There are so many facets to this argument and it just amazes me someone can present one debunking of one point and therefore scratch the entire subject as debunked.

There are so many flavours of creationist and hence different creationist beliefs, that it just becomes non workable to just debunk one point from one set of creationist beliefs and think you have debunked it all. For example, constant hammering of the argument that creationists think the Earth is 6000-10000 years old is tired and useless when many creationists (OEC) don’t even agree on that. Many agree with 4.5 billion years. It’s almost the same as when creationists use their tired old anti-science arguments. It’s repetitive, moot and annoying. Focus on an argument that they all share commonality with.

One needs to define the type of creationist they are referring to before debunking a point, eg: YEC OEC TE etc, because assuming that they all even share a belief in the point being debunked is neither correct nor in line with all availiable facts.

Genesis is only part of the cosmology of the Bible. Don’t forget the book of revelations. Don’t forget all the talk of heaven and hell.

Take a look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm

Don’t blame me if you don’t understand your own religious text.

Besides, it doesn’t matter much what proportion of the Bible is devoted to cosmological writings. However much it is, it is all wrong.

Rubbish.

The Bible goes into great detail regarding elaborate cosmological explanations for the universe. It’s clearly not intended as just a moral guide.

http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VO.html

Then maybe we can cut past all this “You can’t believe in God, be a serious Christian, and still do professional level astronomy” bilge.

And Christian, when you ask “If the writers of the Bible were indeed ‘divinely inspired’, why didn’t God give them a little more of a clue as to the nature of the universe?” maybe it is because you misunderstand why God caused the Bible to be written, and who it was being written for.

The purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to achieve eternal salvation. It is not supposed to teach you about the nature of the physical Universe, any more than the manual that came with your new laptop is supposed to teach you how to pick up women, cook a pot roast, or pack a parachute. Your criticisim is invalid and unfair. I could just as easily say that Darwin’s writings are invalid because the Origin of Species doesn’t have any good information on how the making of cheese fondue, and that Newton is obviously false because nowhere in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica does he discuss the manufacture of the delecious fig cookies that bear his name.

OK, so the Bible is metaphor (when you choose it to be). But so is ‘Alice in Wonderland’.

If the writers of the Bible were indeed ‘divinely inspired’, why didn’t God give them a little more of a clue as to the nature of the universe? It wouldn’t take much to convince me– something like a table of physical constants at the beginning, with hbar to 12 decimal places would suffice.

It’s really the same excuse the mediums give- yes I can talk to the dead, but unfortunately I can only communicate in flowery and vague language which is open to numerous interpretations.

Are you denying that religious conflicts have arisen over interpretations of their respective religious texts? Sunni and Shia, Protestant and Catholic?

Lastly, sorry for not being completely drained of emotion. I didn’t realize that you had to be emotionless to have a respected opinion.

I know you don’t understand why your opinions don’t count for much. Perhaps they would if you would uh, back up your claims. Or admit that you may be in error or aren’t really qualified to give us anything but your unsubstantiated opinions. Up to you, fella.

Fundie theists and atheists alike, take note. Especially you, Jimbo.

Now, I’m just a Protestant, but I think this holds true for the other denominations, as well. We don’t believe the Bible was “written by God”, we believe it was written by divinely inspired men. As such, it is no heresy to read the beginning of Genesis as a metaphor, since the writer was limited by his human nature. The Bible is indeed open to a degree of interpretation, and that interpretation has been rigorously debated for many centuries.

Also, rewriting Genesis would have done nothing to have “saved a few million people dying in religious conflicts as well.” Using such inflammatory comments makes me worried that your emotions are overcoming your reason, the most prized possession of any scientist.

“I don’t respond to Darth Robo as his previous comments about me on a different blog were quite ridiculous and had nothing to do with reality.”

Well, that’s his opinion. Everyone else (if they’re even interested) can have a good laugh at our ridiculous exchanges here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/03/12/a-non-theist-in-congress/

“I don’t regard “evolution” as a measurable and a repeatable “science”, qualities ascribed to physics and other fields of scientific knowledge necessary. To me “evolution” is not “science” but “science-fiction”.”

Once again he’s expressing his opinion, which of course is just that – his opinion. As we’ve both noted, Jimbo’s not talking to me, so perhaps (again) if someone would be kind enough to ask him for me why you can’t believe in both God AND evolution? Perhaps they could also ask him what exactly makes him qualified to be critical of Phil’s (or anyone else’s) science knowledge, when he himself is obviously uh, not qualified? Thanks.

“I suppose I’m waving a red flag in front of the bulls!”

Actually, in light of the Dover decision, I think a white flag in the face of a superior opponent would be more appropriate.

First, I must note that your attempts at ridicule only downplay your actual arguments, so you might wanna try to avoid them or tone them down in the future.

Now…
“It seems theologically pointless to regard the Bible as written in surrealistic allegory rather than in a straightforward manner.”
This line of arguing puts me in a position to put myself in God’s shoes and tell you what I’d do if I were Him. I’ve already mentioned I hate doing that. However I can say this: From a theological point of view these texts weren’t written by God himself, but inspired to humans. Orthodox mysticism claims that a human joined with God retains his personality and free will; he doesn’t become a puppet attached to divine strings. So, it can be argued that the Bible isn’t a dictation, but an interpretation of the Divine through human eyes. I know you won’t scream in excitement over this argument, but it’s the best I can draw from my limited knowledge on the subect.

“Shouldn’t you feel a bit sorry for the creationists who have fallen into the trap of actually taking the Bible at face value?”
Yes, yes, yes… but there comes a time when we have to accept the fact that it’s unlikely they’ll listen to reason, unless it comes from the mouth of a priest or archbishop. I DO also find important that all people critical of Creationism should study at least some basic Christian theology. I doubt any serious Creationist would have a change of heart listening to scientific evidence being quoted.

“OK, so you don’t believe the Bible is a science-book, but wouldn’t it have saved a lot of time if it had been written in a straight-forward manner? Might have saved a few million people dying in religious conflicts as well.”
Yes, I personally think it would, but since it isn’t, there’s not much point in discussing this further. Also, the Crusades (I trust THAT’s what you’re referring to?) had political causes and religion was merely an excuse, so they might still have happened, Christianity or not.

“Do you also think the 10 commandments are allegory and metaphor? Or only the ones you don’t like?”
Just for the sake of clarity I should state that the Orthodox Church significantly downplays the 10 Commandments in favour of Christs 2 Commandments. The Catholics and Protestants rely more heavily on them, I think. And no, the 10 Commandments obviously are straight-forward, but I never claimed that 100% of the Old and New Testament are written in allegory.

“You have given me absolutely zero indication of why you believe that corpses can come back to life, except that you perceive it to be part of being a Christian.”
Since the Resurrection of the Dead is one of the most basic Christian Tenets and since I cannot possibly offer any evidence of corpse reanimation (especially if the corpse doesn’t even exist anymore) I’ll agree that I can only accept it as part of being Christian.

“If you’re going to believe things for no apparent reason whatsoever, then why not go the whole hog and become a creationist? In what way is your belief in corpses rising from the dead any better than believing in a 6000 year old Earth?”
Aaah… there’s a huge difference between these two. I have no proof to offer that a Resurrection is possible (other than anecdotal biblical sources) but I HAVE been offered proof that the Earth IS older than 6.000 years old or that the Universe up to the emergence of Homo Sapiens wasn’t created in 7 days. When it comes to Resurrection I’ve been given no proof that it’s impossible, even though it is of course unfeasible at this point in time.

I know I’m stretching this, but today Medicine can revive a man up to 30 minutes after a medieval doctor would have declared time of death. Perhaps in a millenium or so we might achieve techniques of reviving the dead (cloning and memory imprinting -I watch too much SciFi in case you haven’t noticed). BTW, this isn’t an actual argument for the Resurrection of Dead (since it’s downright ridiculous). Call it “Plea to Ignorance”. We can’t do it, but perhaps it is possible.
Bah… I should have probably erased the last paragraph, but it’s kinda funny, so I’ll leave it at that.

A final word. One of Christ’s disciples was a critical thinker; he needed proof that Christ had risen and he was given it. I elect to take it as a sign from the Divine that Christians should always keep searching.

*tosses the ball back to you*

It seems theologically pointless to regard the Bible as written in surrealistic allegory rather than in a straightforward manner.

Do you really imagine a God who has the same writing style as ‘Blonde on Blonde’ era Dylan, in which no-one can really understand what is being said?

Shouldn’t you feel a bit sorry for the creationists who have fallen into the trap of actually taking the Bible at face value?

There’s a reason why science books aren’t generally written in surrealistic metaphorical poetry. That’s so people can have a hope of understanding what the book is actually saying. OK, so you don’t believe the Bible is a science-book, but wouldn’t it have saved a lot of time if it had been written in a straight-forward manner? Might have saved a few million people dying in religious conflicts as well.

Do you also think the 10 commandments are allegory and metaphor? Or only the ones you don’t like?

—————————————————————————————
You have given me absolutely zero indication of why you believe that corpses can come back to life, except that you perceive it to be part of being a Christian.

If you’re going to believe things for no apparent reason whatsoever, then why not go the whole hog and become a creationist? In what way is your belief in corpses rising from the dead any better than believing in a 6000 year old Earth?

James J. Murphy:

“I do not believe in “evolution”. A theory developed by men, not God. I have no doubt that Mr. BA is quite astute when it comes to Astronomy. But when it comes to evolution, I regard him as the “blind leading the blind”.”

And our Jimbo’s back! But he’s not talking to me anymore, apparently. Oh, well. Since Jimbo’s level of science education is perfectly evident to everyone here, perhaps someone (who isn’t a fundie theist OR atheist) would be kind enough to ask him for me why you can’t believe in both God AND evolution? Perhaps they could also ask him what exactly makes him qualified to be critical of Phil’s (or anyone else’s) science knowledge, when he himself is obviously uh, not qualified? Thanks.

“Then you consider the Bible to be on a par with Lord of the Rings? Just a fantasy that is open to interpretation?”

I fail to see your point here. You seem to be theorizing on the precept that the Bible is either a book to be taken literally, or a piece of fiction to be openly interpreted? So, you outright deny the possibility of a middle way? i.e. a book that has been written to reveal truths, but had them concealed in allegory and terms so it would be understandable to people 3000 years ago as well as today?

I have to admit I hate to be put in a position to say “If I were God, I would…”, but really, the first parts of the Bible were written 3000 years ago and were meant to be read by the people of that time. I can see it already; “C’mon Moses… God evolved us from the apes after billions of years of galactic evolution… Hell, where’s the nearest temple of Isis”

“I’m not sure that I find your beliefs any less ridiculous than someone thinking the world is 6000 years old. It is absolutely biologically impossible for a corpse to come back to life.”
True, biologically it’s impossible for a corpse to be returned to life at this point. But whoever said that the resurrection of the dead had anything to do with biology?

Regardless, the whole problem has arisen from the simple fact that the Bible is a theological text and was never meant to be used as a basis for scientific development and judging it (and CANNOT be used as one). The opposite is also true. A scientist cannot mess around with the Bible either because he simply isn’t equipped to do so. It’s like giving someone an electron microscope and asking him to take a picture of the Andromeda Galaxy. It’s an inherently impossible task. Science and Religion are two worlds apart and completely incompatible. The Ancient Greeks did the mistake of mixing Physics with Philosophy and it cost them (and all humanity) an earlier understanding of the principles of the Cosmos. It’s silly to waste resources on an issue that is inherently impossible to solve.

Science cannot disprove the existence of the Divine, since it defies scrutiny under its methodology and cannot be convinced of its existence for the same reason. Stalemate.

Instead of all this crap of teaching kids Creationism, the world would be a much better place if everyone would be taught to learn to separate in their minds Religion and Science. There’s not a thin line between, there’s a whole chasm!

Maybe there’s some artistic merit to parts of the Bible, but Harry Potter (for example) has a much better plot than the Book of Mormon, or the Quran or Dianetics.

In short- cultural impact of religious works doesn’t have that much to do with literary worth.

While I am in no sense a Christian, I do find Von Neumann’s Chain to be endlessly fascinating on the subject of persistence of consciousness. Not evidence per se, but I have never seen any argument that effectively refutes its logic. A google search will bring up lots of articles on the subject.

Bodies of long-dead geniuses are exhumed and wired to some unholy machine from the cobwebbed backrooms of pseudo-science, where they are zapped with politicized biblical dogma and made to dance a bizarre creationist jig.

For those who are interested, here is the wiki page on the Nicene Creed. I agree with Christian that it is no more truthful to reality than LOTR, but it should also be clear that the cultural impact of the Nicene creed far outweighs LOTR. This does matter when we discuss their respective importance in world history. It is therefore not really helpful to equate basic Christian dogma to the plot of a second rate work of fiction.

But I think that the results which each man arrives at in his attempts to harmonise his science with his Christianity ought not to be regarded as having any significance except to the man himself, and to him only for a time, and should not receive the stamp of a society.

That is from a letter in which Maxwell was declining membership to Victoria Instittute, a ‘think tank’ which had been set up to “bring together scientists and others in defending scripture and religion against the findings of science” – sort of like the Discovery Institute, although how the DI could be termed a think tank is mind boggling at best.

You do admit to belief in the resurrection of the dead. Do you have any proof whatsoever for that? It’s clearly not consistent with modern biology, or evolution. (For evolution to work, it requires that dead things to stay dead.)

I’m not sure that I find your beliefs any less ridiculous than someone thinking the world is 6000 years old. It is absolutely biologically impossible for a corpse to come back to life.

I have a tendancy to ramble in my posts, so I’ll make it clear for you.
” I’m trying to understand how it’s possible for any Christian to not be a creationist.”

It’s simple really. The literal interpretation of the Bible has been discarded by all major theologists as early as the 3rd century A.D. Period.

You should also note that the words of those theologists (called “Holy Tradition”) is on EQUAL standing to the Bible. There’s no hierarchy like, New Testament 1st, Old 2nd, the writings of Basil of Cessareia 3rd etc. It’s all one unified whole. The Orthodox and Catholic Church abide by this. The Protestants do not. As simple as that. (I won’t say there are no exceptions to this, but for the most part it’s accurate).

Let me state it again:
The literal interpretation of the Bible has been discarded by all major theologists as early as the 3rd century A.D.

I hope this puts your mind at ease. Yes, you CAN be a faithful Christian and NOT be a creationist.