Whenever I spend time on YouTube among believers or occultists the ever faithful algorithm makes sure I am deluged with like minded product. I have been mining through videos lately about the ark and other concerns. There is also an ongoing wash of believers and non-believers posing questions to one another. Usually it goes like this – The believer will post Five Questions that No Atheist can answer! and then some atheist will reply. Then the believer will respond and off it goes round and round etc.
Some folks enjoy that kind of thing I guess. If only someone would think of something new to ask.
Sooo…here’s a go. Anyone who wishes may add questions of their own, or answer mine. If any believers out there have questions for me I would be happy to reply. This is better thought of as an attempt at conversation than a debate.
1. How do you explain the multiplicity of other religions?
This would seem to be a fundamental philosophical problem for Christianity but I never seem to find anyone addressing it. If Christianity is really the only “true” unique religion why would other, different religions exist?
2. If we encountered aliens who had evolved with absolutely no concept of religion or gods or the supernatural how would you explain it?
3. If you found out with complete certainty that there was no god (and assuming you’re not clergy or tied to the church in some economic way) how would your life actually change? What real difference would it make in how you live your life?
4. Trilobites were one of the earliest marine arthropods to appear in the fossil record. They were an enormous evolutionary success, living in ancient oceans for almost 270 million years. We have identified over 22,000 species that filled every available niche in their early ecology. They finally succumbed in a mass extinction event at the end of the Permian age 259 million years ago. They have no surviving descendants.
If as Christianity claims, God has a unique relationship with humanity and our fate and judgement is tied up with the fate of the earth and the universe, what was the point of the Trilobites?
5. Given the vagaries of language, the problems with communication and translation, the ambiguity of words and concepts, why would a God who wanted to spread his revelation to the entire world and offer salvation to every culture, use text?
1. Our Episcopal church’s great theologian for seven years said all the major religions ultimately are about the same thing: we are to love others as ourselves. If true, then the multiplicity of other religions provides humans with the same goal that our Creator would want for us. Religions are varied but then so are Christian denominations. People are so different it takes a variety of religions.
2. Human beings created in the image of God are for Earth. Other creations are for other planets.
3. Caring for myself and caring for others is the way I would want to live regardless.
4. Triobites served their purpose even if we can never know what their purpose was.
5. I think text is only one way God spread his revelation to the entire world. Stories about Jesus were shared by talking to one another.
Stephen, can you believe someone like me thinks she can respond to your complicated questions here on The Blog?! I’m smiling now over my ridiculousness but then Jesus said we are to be as children when it comes to understanding such things. I’ve said something like this before: Ants have no idea how important they are and there is no way to have them understand. It’s beyond them. That’s the way I think of
trying to understand all this.
Also, maybe I should not say this here but can anyone actually know anything about God? Through faith, we can believe there is a God and we can believe Jesus is God’s Son but can we KNOW? I don’t think so.
For question 1., I just ran across a lovely quote, a marvelous geometrical aphorism (as Ronald Hendel* puts it): “God is the intelligible sphere, whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.” (1)
I think it could be applicable here!
2 I think I would have to explain how we think about things. Maybe take one to a number of community churches, possibly. That could be a large project.
3. I think I’d be meaner, possibly homeless.
4. refer to # 2 above.
5. refer to # 2 above.
* Hendel, Ronald. The Book of Genesis A Biography, (Princeton U Press, 2013) 119.
(1) Alan of Lille, Rules of Theology, rule 7; quoted in Gillian Rosemary Evans, Alan of Lille: The Frontiers of Theology in the Later Twelfth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 1981) 73.
Thanks for the responses.
Judith, no need to disparage yourself. What I wanted was an honest response and you provided that.
Let me clarify my questions a bit.
My questions were aimed at Christian belief not just general god belief. Many concepts of god are possible but this was more focused. One of the major characteristics of Christianity is its insistence on primacy and uniqueness and fundamental historicity. Some of my questions are based on these assumptions. It follows that if you don’t agree with these assumptions then you are not the ones to whom I’m aiming my questions. (Although I’m fine with you expressing your own opinions of course.)
Sooo…
Question #1
The issue is this. If, as they claim, Christianity is primary, and unique, and fundamentally historical then it seems to me the existence of other religions results in a philosophical problem. I might expect variations on Christianity to exist, other gods, other saviors, other practices. But what do you make of religions that are fundamentally different? That have nothing in common?
Yes in the modern day there is an attempt to see all religions as having a fundamental core of common identity. But how valid is this? What is a system of belief apart from its particulars? (Yes, that is Mr W peering our from behind the curtain.) Sure, the “Golden Rule” appears in all ethical systems at some point, but is that proof of a common identity of all religions or just a sign that ethical behavior precedes its codification? Christianity is centered on the execution of a Jewish teacher at a specific time and place and belief in his subsequent resurrection by God. Buddhism, non-historical (every age has its own Buddha), is centered on the annihilation of the Self, created by human desires (including love by the way) and fears. Confucianism makes a metaphysic out of social relations and needs no deities at all.
All of these other religions can be shown to have cultural and historical causes and be intimately time bound. So why wouldn’t a disinterested observer come to the conclusion that Christianity is simply another example of this cultural/historical process?
Question #4
The Trilobites are important to me not just because they were kinda cute (although you probably wouldn’t want to wake up with one in your bed) but because they represent the fundamental idea that convinces me that atheism is true. The world is different than it would be if a god existed. (Of course I grant that it’s always possible that supporting everything is some fundamental organizing principle that has no interaction with human beings. You could call that “God” if you insist but that’s not what the vast majority of people in the vast majority of ages have meant by the word “God”.) If a god existed the world would be other than the way it is.
What we are presented with is a purposeless, goalless universe that consists of processes that can be described physically. All religions are pre-scientific cultural expressions, attempts to reconcile members of a given society with the preconditions of their own existence. They enable group cohesion and identity and provide cultural markers of self-definition. To boil it down we can explain things without recourse to the god hypothesis. In science a useless hypothesis is discarded.
I did not invent this viewpoint of course but for my own amusement I describe this train of thought as the “Argument from Trilobites”.
It seems impossible to reconcile the truth of evolution with the idea that a god exists who cares about human beings. 99.9% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct. Many of them, not just the Trilobites, had long successful careers, and then passed away. What was the point?
As an atheist, I think there doesn’t have to be a point. However it was accomplished, we are here. Maturity lies in accepting the preconditions of our own existence. As an individual I accept my own limitations. My sense of ethics is formed by my experience as a human being in a social context. I don’t want to suffer so I assume that other people are like me and don’t want to suffer either. Laws are social formulations of the way people behave. If I see someone in trouble I want to help. If helping requires more than I am able to do as as individual then we put methods in place as a society. Really, only religionists can make all this seem complicated. Morality describes the way people already behave.
I’m going to die. (Worse, I’m going to age.) I can see no evidence of any life after death. So, what I want and need I better pursue here and now. Everything passes away. Wisdom accepts this. Only religion posits that something is “wrong” and everything should be different than the way it is. That life is a disease in pursuit of a cure.
But, what is a star in the sapphire? A little glory. What you say here holds truth, Stephen, but there are other reasons to hold a sense of faithfulness to something grounded in a certain attachment to a kind of perfection. I mean we can see perfection around us all the time if we bother to look. Otherwise why strive and why care? What, quid pro quo? That will work for some but others not so much. I think there has to be, say, an inspiration, a still kind of profundity to know we’re doing what’s right. Then we strive to do better. Maybe that’s the purpose.
All questions can be explained by that which is the Spirit of God working in all directions with mankind in opposite directions.
When mankind is able to survive on their own reasoning the Spirit of God will be against it pushing down towards the grave.
When mankind is not able to survive the Spirit of God is below and pushing upwards away from the grave.
When mankind is able to survive on both human and supernatural reasonings but moving away the Spirit of God will pull back.
When mankind is moving closer to supernatural reasoning the Spirit of God will push away back towards human reasoning.
The purpose is to balance the human reasoning with supernatural reasoning.
ο στομφαξ
“1. How do you explain the multiplicity of other religions?”
People are by nature religious, and have a tendency to produce systems of religious and worldview thought that ‘explain’ the world around them.
“If Christianity is really the only ‘true’ unique religion why would other, different religions exist?”
There are undoubtedly some elements in Christianity that are erroneous.
There is truth in every religion.
People are creative, and produce new religions.
“2. If we encountered aliens who had evolved with absolutely no concept of religion or gods or the supernatural how would you explain it?”
I believe that aliens exist.
I’m unaware of any aliens “with absolutely no concept of religion or gods or the supernatural.”
“3. If you found out with complete certainty that there was no god”
Would I need to be omniscient to find “out with complete certainty that there was no god”?
“If as Christianity claims, God has a unique relationship with humanity and our fate and judgement is tied up with the fate of the earth and the universe”
How is humanity’s “fate and judgement… tied up with the fate of the earth”?
“4. Trilobites were one of the earliest marine arthropods to appear in the fossil record. … We have identified over 22,000 species that filled every available niche in their early ecology. … what was the point of the Trilobites?”
Some people are more creative than other people.
God is extremely creative.
1951
** you do not have permission to see this link **
From the fact that there are 400,000 species of beetles on this planet, but only 8,000 species of mammals, he [J.B.S. Haldane] concluded that the Creator, if he exists, has a special preference for beetles.
“5. Given the vagaries of language, the problems with communication and translation, the ambiguity of words and concepts, why would a God who wanted to spread his revelation to the entire world and offer salvation to every culture, use text?”
I dunno.
What other ways of spreading “revelation to the entire world” are there?
“If a god existed the world would be other than the way it is”
In what ways?
“What we are presented with is a purposeless, goalless universe”
Do you yourself have any:
purposes?
goals?
“we can explain things without recourse to the god hypothesis. In science a useless hypothesis is discarded”
How do you account for the origination of:
the 1st biological organism?
trilobite eyes?
What do you think was responsible for:
“the rapid and simultaneous appearance of most major animal phyla in the fossil record”?
the fossil record’s depiction of “the sudden appearance of diverse, complex organisms without clear ancestors or transitional forms”?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Explosions in Fossil Record
Based on the provided search results, there is only one widely recognized and well-documented “explosion” of plant and animal life in the fossil record, which is the Cambrian Explosion.
This event occurred around 540-500 million years ago, during the Cambrian Period, and is characterized by the rapid and simultaneous appearance of most major animal phyla in the fossil record.
The Cambrian Explosion is believed to have been a time of intense evolutionary innovation, with many animal groups emerging and diversifying rapidly.
This period saw the appearance of hard-shelled animals, such as trilobites, brachiopods, and mollusks, as well as the development of complex body plans, such as bilateral symmetry and segmentation.
There is no evidence in the fossil record of similar “explosions” of plant life.
However, there were significant changes in plant evolution and diversification during the Paleozoic Era, particularly during the Devonian Period (around 416-359 million years ago), when vascular plants (such as ferns and conifers) became dominant and diversified.
Some notable events in plant evolution and diversification include:
The rise of vascular plants during the Devonian Period, which marked a significant shift away from non-vascular plants (such as mosses and liverworts).
The evolution of seed plants (such as gymnosperms and angiosperms) during the Carboniferous and Permian Periods (around 359-251 million years ago), which led to the development of modern plant families and orders.
The diversification of flowering plants (angiosperms) during the Cretaceous Period (around 145-65 million years ago), which resulted in the modern variety of plant species we see today.
While these events were significant and led to the diversification of plant life, they are not typically referred to as “explosions” in the same sense as the Cambrian Explosion.
Instead, they are characterized as periods of rapid evolution and diversification, driven by changes in environmental conditions, ecological opportunities, and genetic innovation.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Avalon Explosion
Based on the provided search results, here’s a comprehensive summary of the Avalon explosion:
Definition and Timing: The Avalon explosion refers to a proposed evolutionary radiation of prehistoric animals that occurred around 575 million years ago during the Ediacaran period.
It is named after the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland, Canada, where Precambrian fossils were first discovered.
Characteristics: The Avalon explosion is characterized by the sudden and rapid diversification of complex life forms, including the emergence of bilateral symmetry, motion, and sensory organs.
The organisms that appeared during this event were distinct from those found in the Cambrian explosion, which followed later.
Fossil Record: Fossils from the Avalon explosion have been found worldwide, including in Newfoundland, Canada, and Charnwood Forest in England.
These fossils include frond-like organisms like Charnia, rangeomorphs, and Kimberella, which exhibit unique body plans and growth patterns.
Ediacaran Biota: The Avalon explosion is part of the Ediacaran biota, a group of organisms that dominated the Earth’s oceans before the Cambrian explosion.
The Ediacaran biota is characterized by simple, soft-bodied forms with no visible organs or internal structures.
Evolutionary Significance: The Avalon explosion is significant because it challenges our understanding of the evolution of complex life.
The sudden appearance of diverse, complex organisms without clear ancestors or transitional forms has sparked debate among scientists.
Some theories propose that the Avalon explosion may have been driven by changes in sea level, oxygenation of the oceans, or other environmental factors, but the exact mechanisms remain unclear.
Intelligent Design Perspective: From an intelligent design perspective, the Avalon explosion is seen as an example of the “information problem” in evolution, where the sudden appearance of complex life forms cannot be explained by gradual, natural processes.
Instead, intelligent design proponents argue that the Avalon explosion may have been the result of intelligent intervention or guidance.
Uncertainties and Ongoing Research: Despite significant advances in our understanding of the Avalon explosion, many questions remain unanswered.
Scientists continue to study the fossil record, geological evidence, and environmental conditions to better understand the drivers of this evolutionary radiation.
The Avalon explosion remains an enigmatic and fascinating topic in the fields of paleontology and evolutionary biology.
=======================================
Norman Macbeth, _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason_ (1971)
Luther Sunderland, _Darwin’s Enigma: Ebbing the Tide of Naturalism_ (1988), a later edition of his earlier book bearing a similar title; on 38, 166+
** you do not have permission to see this link **
–>
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 38
Norman Macbeth has written a book, _Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason_, in which he gave an especially perceptive critique of Darwinism.
Noted philosopher of science Karl Popper reviewed this book and endorsed it, calling it “a really important contribution to the debate.”^26 …
Norman Macbeth’s Harvard Debate
In a debate sponsored by the humanist chaplain at Harvard University on September 24, 1983, between Norman Macbeth and Dr. Kenneth Miller, Macbeth made the following statement:
“Here I should again make it clear that Darwinism and evolution are not the same thing.
Evolution is the course of change through time, and Darwinism is the explanation of it.
I think that the change in the course of time– the evolution– is beyond challenge.
You can see it in the fossils very clearly, and you can almost see it in a few centuries or even a lifetime.
Darwinism is a different affair, one of explaining it.
My attack in my book and elsewhere was on the ideas of Charles Darwin, explaining the mechanism by which the changes occurred.
I am not a professional biologist….
I have got into the polemics– the thrusting and parrying back and forth on the problems of Darwinism– and for that you don’t need too profound a knowledge of anatomy or physiology.
I want to make a startling observation: that it might be advantageous not to have any courses under your belt in biology.
The reason I say this is that as I have dealt with biologists over the last 20 years now, I have found that in a way they are hampered by having too much education.
They have been steeped from their childhood in the Darwinian views, and, as a result, it has taken possession of their minds to such an extent that they are almost unable to see many facts that are not in harmony with Darwinism.
These facts simply aren’t there for them often, and other ones are sort of suppressed or distorted.
I’ll give you some examples.
First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils.
This occurs at a time called the “Cambrian,” 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning.
The fossils appear at that time in a pretty highly developed form.
They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time.
In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all, they are already there and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form.
One example of this is the little animal called the trilobite.
There are a great many fossils of the trilobite right there at the beginning with no build-up to it.
And, if you examine them closely, you will find that they are not simple animals.
They are small, but they have an eye that has been discussed a great deal in recent years– an eye that is simply incredible.
It is made up of dozens of little tubes which are all at slightly different angles so that it covers the entire field of vision, with a different tube pointing at each spot on the horizon.
But these tubes are all more complicated than that, by far.
They have a lens on them that is optically arranged in a very complicated way, and it is bound into another layer that has to be just exactly right for them to see anything….
But the more complicated it is, the less likely it is simply to have grown up out of nothing.
And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginning– to have everything at the very opening of the drama.
The curtain goes up and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes.
The Creationists say, “That is abrupt appearance,” and they hammer away at that.
Instead of building up bit by bit, it appears suddenly, and that to them signifies creation.
I don’t want to argue that, but I admit it is very strange that there is no slow build-up.
The evolutionists have strained very hard to find earlier fossils and have had very meager results.
I find it odd that a leading evolutionist who is also a specialist in trilobites, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum in Natural History, never even mentions these problems of the eye.
He has a recent book directed at the Creationists called _The Monkey Business_.
He has several pages on the trilobite there, but he never mentions this eye which is really the hardest part of the problem.
I think he does it because he simply can’t see the significance of all these things when he is utterly convinced that [are you sure? I thought Eldredge was into punctuated equilibrium -df] there must have been a slow build-up, but we just don’t have any fossils for it.
Maybe the conditions were wrong, or we’ll find them later.
Then also, if you ask evolutionists what is their best case, normally, their answer is “the case of the peppered moth in England.”
This moth has two forms– the white and the black.
In ancient times, up to about the 18th century, the white form was more numerous than the black, not overwhelmingly so, but more numerous.
The industrial revolution began at that time in England and, bit by bit, the leaves and other vegetation, as well as the buildings, began to turn grimy and black.
The white moths then became conspicuous against the black and sooty background, and they began to be picked off by predators– birds, maybe.
It’s turning the other way now, and the black forms are getting a little closer to equality again in numbers.
This is presented in practically every textbook on Darwinism as a wonderful example of natural selection at work in evolution.
But is it anything like that?
If you aren’t pervaded with the idea to begin with– if you aren’t what is now called “theory laden”– does that mean anything?
There were two forms; there always were two forms and still are two forms.
Under certain conditions, the blacks do better; and under other conditions, the whites do better.
But there is no evolution– there’s no change.
There’s no new form, and yet this is presented as their greatest example of what can be done.
I want also to point out something that I honestly think they are fully aware of.
That is the scantiness of their performance over the last 120 years.
Darwin’s book _The Origin of Species_ came out in 1859 propounding the idea of natural selection.
The whole point of it was that we would now be able to explain where the animals and plants came from– how they built up to their present form.
So, naturally, the first thing you expect is that now we’ll have some family trees, some pedigrees, showing how the present moose developed out of earlier forms.
A whole series of them should be presented.
These are called “phylogenies” by the biologists.
A pedigree is the same thing and a family tree is the same thing.
If you look at modern textbooks, you’ll find very few family trees.
In the early days– in the last century– they had enormous family trees reaching all the way from vertebrates back to the amoebae.
All stages were represented in very fancy and complete trees.
You hardly ever find anything like that anymore– an occasional bush that is by no means convincing or impressive.
The reason why is that they can’t trace the ancestry.
After 120 years, it is possible to say with considerable certainty that they haven’t got a single solid reliable phylogeny.
And after 120 years, that is a very poor performance.
I think they should candidly face up to that and recognize that Darwinism hasn’t been producing much.”
Macbeth’s debate opponent, Dr. Miller, made no attempt to address these specific points.
Instead he talked about what he would have said if he had been debating a Creationist, i.e., attack a straightforward interpretation of the Bible.
David, the theory of evolution is not on trial anymore. It is incontrovertible. Nobody seriously questions its accuracy as a description of the diversity of life on earth except creationist nabobs on YouTube. Of course we don’t know everything. There are still lots of questions. But just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we don’t can’t know anything.
“the theory of evolution is not on trial anymore. It is incontrovertible”
When if ever did it go “on trial”?
Is Einstein’s general theory of relativity “incontrovertible”?
“Of course we don’t know everything. There are still lots of questions”
Questions such as what?
Do you know how life could have come from non-life via totally-mindless processes?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)