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?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 49 by Zzyzx]

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"

Can either of you tell me a secular area of life where this is not true?

Would you like your doctor to follow the true path of medicine and study for six+ years in university or are you really OK with naturopaths and homeopaths?

Are you going to tell an elite sports person that there were other ways than hard work and discipline?

Why are you both so surprised that people think there is one true path when the evidence for such a notion in secular areas of life is so great?

It just feels like you are both wanting there to be no wrong answers. How is that working out for our children?

Unfortunately, EJ, the Fundamentalist POV is the most vocal and usually the most attention-getting – in real life (particularly here in the bible belt) as well as in our threads. Moderate and Liberal Christians seem less inclined toward "in your face with my beliefs" and less inclined to "slay the heathens" in debate or in everyday life.

You don't see yourself that way?

[David the apologist]

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

Most of them need correction, and the ones that don't need qualification.

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.

While I do indeed believe that God created the universe ex nihilo (though I doubt that either He or the universe produced a "poof" sound effect at the time), I happen to be an evolutionary creationist, thank you very much.

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, I have philosophical reasons for believing that there are immaterial aspects of human thought, so I suspect that there was some "supernatural" (if the term "natural" has any non-trivial meaning) factor in addition to the social and biological ones that the anthropologists have identified. However, I don't think that biblical data (which I do take seriously) justify the move of summarily dismissing Australiopithecus, Homo erectus, et al. as unrelated to the origin of humanity, especially given the genetic data connecting our DNA to Chimpanzee DNA.

When it comes to a passage of scripture as consistently difficult to interpret as Genesis, any additional data we can get is worth taking into account.

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

While I do accept the authors of scripture when they discus their areas of expertise (God's activity in history), I take what they have to say on the structure of the cosmos with a grain of salt.

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

This is true. However, the methodological limitations of forensic biologists are such that they cannot take into account any factor that they can neither observe directly nor control to produce effects that they can. God is in neither category. And since I have philosophical reasons for believing in God, I have rational reasons for qualifying the findings of forensic biologists.

5. You propose that scientists and Atheists conspire against religion

No. No I don't. Atheists appropriate the findings of science in order to publically and openly attack religion. Sometimes atheists join with other atheists, but they have the best of intentions, so their wrong-headed irreligionism can hardly be labelled "conspiracy." And wherever religious leaders propagate falsehoods, similar considerations apply.

People can be biased and wrong, but insincerity is relatively rare. In the cases where dishonesty is connected to an avowed commitment to a religion (or to irreligion), the commitment to the religion (or to irreligion) is sincere, and the dishonesty is due to a "the ends justify the means" attitude.

As a general rule, if one wants to claim that a religious/irreligious movement is some kind of conspiratorial priestcraft/secular analogue thereof, we need movement-specific data indicating insincerity on the part of the founder(s).

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)

While this one is technically correct, it fails to take the nature of most versions of paganism into account. Paganism is very prone to syncretism: gods in one pantheon can be fused together, gods with similar roles in different pantheons can be identified, pantheons can merge... Left to themselves, the "pagans" would eventually produce a universal pantheon, and all nations would worship the same gods.

The upshot of this is that Zeus no more competes with Thor than he competes with Poseidon.

Moreover, as both modern India and ancient Rome prove, most philosophical religions (such as Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, and the various philosophical schools of Hinduism) can be effectively integrated with popular mythology - the gods fit into dualistic, monistic, pluralistic, and participatory systems.

So, if we bracket out the religions only tangentially related to gods (and with the exception of Hinduism, that's all of the major competitors of the Abrahamic religions) for the time being, we have four religious options: polytheism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Which means that even when the non-theistic religions are taken into account, my probability of correctness (prior to historical investigation of Christian claims) is on the order of 0.1, contrary to your initial calculation.

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

I have never claimed to know anything about the mode of God's consciousness. He's made His standards pretty clear, but being infinite, how exactly intelligence and will are implemented in Him is beyond our powers of investigation.

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

I happen to be working towards a BS in Biochemistry at the moment, and am working with one of my professors on a project involving photodynamic therapy. I may not be an expert, but I daresay that I'm more knowledgeable on the subject than most of my interlocutors here.

Perhaps this is related to the fact that I'm an evolutionary creationist.

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 have not said that, and I don't think that the statistics tell the whole story.

I would say that the Christian moral code is closer to being correct than any of the secular alternatives to it, and that Christians are held to a higher standard than those who don't know the truth.

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

I've always felt that this argument is stupid. I accept the benefits provided by long division as well, but I recognize that I can't use it to perform addition, and that addition is no less beneficial for that fact.

You see, science and religion have non-overlapping magisterial. Science deals with what we can observe directly or control to produce effects we can observe directly. That actually leaves both the most abstract questions (questions of ontology) and the most concrete questions (questions of history) well outside of the domain of science. From the Christian perspective, history and ontology are infinitely more relevant to theology than science is. In fact, I daresay that science isn't relevant at all to Christian theology. We've made do with it, and we've made do without it.

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

Not necessarily. Christianity would be willing to countenance the claim that pagan gods are actually demons, and that they occasionally perform supernatural feats in order to deceive the unwary.

I see no reason to think that much of the divine activity in the Iliad, for example, is implausible. If the Iliad were as well preserved as the NT, and if Homer had risked the fate of Hector by telling the latter's story, I'd be willing to say that there was some kind of supernatural phenomenon going on.

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"

And you declare that all religions competing with secularism (and if there were no competition going on, there would be no need for a "secular counterweight") are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that secularism is true and provides "the one true path out of superstition and ignorance."

Sauce for the goose...

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

Is there any reason to hold God responsible for moral evil when it's the humans who are doing it? He created humans, but He didn't make them do evil. They chose to do that.

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

No I don't.

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

No I don't. I move from "science doesn't have all the answers" to the various supplements of common sense perceptual experience, introspection, and metaphysical argumentation. Combined, these allow me to argue for the existence of God without there needing to be any "gaps" in the scientific picture to fit Him in.

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

Well, when it comes down to it, I only have testimonials to go on when it comes to what science has discovered. Textbooks and scientific papers are very specific testimonies/syntheses from testimonials. When it comes to the "materials and methods" and the "results" section of a paper, we have to take the authors' word for it. All things considered, I don't see why testimonials should be anything other than the paradigmatic source of knowledge.

[Hatuey]

Well, when it comes down to it, I only have testimonials to go on when it comes to what science has discovered. Textbooks and scientific papers are very specific testimonies/syntheses from testimonials. When it comes to the "materials and methods" and the "results" section of a paper, we have to take the authors' word for it. All things considered, I don't see why testimonials should be anything other than the paradigmatic source of knowledge.

Yes, if all you're doing is reading the paper, but science asks that you do more than that; nay, demands it. The whole point of including the methods utilized is so that the experiment can be duplicated and a BETTER model generated that explains the phenomena just as accurately (or better) and explains more about the nature of reality than the preceding model. Science's dogma is process that rests on the assumption that every model must be, in time, better defined or replaced.

The difference between scientific "testimonials" and testimonials for the metaphysical/nondetectable is the manipulative. In science, the testimonial asks that others seek alternate theories for certain observed processes/"behavior" so that better understanding of reality arise. Certainly others are invited to duplicate the experiments and challenge the methodology or the findings. Testimonials for the metaphysical do not include manipulatives, nor do they ask that more precise or better models be found.

Testimonials of scientific process and testimonials of metaphysical claims cannot be weighed on the same scales for obvious reasons, regardless of a "measure of faith" being utilized twoards belief in both cases. Science does not put forth testimonials where it does not assume duplication of experiment is possible.

[Zzyzx]

.

While I do accept the authors of scripture when they discus their areas of expertise (God's activity in history),

What, exactly, establishes the "expertise" of unidentified ancient writers concerning God or God's activities? There is no assurance that they knew any more about gods than anyone else. Their "expertise" may have been in promoting a religion.

However, the methodological limitations of forensic biologists are such that they cannot take into account any factor that they can neither observe directly nor control to produce effects that they can.

Agreed. There is no known way to study what cannot be detected directly or indirectly.

God is in neither category. And since I have philosophical reasons for believing in God, I have rational reasons for qualifying the findings of forensic biologists.

Philosophical reasons may satisfy some people. Others of us prefer to rely upon actual study and search for real world answers.

Atheists appropriate the findings of science in order to publically and openly attack religion.

Perhaps if that statement began with "Some" it would be accurate.

Another way to think about the situation: Atheism (as defined by Atheists) is simply "I do not believe in gods." Nothing more. When Atheists "attack" Theism / Theists they are challenging claims of knowledge made concerning invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities and events.

Sometimes atheists join with other atheists, but they have the best of intentions, so their wrong-headed irreligionism can hardly be labelled "conspiracy."

Who is qualified and empowered to declare that something is "wrong-headed irreligionism"?

What, exactly, indicates that opposition to religious claims and stories is wrong (besides the opinions of Theists)?

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)

While this one is technically correct, it fails to take the nature of most versions of paganism into account. Paganism is very prone to syncretism: gods in one pantheon can be fused together, gods with similar roles in different pantheons can be identified, pantheons can merge... Left to themselves, the "pagans" would eventually produce a universal pantheon, and all nations would worship the same gods.

Gods in Christianity are "fused together" to create the trinity / triad concept and avoid polytheism.

The upshot of this is that Zeus no more competes with Thor than he competes with Poseidon.

Whether the various hypothetical gods compete with one another is immaterial since Christianity has set itself in competition with all of them individually and collectively.

Moreover, as both modern India and ancient Rome prove, most philosophical religions (such as Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, and the various philosophical schools of Hinduism) can be effectively integrated with popular mythology - the gods fit into dualistic, monistic, pluralistic, and participatory systems.

Is Christianity NOT integrated with popular mythology?

So, if we bracket out the religions only tangentially related to gods (and with the exception of Hinduism, that's all of the major competitors of the Abrahamic religions) for the time being, we have four religious options: polytheism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Which means that even when the non-theistic religions are taken into account, my probability of correctness (prior to historical investigation of Christian claims) is on the order of 0.1, contrary to your initial calculation.

The one in ten chance of picking the right god requires eliminating the vast majority of gods without sound basis.

However, even if the 10% chance of picking the right one WAS correct, confidently assuming that one has guessed the right choice from ten seems overly optimistic (or foolish). If we have a one-in-ten chance of avoiding a serious automobile accident by choice of routes wouldn't we be foolish to be confident that we had chosen the right route?

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

I happen to be working towards a BS in Biochemistry at the moment, and am working with one of my professors on a project involving photodynamic therapy. I may not be an expert, but I daresay that I'm more knowledgeable on the subject than most of my interlocutors here.

Commendable

Some of your "interlocutors" here have studied sciences far beyond undergraduate level. One I know for sure has an undergraduate major and minor in sciences, a Master's degree in Earth science, and dissertation stage of a Ph.D. in science.

A Bachelor's degree in any science qualifies one for technician positions, Master's degree for some research, and a Ph.D. (newly acquired) for beginning stages of serious advanced research (with a lot of learning yet to do).

Perhaps this is related to the fact that I'm an evolutionary creationist.

Does that ever cause cognitive dissonance (serious question)? In purest form the two seem to preclude one another. How can they be reconciled?

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 have not said that, and I don't think that the statistics tell the whole story.

What, exactly, is the "whole story" that the statistics on incarceration, divorce, and abortion do not tell? Attempts are often made here to "explain" or excuse the large percentage of Christians involved in each – usually with the tired cliche "They are not REAL Christians if they do such things", which opens a can of worms for them.

I would say that the Christian moral code is closer to being correct than any of the secular alternatives to it, and that Christians are held to a higher standard than those who don't know the truth.

A superior moral code "Principles" is that of Unitarian Universalism – which is decidedly NOT Christian and is not even religious (but welcomes those of any theistic position including Atheists and Agnostics – and any lifestyle including homosexuality). Www.uua.org

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"

And you declare that all religions competing with secularism (and if there were no competition going on, there would be no need for a "secular counterweight") are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that secularism is true and provides "the one true path out of superstition and ignorance."

Correction: I make no such declaration.

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

Well, when it comes down to it, I only have testimonials to go on when it comes to what science has discovered. Textbooks and scientific papers are very specific testimonies/syntheses from testimonials. When it comes to the "materials and methods" and the "results" section of a paper, we have to take the authors' word for it. All things considered, I don't see why testimonials should be anything other than the paradigmatic source of knowledge.

If you continue in biochemistry you will begin to conduct studies yourself that will confirm or refute what others say – and will learn the value of "convergence of evidence" based upon independent / disconnected research conducted by many (often opposing) sources. That is VERY different from accepting testimonials, which are unverified / unverifiable.

The difference can be illustrated by comparing acceptance of the vast amount of research in forensic biology worldwide that indicates that death is irreversible vs. accepting unverifiable testimonials of unknown writers promoting a certain religion claiming that dead bodies come back to life. Which would be a rational choice if one was not preconditioned to accept the latter?

[David the apologist]

Well, when it comes down to it, I only have testimonials to go on when it comes to what science has discovered. Textbooks and scientific papers are very specific testimonies/syntheses from testimonials. When it comes to the "materials and methods" and the "results" section of a paper, we have to take the authors' word for it. All things considered, I don't see why testimonials should be anything other than the paradigmatic source of knowledge.

Yes, if all you're doing is reading the paper, but science asks that you do more than that; nay, demands it. The whole point of including the methods utilized is so that the experiment can be duplicated and a BETTER model generated that explains the phenomena just as accurately (or better) and explains more about the nature of reality than the preceding model. Science's dogma is process that rests on the assumption that every model must be, in time, better defined or replaced.

But the fact of the matter is that the average person doesn't take part in any of these experiments, and therefore that their only source of information on scientific subjects is testimony. Moreover, most scientists don't have the time to double-check all of the testimony of their colleagues, and thus have to just accept them "on faith" as it were.

The difference between scientific "testimonials" and testimonials for the metaphysical/nondetectable is the manipulative. In science, the testimonial asks that others seek alternate theories for certain observed processes/"behavior" so that better understanding of reality arise. Certainly others are invited to duplicate the experiments and challenge the methodology or the findings. Testimonials for the metaphysical do not include manipulatives, nor do they ask that more precise or better models be found.

Well, seeing as the metaphysical does not lend itself to manipulation, we'll just have to make do with the non-manipulative methods of metaphysics.

As for "more precise models," metaphysics does involve competition of arguments. If a better argument can be found, metaphysical concepts can be abandoned. The real difference is that metaphysics draws on the data of daily experience first and foremost, taking that as its starting point and its most important source of illumination. Science is always looking for as-of-yet unfound data on the periphery of our epistemic reach. Metaphysics tries to make sense of our most immediate data (and thus our most certain data) first, then applies those insights to any new data that may come up.

If you think about it, that's actually parallel to what science does. Models rarely get replaced, but instead are fine-tuned. Relativity and Quantum theory came after classical physics, and the concepts and categories of classical physics ("energy," "momentum," "force," etc.) were retained and reapplied as necessary in order to do justice to the new data. Any model that doesn't replicate the predictions of classical physics when applied to normal conditions was rejected, and the concepts and categories of classical physics were refined, not rejected.

Testimonials of scientific process and testimonials of metaphysical claims cannot be weighed on the same scales for obvious reasons, regardless of a "measure of faith" being utilized twoards belief in both cases. Science does not put forth testimonials where it does not assume duplication of experiment is possible.

Oh really? What about when scientists use data to make models of, say, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs? That's not going to be replicated. As much as the methods they used to construct the model can be duplicated, the correctness of the model cannot feasibly be checked against a fresh asteroid strike of comparable scale. And yet the model can be justifiably accepted as accurate.

Any historical event is impossible to replicate, and any metaphysical thesis is impossible to test by manipulated experiment. But unless you can find a way to do history and metaphysics by "the scientific method," I don't see why that should be regarded as a reason to be skeptical of the deliverances of history and metaphysics.

[Zzyzx]

.

But the fact of the matter is that the average person doesn't take part in any of these experiments, and therefore that their only source of information on scientific subjects is testimony. Moreover, most scientists don't have the time to double-check all of the testimony of their colleagues, and thus have to just accept them "on faith" as it were.

One who is studying science should be aware that their professors (and colleagues) do NOT merely accept "on faith" what they are told. Instead, they "research the literature" to determine what multiple independent, disconnected researchers have found regarding conclusions expressed. There is a vast difference between accepting a testimonial and accepting what has been tested repeatedly and not disproved.

If any significant number of credible independent, disconnected sources dispute a conclusion (and show their evidence), it should NOT be accepted.

If a significant number of credible independent, disconnected sources confirm the findings or conclusions (and show their evidence), it may rationally be provisionally accepted.

If one doubts the validity of conclusions they are free to show contrary evidence.

That is part of the "Scientific Method"

Well, seeing as the metaphysical does not lend itself to manipulation, we'll just have to make do with the non-manipulative methods of metaphysics.

"Metaphysics" is purely a mental exercise. Imagination has no bounds.

As for "more precise models," metaphysics does involve competition of arguments. If a better argument can be found, metaphysical concepts can be abandoned. The real difference is that metaphysics draws on the data of daily experience first and foremost, taking that as its starting point and its most important source of illumination.

"Daily experience" typically refers to personal mental episodes that cannot be verified as anything more than imagination.

Science is always looking for as-of-yet unfound data on the periphery of our epistemic reach.

Agreed

Metaphysics tries to make sense of our most immediate data (and thus our most certain data) first, then applies those insights to any new data that may come up.

Human imagination is a wonderful thing. Sometimes it is pure fantasy and other times it may lead to new scientific concepts.

If you think about it, that's actually parallel to what science does. Models rarely get replaced, but instead are fine-tuned. Relativity and Quantum theory came after classical physics, and the concepts and categories of classical physics ("energy," "momentum," "force," etc.) were retained and reapplied as necessary in order to do justice to the new data. Any model that doesn't replicate the predictions of classical physics when applied to normal conditions was rejected, and the concepts and categories of classical physics were refined, not rejected.

Some scientific models are modified, others are rejected.

For instance, the geocentric solar system / universe model was REJECTED and replaced as new information became available. That is NOT a "refinement."

What about when scientists use data to make models of, say, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs? That's not going to be replicated. As much as the methods they used to construct the model can be duplicated, the correctness of the model cannot feasibly be checked against a fresh asteroid strike of comparable scale. And yet the model can be justifiably accepted as accurate.

There are limitations upon what past natural events can be duplicated. In the case of some past asteroid strikes there would likely be few, if any, left to analyze the results. However, we can study the evidence left by past strikes and compare them to the effects of more modest modern strikes.

Any historical event is impossible to replicate, and any metaphysical thesis is impossible to test by manipulated experiment. But unless you can find a way to do history and metaphysics by "the scientific method," I don't see why that should be regarded as a reason to be skeptical of the deliverances of history and metaphysics.

Historians typically recognize and acknowledge that their knowledge of past events is incomplete and often questionable. We do not know, for example, exactly what Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address (of five or so versions available).

Metaphysics (branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology) is purely speculative.

[Hatuey]

But the fact of the matter is that the average person doesn't take part in any of these experiments, and therefore that their only source of information on scientific subjects is testimony. Moreover, most scientists don't have the time to double-check all of the testimony of their colleagues, and thus have to just accept them "on faith" as it were.

Yes, but scientific breakthroughs are made by challenging that testimony and coming up with better explanation. It's the engine of science. A scientists looks at the models put forth by his colleague, evaluates the data and "testimony," and either finds it consistent and sees no reason to doubt it at the moment when considering all previously proven science, or he uses that testimony to falsify it or some component of it, and makes a breakthrough. You're pretending that the two testimonies are similar and they aren't because of the process to which they are bound. You're not seriously stating that a testimony in a scientific journal, that does not break any known laws of science, is equally plausible as testimony in metaphysical belief, are you? That's preposterous, and you know that, if you're honest with yourself. An honest person would not call those two processes "faith."

Well, seeing as the metaphysical does not lend itself to manipulation, we'll just have to make do with the non-manipulative methods of metaphysics.

As for "more precise models," metaphysics does involve competition of arguments. If a better argument can be found, metaphysical concepts can be abandoned. The real difference is that metaphysics draws on the data of daily experience first and foremost, taking that as its starting point and its most important source of illumination. Science is always looking for as-of-yet unfound data on the periphery of our epistemic reach. Metaphysics tries to make sense of our most immediate data (and thus our most certain data) first, then applies those insights to any new data that may come up.

If you think about it, that's actually parallel to what science does. Models rarely get replaced, but instead are fine-tuned. Relativity and Quantum theory came after classical physics, and the concepts and categories of classical physics ("energy," "momentum," "force," etc.) were retained and reapplied as necessary in order to do justice to the new data. Any model that doesn't replicate the predictions of classical physics when applied to normal conditions was rejected, and the concepts and categories of classical physics were refined, not rejected.

Nope. Science uses experiments to validate or falsify. Metaphysics doesn't, it simply weighs concepts as derived and defined by language. Science runs electronics and explains process accurately, metaphysics has no idea where it might be wrong or right because there is nothing to measure other than ideas as derived and defined by language.

]Oh really? What about when scientists use data to make models of, say, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs? That's not going to be replicated. As much as the methods they used to construct the model can be duplicated, the correctness of the model cannot feasibly be checked against a fresh asteroid strike of comparable scale. And yet the model can be justifiably accepted as accurate.

And that's a theory up for debate. Science isn't asking you to believe it; science would prefer you not believe and come up with a better explanation, but that would just make for a better theory in that the new theory's model would, by default, use more accurate, known science. That event will never be proven or disproven, but it's CONSISTENT with science. Nothing remotely close to "faith" or "belief through testimony." A ridiculous suggestion.

Any historical event is impossible to replicate, and any metaphysical thesis is impossible to test by manipulated experiment. But unless you can find a way to do history and metaphysics by "the scientific method," I don't see why that should be regarded as a reason to be skeptical of the deliverances of history and metaphysics.

Yes, historical events cannot be replicated, but you will notice I said "the same sort." When we do experiments with molecules and atoms, we get consistent results as proved by the computer you use about a million times a second. Metaphysics doesn't give us billions and trillions of proofs that are provided with a cell phone every day to the user. Metaphysics suggests, and no measurements can declare their suggestions true or false. Belief in a metaphysical idea is as good as belief in any invisible, undetectable (and therefore, irrelevant) idea.

I'm not saying that science is better than metaphysics. I am saying that a certain level of belief of testimony in science is a completely different process than belief in metaphysical testimony. One allows for measurement that, so far, seem consistent with repeated experiment; the other doesn't allow any measurement because it is invisible and undetectable and no measurements can be performed making all hypotheses equally valid or preposterous. Science may rely on a form of "faith" until the idea is challenged by someone wishing to further define the principle, but only as an intermediate space between suggested hypothesis and design of experiment. IN metaphysics, there's nothing but faith which can be used on any idea--as humans prove across the globe.

[David the apologist]

.

While I do accept the authors of scripture when they discus their areas of expertise (God's activity in history),

What, exactly, establishes the "expertise" of unidentified ancient writers concerning God or God's activities? There is no assurance that they knew any more about gods than anyone else. Their "expertise" may have been in promoting a religion.

Well, they're certainly more likely to be in touch with events 4000-2000 years ago than the average internet skeptic is. The chain of information is a heck of a lot shorter.

From an apologetic perspective, what the writers of the OT have to say can be vindicated if what the NT writers have to say about Jesus can be regarded as generally accurate. The details would take extensive argumentation, but this is neither the time nor the place for discussing them.

However, the methodological limitations of forensic biologists are such that they cannot take into account any factor that they can neither observe directly nor control to produce effects that they can.

Agreed. There is no known way to study what cannot be detected directly or indirectly.

There is, however, a way to study what can be detected indirectly, regardless of whether or not it can be controlled. We may not be able to learn much about such a thing, but it's entirely on the cards that we might be able to determine that it's capable of something analogous to intentional action.

God is in neither category. And since I have philosophical reasons for believing in God, I have rational reasons for qualifying the findings of forensic biologists.

Philosophical reasons may satisfy some people. Others of us prefer to rely upon actual study and search for real world answers.

You think that philosophy is somehow disconnected from "the real world"? Why?

Atheists appropriate the findings of science in order to publically and openly attack religion.

Perhaps if that statement began with "Some" it would be accurate.

Yes. Some atheists neither post here nor try to convert theists. But my point is that it is inaccurate to accuse atheists of "conspiracy" even when they do oppose religion.

Another way to think about the situation: Atheism (as defined by Atheists) is simply "I do not believe in gods." Nothing more. When Atheists "attack" Theism / Theists they are challenging claims of knowledge made concerning invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities and events.

Well, seeing as one's beliefs about gods and God can be reasonably connected to significant implications for one's lifestyle, relationships, and general praxis, there's clearly a lot more at stake here than just attacking an allegedly questionable epistemology.

Trying to pretend that things like "the New Atheism" are anything less than a public attempt to change popular opinion (and thus popular praxis) by a group with fairly specific goals of a rather definite sort is not going to help you. This is an attempt by a vocal minority to marginalize one worldview and replace it with a different one. That most participants are sincere doesn't change that fact. I think that we all know that our discussions are, in a broad sense, motivated by worldview and praxis.

Sometimes atheists join with other atheists, but they have the best of intentions, so their wrong-headed irreligionism can hardly be labelled "conspiracy."

Who is qualified and empowered to declare that something is "wrong-headed irreligionism"?

Anybody who's "qualified and empowered" to oppose irreligionism (which I define as "the belief that 1) there are people who can be lumped into a group called 'religionists,' and 2) 'religionists' are mistaken") is "qualified and empowered" to use the same rhetorical tactics as irreligionists themselves use within culturally accepted boundaries.

What, exactly, indicates that opposition to religious claims and stories is wrong (besides the opinions of Theists)?

Philosophical argumentation (grounded, I might add, in obvious facts from everyday experience) and historical investigation.

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)

While this one is technically correct, it fails to take the nature of most versions of paganism into account. Paganism is very prone to syncretism: gods in one pantheon can be fused together, gods with similar roles in different pantheons can be identified, pantheons can merge... Left to themselves, the "pagans" would eventually produce a universal pantheon, and all nations would worship the same gods.

Gods in Christianity are "fused together" to create the trinity / triad concept and avoid polytheism.

You are aware that second temple Judaism (which was a monotheistic religion if ever there was one) believed that YHWH manifested Himself as present with His people by means of "divine intermediaries," such as His Holy Spirit (that comes straight out of the OT narratives), His Word (that came from reflection on Genesis 1), His Wisdom (Proverbs 8), His Law/Torah, and His Glorious Presence/Shekinah (which, most second temple Jews believed, resided in the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple), are you not?

Moreover, in Sirach 24, we have evidence that second temple Jews had begun a process of fusion by which Word, Wisdom, Torah and Shekinah came to be identified.

So, already in second temple Judaism, we have a proto-trinity. YHWH Himself is the Creator of all things visible and invisible. The Word/Wisdom/Torah/Shekinah fused hypostasis 1) is that through Whom all things have been made (that's the Word/Wisdom aspect), 2) is that through Whom YHWH has revealed His will and established His covenant (that's the Torah aspect), and 3) is that in Whom YHWH is present with His people (that's the Shekinah aspect of it). Finally, the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of God that empowers heroes and prophets to play their special roles in YHWH's plan.

Christianity made some major mutations upon that schema, bringing us to a full-fledged Trinitarian Christology, but for the first century or two, they mostly remained in the same Jewish categories. As it came into contact with the gentile culture of the rest of the Mediterranean world, it tried to express these insights in terms of the categories of Greek philosophy. But until then, it stuck with the categories it had at its inception.

The modifications are as follows:
1) The Word/Wisdom/Torah/Shekinah fused hypostasis became human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

2) This Incarnate Word, Jesus, was also the Messiah/Son of David/Son of God that the Jews were hoping would usher in God's kingdom, fulfilling all the promises God made to their ancestors and defeating the forces of darkness once and for all. This led to an identification between "being a Messiah" and "being Divine" in later times, once the Jewish categories began to become less relevant, but to the Jews, the two categories were originally distinct. It also led to the idea that YHWH in His transcendence should be referred to as "God the Father" since His manifestation as the Incarnate Word was also the "Son of God" (the human leader hoped for by the Jews - Son of God in a second-temple Jewish context means nothing more than Messiah).

3) This Incarnate Word and Messiah was further identified with the Danielic Son of Man (Jesus Himself got this ball rolling by calling Himself the Son of Man repeatedly), which (in its context in Daniel 7) was a symbol of the Vindicated People of God (bet you've never heard that exegesis of the title "Son of Man" from an apologist for Nicene Christianity!). This led to the notion that those who are "in the Messiah" were going to be Vindicated/Justified by God. And, since YHWH's Torah had come in the person of Jesus the Messiah, faithfulness/loyalty to Jesus was the sign of the new covenant. The old one was about as useful now as a candle during the daytime.

4) Finally, the Holy Spirit was no longer reserved for heroes and prophets, but was upon all of YHWH's people.

In other words, Christianity can be entirely explained as a mutation upon second-temple Judaism based upon the conviction that God's plan had reached its climax in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and on the experience of the Holy Spirit as it occurred in the communities of Jesus' followers.

The upshot of this is that Zeus no more competes with Thor than he competes with Poseidon.

Whether the various hypothetical gods compete with one another is immaterial since Christianity has set itself in competition with all of them individually and collectively.

Ah, but the question is one of probability, is it not? The dismal probability that one God is real and all others are not is what you were trying to convey, but when it comes down to actual religions, it turns out that it's beside the point. As Rome's empire grew, the gods of Greece, Egypt, and Persia began to join the pantheon. Hinduism shows signs of having undergone a similar process. Presumably, had it not been for Christianity, Rome and India would eventually have met, and their religions would have been further homogenized.

In fact, pagan religions rarely disbelieved in the existence of the gods of other religions. When two cultures were at war, they thought that their gods were at war. Every god had dominion over its own area of land. There was a hierarchy of gods, from gods specific to particular families to gods that ruled the entire culture's pantheon. Rivers and trees had associated gods. Under such conditions, there were client-patron relationships between gods that mirrored those between men. If one culture conquered another, the second culture's gods became vassals of the conquering culture's gods.

Furthermore, it's a matter of question whether or not even the Monotheistic religions denied the existence of other gods, so much as they denied that other gods were worthy of the name. YHWH of the Exodus is depicted as thoroughly trouncing the gods of Egypt, even though the latter aren't dignified with their names. Early Christian polemics often identified the "gods" of other religions, not as fictions, but as demons.

So the real question is "how many religions are actually mutually exclusive?" And all the answer would give us are estimates of the prior probabilities, meaning that adequate argumentation could cause the probability of some one religion to be raised dramatically.

Moreover, as both modern India and ancient Rome prove, most philosophical religions (such as Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, and the various philosophical schools of Hinduism) can be effectively integrated with popular mythology - the gods fit into dualistic, monistic, pluralistic, and participatory systems.

Is Christianity NOT integrated with popular mythology?

It is not. That's one of the things that Christianity inherited from Judaism: a radical opposition to the slew of gods believed in and/or worshipped by the surrounding cultures. By contrast, most of the philosophies I mentioned were more or less indifferent to the popular gods that surrounded them, and "went through the motions" of accepting popular mythology by making room in their systems for the gods. It saved them from a lot of opposition.

So, if we bracket out the religions only tangentially related to gods (and with the exception of Hinduism, that's all of the major competitors of the Abrahamic religions) for the time being, we have four religious options: polytheism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Which means that even when the non-theistic religions are taken into account, my probability of correctness (prior to historical investigation of Christian claims) is on the order of 0.1, contrary to your initial calculation.

The one in ten chance of picking the right god requires eliminating the vast majority of gods without sound basis.

But my whole point is that the "one right god" way of approaching things is methodologically unsound. What matters isn't gods, but rather religions. And since a great number of religions (= all of the non-Abrahamic ones) view themselves as being compatible with one another (or at least with some of the others, once we take the philosophies into account), it doesn't seem reasonable to treat them as competing options.

In other words, given the beliefs of polytheists, it is entirely reasonable to lump the different polytheistic religions into one group, whereas given the beliefs of monotheists, it is completely unreasonable to lump the different monotheistic religions into one group.

If you want to contest this way of putting things, I suggest you formulate some kind of argument that polytheistic religions are not as capable of fusion as I make them out to be.

However, even if the 10% chance of picking the right one WAS correct, confidently assuming that one has guessed the right choice from ten seems overly optimistic (or foolish). If we have a one-in-ten chance of avoiding a serious automobile accident by choice of routes wouldn't we be foolish to be confident that we had chosen the right route?

Ah, but this is only the prior probability of the truth of the religion I've chosen, is it not? Surely some kind of evidence (say, from historical investigation) would be able to raise that probability?

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

I happen to be working towards a BS in Biochemistry at the moment, and am working with one of my professors on a project involving photodynamic therapy. I may not be an expert, but I daresay that I'm more knowledgeable on the subject than most of my interlocutors here.

Commendable

Some of your "interlocutors" here have studied sciences far beyond undergraduate level. One I know for sure has an undergraduate major and minor in sciences, a Master's degree in Earth science, and dissertation stage of a Ph.D. in science.

A Bachelor's degree in any science qualifies one for technician positions, Master's degree for some research, and a Ph.D. (newly acquired) for beginning stages of serious advanced research (with a lot of learning yet to do).

I am aware of how far I have yet to go, and am increasingly so every week.

I am also aware that some here have gone far beyond me in terms of their studies, which is why I compared myself to most of my interlocutors. Unless, of course, the vast majority of actively posting skeptics here have degrees in the sciences.

The point is that I have studied the subject beyond "high school and television level," and that I don't reject the finding of the natural sciences. I do, however, reject the way that skeptics attempt to employ the findings of the natural sciences.

Perhaps this is related to the fact that I'm an evolutionary creationist.

Does that ever cause cognitive dissonance (serious question)? In purest form the two seem to preclude one another. How can they be reconciled?

I used to think that way too. I was raised as a hardcore young earth creationist. Then I read C. S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain," and discovered that unless the books that shaped my childhood were written by a heretic, we can retain the Fall of Man without needing a talking snake. Then I learned that ancient people often left names out of genealogies in order to either a) give certain key ancestors a place of prominence, or b) to get the number of names to some numerologically significant value, which meant that the Genesis genealogies were useless for dating. Then I noticed that God said "let the land produce plants" and "let the seas team with life," indicating that He somehow utilized natural processes during Creation. Then I learned that, when one looks at the original Hebrew, there are hints that the flood only covered "the whole earth" in the same sense that nations came to Egypt from "the whole earth" during Joseph's famine - in other words, the possibility of a local flood can't be ruled out after all. At that point, I realized that any interpretation of Genesis 1-11 would be dramatically underdetermined by the data provided in the text alone, and that therefore, even if it were inerrant, one couldn't be sure that one's interpretation carried over enough of that inerrancy to be used against the conclusions of natural science. So I went to the evidence of natural science with fresh eyes, looking for clues that could guide my interpretation of Genesis.

As a result, I now lean towards a day-age sort of view, wherein the events are narrated from the perspective of the burgeoning planet earth, and the relationships among land, stars, seas, animals, and plants are viewed as being roughly analogous to the relationships among Israel, Edom, Ishmael, Ammon, and Moab (this has to do with the evidence that the "these are the generations of X" phrase works more like a colophon ending than it does like a starting sentence, thereby indicating that the Genesis 1 account can be interpreted as being analogous to the various genealogies throughout the rest of the book). On such an interpretation, the "garden of Eden" was someplace in Africa, and Adam may have been a representative of his community rather than the single biological father of all human beings. On my view, Noah's flood only effected civilized man (Genesis 1-11 is more or less constantly playing off the immorality of settled, urban life against the faithfulness of pastoral nomads - Cain and Abel and their respective genealogies show signs of just such an antagonism), and may well have been identified with the filling up of the Persian Gulf. But given that greater minds than mine have wrestled with these passages to no avail, I try to retain a healthy agnosticism, and none of these ideas is set in stone for me.

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 have not said that, and I don't think that the statistics tell the whole story.

What, exactly, is the "whole story" that the statistics on incarceration, divorce, and abortion do not tell? Attempts are often made here to "explain" or excuse the large percentage of Christians involved in each – usually with the tired cliche "They are not REAL Christians if they do such things", which opens a can of worms for them.

Well, for one thing, there's the point brought up by C. S. Lewis that people who need to be changed are more likely to come to Christ looking for something that could help them achieve it. So in addition to the question of sincerity, even among the sincere, there is a spectrum of sanctification. And it seems obvious that there are going to be more people on the low end of the spectrum then on the high end.

As with any statistic of this sort, there are a million other factors that could be in play without us knowing it - or even suspecting it.

I would say that the Christian moral code is closer to being correct than any of the secular alternatives to it, and that Christians are held to a higher standard than those who don't know the truth.

A superior moral code "Principles" is that of Unitarian Universalism – which is decidedly NOT Christian and is not even religious (but welcomes those of any theistic position including Atheists and Agnostics – and any lifestyle including homosexuality). Www.uua.org

I would say that the Christian moral code is superior to those "Principles" (which look less like a moral code than a series of captions for motivational posters), and that your preference for the latter has more to do with their palatability than with any other factor.

As for atheism and agnosticism, I don't see how a religion that is devoted to a certain set of claims about what God did and is doing in history could make room for them by the nature of the case.

As for the "lifestyle of homosexuality," I don't see why it should be regarded as significantly different from the "lifestyle of pica."

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"

And you declare that all religions competing with secularism (and if there were no competition going on, there would be no need for a "secular counterweight") are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that secularism is true and provides "the one true path out of superstition and ignorance."

Correction: I make no such declaration.

So you wouldn't say that all religions are phony or false or misguided? Or you would say that there are religions that provide paths out of superstition and ignorance?

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

Well, when it comes down to it, I only have testimonials to go on when it comes to what science has discovered. Textbooks and scientific papers are very specific testimonies/syntheses from testimonials. When it comes to the "materials and methods" and the "results" section of a paper, we have to take the authors' word for it. All things considered, I don't see why testimonials should be anything other than the paradigmatic source of knowledge.

If you continue in biochemistry you will begin to conduct studies yourself that will confirm or refute what others say – and will learn the value of "convergence of evidence" based upon independent / disconnected research conducted by many (often opposing) sources. That is VERY different from accepting testimonials, which are unverified / unverifiable.

Ah, but I've already learned that, when it comes to the VAST, VAST majority of such studies, I simply won't have the time to actually replicate their experiments. So even when my studies confirm or refute their conclusions, there's nothing I can do that can refute or confirm the claim they make that when they did their experiment as they described it, they got the results they record.

In short, there is a distinction to be drawn between 1) the empirical evidence they gathered, and 2) the significance they attach to the evidence. Now, while my hypothetical future contributions to the field will involve the confirmation or refutation of 2, nothing I do will either confirm or refute 1, and that does nothing to indicate that we should regard their testimony regarding 1 to be somehow suspect.

Moreover, in all of my classes, there have been lists of "watershed experiments" made by great scientists - Pasteur comes to mind. I have to take the whole story about the debate over spontaneous generation and Pasteur's swan-necked flasks "on faith." Unless I want to change majors and become a historian, of course.

In fact, what is a textbook if not a summary of the consensus that has been reached on the basis of the countless testimonials to be found in the scientific literature? Could the consensus ever have occurred if the majority of the scientists were unwilling to take the word of their colleagues as to what happened in their labs? Could the textbook writers have discovered the consensus if they didn't trust those involved in the field?

If you think about it, almost everything you know is something that you read somewhere you think reliable or heard from somebody you trust. Everything except your own personal memories, you accept on the basis of what you have been told.

The point I'm making is that, when it comes to claims of the form "X happened," we're usually limited to testimonial evidence (sometimes we can get circumstantial evidence, but most of the time, we can't), and that does nothing to indicate that we should remain particularly skeptical of such claims.

As a general epistemological principle, we don't need reason to believe, we need reason to doubt. Now, when it comes to religion, there may be more reason to doubt than usual, due to the multiple incompatible claims being made. However, given the tools of ontology and historiography, I think that a fairly solid case can be made for the truth of the Christian faith.

The difference can be illustrated by comparing acceptance of the vast amount of research in forensic biology worldwide that indicates that death is irreversible vs. accepting unverifiable testimonials of unknown writers promoting a certain religion claiming that dead bodies come back to life.

Given the facts about the early Christian movement (we have extant testimonials to the resurrection of Jesus within 25 years of Jesus' ministry, the apostles were itinerant and had publically-known entourages who could correct any false claims made in the apostles' names long after the apostles themselves died, teaching in the ancient world always involved memorization, oral tradition is particularly good at preserving community-defining stories about historical events over periods of less than two generations, the Jerusalem church appears to have been the most influential church prior to 70 AD, etc.), it seems unlikely that "unverifiable testimonials of unknown writers" does full justice to our epistemic situation with respect to Jesus.

And it also seems a bit peculiar for you to make it seem as if forensic biology tells us anything that we didn't already know when it comes to whether or not death is reversible. It's not as if ancient people thought that resurrections were anything less than extraordinary. All that forensic biology tells us is why they're so extraordinary.

Moreover, things like forensic biology are limited to the investigation of "natural," repeatable phenomena. The resurrection, if it happened at all, was a "supernatural" and unrepeatable event, and thus not something that forensic biology is relevant to, unless, of course, forensic biology somehow establishes that resurrections are, indeed, natural phenomena. Call me biased, but I don't think that particularly likely.

So, seeing as the testimony we have is as good as we can expect it to be for a historical event of this sort, forensic biology only ever told us why dead bodies don't come back to life, and forensic biology isn't even clearly applicable to the sort of event testified to by the apostles, why exactly do you consider the findings of forensic biology relevant to the question of Jesus' resurrection?

[scourge99]

Perhaps this is related to the fact that I'm an evolutionary creationist.

Does that ever cause cognitive dissonance (serious question)? In purest form the two seem to preclude one another. How can they be reconciled?

I used to think that way too. I was raised as a hardcore young earth creationist. Then I read C. S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain," and discovered that unless the books that shaped my childhood were written by a heretic, we can retain the Fall of Man without needing a talking snake. Then I learned that ancient people often left names out of genealogies in order to either a) give certain key ancestors a place of prominence, or b) to get the number of names to some numerologically significant value, which meant that the Genesis genealogies were useless for dating. Then I noticed that God said "let the land produce plants" and "let the seas team with life," indicating that He somehow utilized natural processes during Creation. Then I learned that, when one looks at the original Hebrew, there are hints that the flood only covered "the whole earth" in the same sense that nations came to Egypt from "the whole earth" during Joseph's famine - in other words, the possibility of a local flood can't be ruled out after all. At that point, I realized that any interpretation of Genesis 1-11 would be dramatically underdetermined by the data provided in the text alone, and that therefore, even if it were inerrant, one couldn't be sure that one's interpretation carried over enough of that inerrancy to be used against the conclusions of natural science. So I went to the evidence of natural science with fresh eyes, looking for clues that could guide my interpretation of Genesis.

As a result, I now lean towards a day-age sort of view, wherein the events are narrated from the perspective of the burgeoning planet earth, and the relationships among land, stars, seas, animals, and plants are viewed as being roughly analogous to the relationships among Israel, Edom, Ishmael, Ammon, and Moab (this has to do with the evidence that the "these are the generations of X" phrase works more like a colophon ending than it does like a starting sentence, thereby indicating that the Genesis 1 account can be interpreted as being analogous to the various genealogies throughout the rest of the book). On such an interpretation, the "garden of Eden" was someplace in Africa, and Adam may have been a representative of his community rather than the single biological father of all human beings. On my view, Noah's flood only effected civilized man (Genesis 1-11 is more or less constantly playing off the immorality of settled, urban life against the faithfulness of pastoral nomads - Cain and Abel and their respective genealogies show signs of just such an antagonism), and may well have been identified with the filling up of the Persian Gulf. But given that greater minds than mine have wrestled with these passages to no avail, I try to retain a healthy agnosticism, and none of these ideas is set in stone for me.

Except the blatent falsehoods and inaccuracies of the genesis account when compared to biology is far more problematic than the problem of the Bible claiming everything was created in 7 days. PZ Myers who is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris explains the numerous factual errors that cannot be reconciled without some downright silly sematic acrobatics.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... almost.php

One of the most common strategems for reconciling evolution and the Bible that I've run into is the Day-Age hypothesis, the claim that each of the seven 'days' of the book of Genesis represents one of God's days, which doesn't have to be 24 hours long, but could be millions or billions of years instead. All you have to do is stretch the timescale of Genesis to fit the geological timescale, and voilà, it's a perfect metaphorical description of the very same processes science has described. Why, those old Hebrews couldn't have known all that geology and astronomy, therefore they must have received insider information from their creator.

Believe me, I've heard it a thousand times, and I'm not exaggerating when I say they claim it was impossible for the authors of the Bible to have known all that information that lines up so precisely with our modern understanding of the universe's origins....

...there is no way to line up Genesis with any modern, scientific history of the universe. Why, it looks to me like raw guesswork building on a Middle Eastern oral and written tradition that had no privileged information about cosmology at all!

PZ has a nice table in the link that provides a litany of examples where science is in clear conflict with the Genesis account. For example,
1) Earth was formed before the sun
2) An aquatic universe
3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
4) An early watery earth
5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
6) Birds and whales preceding other animals.

Genesis isn't just inaccurate. Its wrong from top to bottom with what we have found from studying the world (science). And it makes sense that its wrong when you consider that Bible authors were ancient men making guesses and passing down ancient tales about how the world was created and how all these different animals and plants came to be.

But the literalist Christian or the liberal Christian who attempts to claim it is literally true or "metaphorical", has no leg to stand on. They are forced to make silly and elaborate excuses trying to reconcile a "divinely inspired book" with its blatant factual errors (or they reject scientific findings altogether).

[Zzyzx]

.

Well, they're certainly more likely to be in touch with events 4000-2000 years ago than the average internet skeptic is. The chain of information is a heck of a lot shorter.

Since there is no verification of truth and accuracy of bible writer stories, it makes no difference how long the chain of information might be. Modern disbelievers ask for verifiable information. Apologists offer stories and testimonials.

From an apologetic perspective, what the writers of the OT have to say can be vindicated if what the NT writers have to say about Jesus can be regarded as generally accurate.

Yes, bible stories appear true to those who assume they are true -- in the absence of extra-biblical verification of words or deeds reported.

Agreed. There is no known way to study what cannot be detected directly or indirectly.

There is, however, a way to study what can be detected indirectly, regardless of whether or not it can be controlled.

Indirect detection may be studied. However, that does not apply to gods since there is a lack of verifiable indirect evidence.

You think that philosophy is somehow disconnected from "the real world"? Why?

Science studies the real (actual) world we inhabit. Philosophy is "An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism (and empiricism is the position that "all knowledge of matters of fact comes from experience or needs experience for validation")

Thus, philosophy is not concerned with validation – and, in fact, its conclusions cannot be verified. There is no way to determine which ideas, if any, are accurate (other than "sounds good" or "seems logical").

Rather than ponder "Why am I here?" or "What is the meaning of life?", I prefer to focus attention upon such things as "What is the best way to accomplish . . . . " – and leave the pondering to those who fancy themselves to be philosophers. That often makes them feel superior – until they actually need to accomplish something (like find a job).

Well, seeing as one's beliefs about gods and God can be reasonably connected to significant implications for one's lifestyle, relationships, and general praxis, there's clearly a lot more at stake here than just attacking an allegedly questionable epistemology.

Those who choose to have beliefs in gods influence their life decisions may have a lot at stake. Many become emotional when beliefs are challenged or criticized – often failing to distinguish between challenge of an idea (or belief) and attack upon them personally.

Trying to pretend that things like "the New Atheism" are anything less than a public attempt to change popular opinion (and thus popular praxis) by a group with fairly specific goals of a rather definite sort is not going to help you.

Trying to pretend that "New Atheism" represents Atheists is as valid as pretending that the KKK (a Christian organization) represents Christians. Keep in mind that Atheism (defined by Atheists) is "I do not believe in gods." It seems difficult for many theists to grasp that absence of belief in gods needs and has no unifying ideology, no weekly reinforcement meetings, no hierarchy or clergy, no proclaimed holy books, etc.

Perhaps those seeped in organized / commercial religion cannot imagine others being free of structured beliefs.

What, exactly, indicates that opposition to religious claims and stories is wrong (besides the opinions of Theists)?

Philosophical argumentation (grounded, I might add, in obvious facts from everyday experience) and historical investigation.

Thus, opinions based in philosophy and history – as expressed by Theists.

Note that arguments are not proof. They are opinions. Sound arguments are based upon evidence – preferably verifiable evidence.

Gods in Christianity are "fused together" to create the trinity / triad concept and avoid polytheism.

Christianity made some major mutations upon that schema, bringing us to a full-fledged Trinitarian Christology, but for the first century or two, they mostly remained in the same Jewish categories.

Yes, Judaism is/was monotheistic and the Jesus story was grafted onto the Jewish God as a "trinity" or "three-in-one-gods" to avoid admitting reversion to polytheism.

Whether the various hypothetical gods compete with one another is immaterial since Christianity has set itself in competition with all of them individually and collectively.

So the real question is "how many religions are actually mutually exclusive?" And all the answer would give us are estimates of the prior probabilities, meaning that adequate argumentation could cause the probability of some one religion to be raised dramatically.

Notice that my statement refers to gods, not to religions. Those who wish to improve their odds for choosing the right god (not religion)

Is Christianity NOT integrated with popular mythology?

It is not. That's one of the things that Christianity inherited from Judaism: a radical opposition to the slew of gods believed in and/or worshipped by the surrounding cultures.

It appears as though both Judaism and Christianity incorporated popular mythology. Their stories and supernatural feats are very similar in many cases to those of preexisting beliefs which are regarded as mythical.

The one in ten chance of picking the right god requires eliminating the vast majority of gods without sound basis.

But my whole point is that the "one right god" way of approaching things is methodologically unsound. What matters isn't gods, but rather religions.

I disagree – and raised the issue as "gods" not "religions." Comparative religions may be an interesting study for those interested. However, if the choice is expanded to cover all existing or expired religions, the probability of choosing the right one vastly reduces.

However, even if the 10% chance of picking the right one WAS correct, confidently assuming that one has guessed the right choice from ten seems overly optimistic (or foolish). If we have a one-in-ten chance of avoiding a serious automobile accident by choice of routes wouldn't we be foolish to be confident that we had chosen the right route?

Ah, but this is only the prior probability of the truth of the religion I've chosen, is it not? Surely some kind of evidence (say, from historical investigation) would be able to raise that probability?

Again, the subject is choice of gods not religions. It would seem reasonable for a Theist to increase the probability of choosing the right god based on evidence. However, it appears as though the "evidence" is limited to tales told by previous believers. Which are to be accepted as truthful and accurate, and why?

The point is that I have studied the subject beyond "high school and television level," and that I don't reject the finding of the natural sciences.

Kudos. Perhaps you can help convey scientific information to those who proclaim that the Earth is a few thousand years old, or that it was flooded to the tops of mountains, or that dead bodies come back to life after days in the grave.

I do, however, reject the way that skeptics attempt to employ the findings of the natural sciences.

How, exactly, do skeptics (your unqualified term indicates inclusiveness or blanket "all" assumption) attempt to employ the findings of the natural sciences?

I have no objection to you using me as an example to show how a "skeptic" (Non-Theist) employs the findings of the natural sciences in ways that you reject.

As a result, I now lean towards a day-age sort of view,

Doing so acknowledges that the bible cannot be regarded as saying what it means and meaning what it says – but "means" whatever the person wants to think it means.

And, if bible some or many stories are not regarded as literal truth, where does one draw the line between literal truth vs. fiction / fantasy / hyperbole / myth / legend / folklore / parable / poetry / etc? Which applies to fundamental beliefs of Christianity such as divinity of Jesus, resurrection, afterlife, birth narrative, etc?

Well, for one thing, there's the point brought up by C. S. Lewis that people who need to be changed are more likely to come to Christ looking for something that could help them achieve it.

I agree. Those in need of something (or can be convinced they do) are probably more likely to seek help through religion. Thus, teachings attributed to Jesus seem focused upon the downtrodden, discouraged, dissatisfied, hopeless, empty, diseased, outcast, etc.

For those who do not fit into one of those categories, what is the appeal of religion (Christianity in particular)? Must they be convinced that they are "doomed" unless they worship God?

A superior moral code "Principles" is that of Unitarian Universalism – which is decidedly NOT Christian and is not even religious (but welcomes those of any theistic position including Atheists and Agnostics – and any lifestyle including homosexuality). Www.uua.org

I would say that the Christian moral code is superior to those "Principles" (which look less like a moral code than a series of captions for motivational posters),

Perhaps it would be interesting to compare the UU Principles with the Ten Commandments of Judaism (adopted piecemeal by Christianity) – in a separate thread.

and that your preference for the latter has more to do with their palatability than with any other factor.

It would be prudent (and good debate practice) to avoid mind reading of others and restrict comments to what is actually presented in the thread.

And you declare that all religions competing with secularism (and if there were no competition going on, there would be no need for a "secular counterweight") are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that secularism is true and provides "the one true path out of superstition and ignorance."

Correction: I make no such declaration.

So you wouldn't say that all religions are phony or false or misguided?

Correct. I make NO statements regarding religions being phony, false or misguided. I restrict my comments to claims of knowledge about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities and events.

Or you would say that there are religions that provide paths out of superstition and ignorance?

There is insufficient evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision regarding which, if any, of the tens of thousands of religions / denominations / sects / cults / etc "provide paths out of superstition and ignorance."

Some religions seem to promote superstition and ignorance (particularly those that are opposed to education, intellectualism, science, etc.)

Ah, but I've already learned that, when it comes to the VAST, VAST majority of such studies, I simply won't have the time to actually replicate their experiments. So even when my studies confirm or refute their conclusions, there's nothing I can do that can refute or confirm the claim they make that when they did their experiment as they described it, they got the results they record.

When one publishes research findings they are expected to make available the exact conditions, methodology, procedures that were used to reach conclusions. Thus, "when they did their experiment" is immaterial.

If later experiments dispute (do not verify) the claims and conclusions the original study is to be regarded as questionable at best.

Of course no one can duplicate all experiments and studies; therefore, it is prudent to consult multiple wide-ranging, independent, disconnected sources that HAVE examined those studies.

In fact, what is a textbook if not a summary of the consensus that has been reached on the basis of the countless testimonials to be found in the scientific literature? Could the consensus ever have occurred if the majority of the scientists were unwilling to take the word of their colleagues as to what happened in their labs? Could the textbook writers have discovered the consensus if they didn't trust those involved in the field?

Is this an attempt to justify accepting unverified bible stories and testimonials by equating them to the information presented in scientific textbooks?

Textbooks are intended as a presentation of a distillation of knowledge accumulated in the discipline as a basis for students to begin learning about the field. They are NOT intended as the final product or proof (although many students, some professors, and a few authors seem to consider them as such).

That is vastly different from taking the word (stories, tales, claims) of a few unidentified religion promoters writing about incredible events that they cannot be shown to have witnessed – and recording word-for-word conversations that supposedly happened decades or generations earlier.

If one regards scientific studies as nothing more than testimonials and sets them equal to (or inferior to) religious testimonials, perhaps an appropriate major would be theology.

And it also seems a bit peculiar for you to make it seem as if forensic biology tells us anything that we didn't already know when it comes to whether or not death is reversible. It's not as if ancient people thought that resurrections were anything less than extraordinary. All that forensic biology tells us is why they're so extraordinary.

Forensic biology shows us (what we already thought) that death is irreversible in the real, natural world we inhabit.

Unidentified religion promoters tell us that extraordinary events (that they cannot be shown to have witnessed) occurred.

If unidentified cult members from two hundred years ago wrote about their leader coming back to life and levitated into the sky, would that be adequate grounds for concluding that forensic biology did not apply in that case?

Of course, VERY few would take that position (believe the tales). So why believe similar tales from two thousand years ago?