's toolbox. Most Catholics, do not view it as an "either or" proposition.

And at first glance, there are several other misconceptions, for one, I don't think many Christians at all believe that the earth is the center of the universe.

I'll get back to ya on some of the others, while others weigh in.

No, the Catholic leadership does not accept evolution. They don't reject it outwardly either. They pay lip service to scientific findings but make concerted efforts to avoid discussion on the details by conveniently refusing to address what parts are compatible and incompatible. Its a hazy and ambiguous mess so they can move the goalposts whenever they like or simply refuse to put any up. Evolution is in a state of "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" in the Catholic Church.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 2 by Elijah John]

Thanks EJ, those are the kind of comments I hoped the OP would evoke (or provoke).

Clarification: I do not propose that most Christians accept the geocentric universe -- but, instead, referred to the bible writers as people who DID accept that idea (as some indication that one might not take their ideas too seriously).

If bible writers, supposedly "inspired by God" were that far off regarding the solar system and universe (not to mention causes of diseases, storms, droughts, etc) doesn't that indicate that !) They were speaking from their own ignorance and pretending to speak for God, or 2) Their God either did not know better or communicated poorly with his assigned scribes, or 3) the whole thing is nothing more than myth, legend, fantasy or fiction?

[McCulloch]

6. You declare that thousands of proposed gods are false but claim to have chosen a favorite that you know is real (with odds of 0.0005 of being correct)

How did you work out those odds? Did you make the probably unwarranted assumption that the probabilities of each proposed god is identical?

[Divine Insight]

Correct me if any of the following are wrong in your case or in the case of Christianity in general

I would like to answer your questions specifically from the point of view of my case I had back when I was a "believing" Christian. Of course all this has changed dramatically over time. But I can still give the answers that actually applied to my case when I was a "believing" Christian.

You may notice also that I have been placing the word "believing" in quotes. This is because what I was actually believing and what is actually written in the Bible were two different things. And I hope this becomes clear as I answer your questions.

1. You (generic term) deny that a series of small changes can produce big changes over time (evolution and speciation) but accept that an invisible, undetectable "god" poofed the universe into existence.

I have never denied evolution. Neither did my family, nor was my church openly in denial of evolution although the congregation may have mixed views. Our view was that God may very well have created men via evolution. We were very open to taking the Bible extremely metaphorically and abstractly. Therefore when the Bible says that God created Adam form the dust of the earth it doesn't rule out that his creation process could have been millions of years of evolution. The same goes with the idea that he took a rib from Adam to make Eve. We accepted that this had some sort of metaphorical meaning and wasn't meant to be taken literally.

2. You doubt the honesty and accuracy of scientists worldwide studying anthropology concerning the origin and development of humans but trust the word of unidentified religion promoters who wrote thousands of years ago claiming to know that humans were "created" in present form

Well, as above. I never challenged evolution and therefore I had no problem with science being truth.

3. You dismiss the conclusions of astronomers and astrophysicists who study the universe but accept the claims of preachers who do not study such things and accept the conclusions of ancients who thought the Earth was the center of the solar system and the universe

When I was a Christian I was naive, and quite anthropomorphically focused. I accepted that God's "End Goal" was to create humans. So it made sense to me that the Earth is at least the focus of God's attention if not physically the center of the universe.

I no longer believe this, but I'm just telling you how I was thinking when I was a Christian. It is very easy to be ego-centric and/or human-centric in our thinking and Christianity preys on this natural tendency of human thought.

4. You trust the word of ancient writers who claim that dead bodies came back to life but doubt the word of forensic biologists who say that death is irreversible

To begin with I was taught by seemingly intelligent upstanding adults that the Bible is "God's Word". So I wasn't really thinking in terms of "ancient writers". I was gullible enough and naive enough to simply believe that some "God" was behind the Bible. So I never questioned the motivation of the authors because I was taught that everything they wrote was inspired by God.

Typing this in now sounds extremely naive and stupid, but back when I was a Christian I actually accepted this ideal. And like I say, the main reason I accepted it is because I TRUSTED my parents, extended family, pastors and other people in the congregation of our church to have some clue what they were talking about it. It wasn't until I started to realized that, when confronted honestly, they will all confess they have no clue what might be true, even the pastors themselves ultimately confess that it's all a matter of pure faith.

When I started realizing that nobody has a clue what they are talking about I started to look into it myself by actually reading the Bible in depth. That's when I realized how utterly silly the Bible truly is.

And as far as it being scientifically impossible for dead bodies to be resurrected, that was never a problem for me at that time because we're talking about a God here. Surely if there exists a creator of this universe he could pull off magic that defies anything we could do or even imagine doing.

So the miracles were never a problem for me, and still aren't a problem for me to this very day. I still grant that an all-powerful God could do miracles that defy science. My reason for rejecting the Bible today is not because a God could not do the miracles described in the Bible, but instead IMHO a God would need be utterly stupid to do the miracles described in the Bible. Especially considering that he could easily have done far more intelligent things.

So my current stance is that the Bible is simply too stupid to be from any supposedly intelligent God. And that's the only reason I need to reject it today.

Even today I'm willing to grant a God the ability to do miracles. But if he's an intelligent God he darn well better be doing intelligent miracles, otherwise he's an untrustworthy malevolent jerk, IMHO.

5. You propose that scientists and Atheists conspire against religion but do not acknowledge the possibility that religion fanatics conspire to promote your favorite religion

As I have already stated, even as a Christian I never had a problem with science and never saw science being in opposition with the religion. (at least not until much later after I rejected Christianity) Today I do see incompatibilities, but I didn't see these when I was a Christian.

As far as atheists go, my view as a Christian at that time is that they were simply "lost soul" who may or may not be "saved". In fact, we typically viewed atheists as people who would "come to Christ" eventually. So we didn't even think of them as being bad people overall. In fact, as a Christian it was my understanding that it's not up to us to judge anyone. Other people's relationship with God is there business, not mine.

Also just a note about evangelism. In our church the idea was that we are supposed to spread to the word only to those who have never heard it (which is extremely unlikely to even be necessary in this day and age). There is nothing in the Bible about arguing with people who have heard the word and have rejected it. On the contrary, at that point we are supposed to kick the dust from our sandals and walk away, not argue with them.

The only time that evangelism would actually apply would be if we met someone who was actually interested in learning about Jesus. If they aren't interested, then it's not our job to argue with them.

6. You declare that thousands of proposed gods are false but claim to have chosen a favorite that you know is real (with odds of 0.0005 of being correct)

As a Christian I (and my family) were not sure of any of this. We believed that God may indeed have different relationships with different people. As Christians we believed that we must be saved through Christ. But for non-Christians that may not apply. So we weren't prepared to renounce any other religions as being false. We were only concerned with our relationship with God.

7. You claim that your God is infinitely intelligent but also claim to know about its desires and requirements or its thinking and emotions

Yes, when I was a Christian I believed that God was infinitely intelligent and infinitely wise. But that was BEFORE I actually read the Bible.

When I actually read the Bible I couldn't believe my eyes. The Bible describes God as being extremely unwise and dumber than rocks. At least in the verbatim details. In fact, at this point I became a "Cherry Picking Christian". I was encouraged by my family, pastor, congregation and friends to focus only on the parts of the Bible that make sense to me and worry about the less attractive details later.

So I became a "Cherry Picking Christian" trying to construct a half-decent God from the bible by ignoring the bulk of it. I also opted for the most positive abstractions and metaphors that I could apply to what was left. But this approach became impossible to maintain and even become the cause of animosity between myself and other Christians (not within my family or church). But Christians from other denominations rejected my "Cherry Picking" and positive interpretations in favor of demanding that God truly is unwise and dumber than rocks just as the bible claims. Of course they didn't see this as being unwise and dumber than rocks. They felt that these ignorant things were actually "wise".

In any case, to cut my ramblings short. My I finally concluded that either God is unwise and dumber than rocks, or the Bible simply has nothing to do with God.

I chose the latter conclusion. But instead of tossing my hands up in the air and saying, "There must not be any God", I chose to continue to believe that there might be a God, and it's simply the Bible that's false. Perhaps some other religion has a better picture of God?

I have since found many other religions that have far better pictures of God. This doesn't mean that they are true, or that there is a God. But at least if there is a God they are far more likely to be describing God.

And of course none of those religions have anything to do with the Abrahamic religions. It's not just Christianity, but any religion based on the God of Abraham is dumber than rocks.

8. You critique and criticize the work of scientists who spend decades in advanced study without having studied the subject yourself beyond high school or television level

Science was never a reason for me to reject the Bible (at least not initially) Nor have I ever had a problem with science.

However, today I realized that science does prove that the Bible is false. The Bible claims that mankind's fall from grace is what brought death and imperfections into the world. But that's clearly not the case. Death and imperfections where always around long before humans came to be. And this is true whether they evolved or were magically made from dust.

9. You claim that Christians follow a superior moral code even though statistics on rates of incarceration, divorce and abortion by Christians demonstrate otherwise

I actually woke-up and rejected Christianity in my late teens. So I never really grew old enough to appreciate these finer points. Also, my experience as a Christian was never one of moral arrogance. In fact, even as Christian I admired the obvious moral position of other religions like say Buddhist. Who can argue with the morality of Buddhism? That would be utterly stupid.

So for me, the concept of moral superiority was never even an issue. It's just not something that had ever crossed my mind. I just wasn't thinking in those kind of competitive terms.

10. You accept the benefits provided by science (including modern medicine) but reject any findings that conflict with your chosen religious beliefs

Well, again, when I was a Christian I never rejected science. I never saw science as the enemy of Christianity.

11. You reject tales of competing gods performing superhuman feats but accept tales of your favorite God doing the same things (performing "miracles")

I was young, naive, and wasn't really thinking about the need to reject other religions. I was submersed in Christianity and simply taught that all other religions are nothing more than fairytales. It never dawned on me at the time that Christianity could be a fairytale too.

12. You declare that competing religions are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that your chosen religion is real and provides "the one true path to salvation"

I didn't "choose" Christianity. I was born into it. Chances are that if I hadn't been born into it I would have never given it the time of day.

In hindsight I wish I would have been born into Taoism, Buddhism, or even a nice faction of Wicca. Or perhaps better yet would be to be born into an atheistic society that focuses on science.

13. You realize that humans are imperfect / flawed / "evil" but claim they were created by an omniscient, omnipotent God who could do no wrong and make no mistakes

I believed the stupid tale of the fallen angle Satan. Kind of like kids believe in the Grinch who stole Christmas. Satan is an important part of Christianity because without him God has no excuses.

But of course, as I grew and became wiser I realized that even Satan is no excuse for this God.

14. You reject information from geologists that indicates that the Earth is billions of years old but accept opinions of preachers and ancient religion promoters who claim it is thousands of years old

I never bought into Christian fundamentalism.

However, ironically I do support it today! YES I DO!

I support the ideal that the Bible must necessarily be taken literally verbatim or tossed out entirely.

I think that's a great way to address this religion. And when I accept Christian Fundamentalism it's extremely obvious that Christianity has to be tossed out as being clear false.

15. You claim that "science does not have all the answers" so religion must be true (God of the Gaps)

Again, back when I was a Christian I never saw a contradiction between science and religion. On the contrary, even though I was a Christian at the time I was still quite the scientist as well.

I never had a problem with science. Science was my favorite subject since I was a very young boy. I understood it and I could see the honesty of its methods and I never questioned the truth that science reveals.

16. You demand evidence for anything that conflicts with chosen religious beliefs but furnish no evidence (beyond testimonials and opinions) that support those beliefs

As a Christian I wasn't so much worried about "evidence" to prove the truth of the Bible. I felt that it is is truth it should simply be obvious via the undeniable truth of it's wisdom and intelligence.

But as you already know, I have science discovered that there is no wisdom or intelligence in the Bible. The only thing that is undeniable about the Bible is that it is clearly as false as can be.

No science or physical evidence is even required to see that the Bible is false. It's crystal clear that the Bible is false because no God could be that stupid.

It's that simple.

And if the Bible were true, just the opposite would be true. The Bible would be so wise and intelligent that it would be easy to see that no mortal human could have possibly made it up. And we know that's not true. The Bible is not intelligent. On the contrary it's utterly stupid.

The Bible is the only evidence we need to see that it did not come from any God.

That's how I discovered the Bible is false. Not from any outside sources. The Bible itself has proven to me that it is as false as can possibly be. No science required.

[Zzyzx]

.

How did you work out those odds? Did you make the probably unwarranted assumption that the probabilities of each proposed god is identical?

In the absence of consideration of evidence (when there is none) upon which to base a decision, it seems to make no difference to the chooser what the probabilities of each god would be or if they were equal.

I have never heard of anyone choosing a god based on comparative probabilities; therefore, the choice is a blind guess.

In that case 1 / 2000 (listed proposed gods) = 0.0005

If one actually studied evidence or probability of individual gods the odds would change. However, if one seriously thought about the matter I doubt they would choose any god at all.

[Divine Insight]

However, if one seriously thought about the matter I doubt they would choose any god at all.

Obviously I don't agree with this latter comment.

As far as I'm concerned the probably of Eastern Mysticism being true and the probability of pure secular materialism being true are, at basically equal.

In fact, I would personally argue that the probability actually leans in favor of Eastern Mysticism. And I would be glad to offer my perspective on a comparison of these two philosophies and why I feel that Eastern Mysticism has the edge.

This doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that Eastern mystical philosophies are true. But I think they are at worst, equal in probability of being true as pure secular materialism, and at best they actually have the upper hand.

Although I confess that whether or not they can be said to have the upper hand is open to controversy and personal opinions.

Moreover, the whole topic is extremely complicated by for the simple reason that different people have different views on what things like Eastern Mysticism, and Secular Materialism even mean.

So there's always going to be disagreements and controversy in that "gray area" too.

In other words, all I can really do is give my arguments for why I believe "Eastern Mysticism" make more sense than "Pure Secular Materialism" as I personally understand both of these concepts.

Having said all of the above, I will grant the following:

In terms of explaining precisely "why" things are exactly as they are Pure Secular Material appears to potentially have the upper hand in many ways. I mean, it's really easy to just accept that things are screwed up simply because reality is an "accident". That seems to be a very logical explanation.

However, that explanation fails to address many other issues. Like how purely materialistic objects (like humans) can actually have an experience at all.

Eastern Mysticism seems to offer solutions to both of these riddles. So in that sense it seems to have a slight edge.

So I don't agree that "choosing no God at all" is necessarily the most rational choice in the end.

[Pompey]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

I agree. Pure secularism simply ignores problems they can't currently solve. The question of how anything exists at all, not the least of which being consciousness, is a very profound and serious question that could potentially be outside of the reach of science.

All things being based on probability, I don't find atheism/secularism to be the most probable by any means.

I don't claim to define or know the answer to how anything exists at all, but I don't make the "leap of faith" to assume the answer must be purely material (an answer based on zero, or even conflicting evidence).