Nov 07
Most of my posts lately have been about the economy. That is all fine and well but I wanted to try and write more about Biblical topics as well.
If you haven’t already I suggest you read My Faith: A Logical Conclusion. In that post I conclude from a logical standpoint that only one religion can be true. I have personally concluded that the Bible is the Word of God.
Do you agree that only one religion can be true? If not why not?
If you believe that only one can be true have you searched for which of them is true? If not why not?
If you have chosen which is true what evidence or logic do you use to come to that conclusion?
Thanks for commenting.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I don’t think anyone has the answer. I also think that no one will ever have the answer.
Man has always made up stories in order to explain things. That’s how constellations came to be. Science has continuously proved wrong a lot of man’s preconceptions (e.g. world is flat, Sun moves around the Earth). Of course, science can also prove science wrong. I also think its possible to believe in science and God at the same time. Evolution is proven. But, why can’t one believe that God pre-programmed all life in the universe and guides its development?
Many of the stories in religions encourage morality. Even the modern Santa Claus (note: mostly man-made) encourages morality.
That said, I don’t look any differently on people with different religions (unless, of course they encourage non-ethical behavior such as harm toward homosexuals or women). Most religions seem pretty similar to me.
I do think that the great number of religions attempting to live symbiotically in this world encourage violence. If there was no religion, or religion was peacefully segregated (note: I wouldn’t like that because I like to travel!), the world would be a much friendlier place.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:39 pm
@Andrew
What exactly do you mean by Evolution and how is it proven? I don’t believe that we evolved from a single celled organism or that we evolved from a common ancestor of the apes.
I guess you could believe in God and still believe the things I don’t believe but then you would have to through out the Bible too.
Also why would God wait millions of years in guided development from a single celled organism if he could just create it (Assuming you believe that is our origin).
I don’t disagree that man makes up stuff but I don’t believe that is the case concerning the Bible.
I don’t know the social implications the lack of religion. But that doesn’t concern me. I don’t believe in the Bible because it gives me moral guidelines and helps keep me in line.
I believe the Bible is actually true, including man’s need for salvation. I believe sin has consequences beyond this life and that Jesus was and is needed to take that consequence for us.
Here is a question for you. If there is no God then how can you objectively say anything is wrong or immoral if we were all just created by chance? What is wrong becomes subjective and can change with the tides of the majority.
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
@Dave
There’s probably other ways to believe in the Bible and believe in evolution, I was just trying to think up an example. The (albeit controversial) Jesus Seminar tries to separate the facts from the made up stories.
Regarding evolution (and gravity/relativity/man-caused global warming), there is no scientific dissent. One common misconception occurs due to the words two contexts: non-technical and technical. In technical contexts, the word theory means “a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena” (Random House). That’s what I meant by “Evolution is proven”.
Actually, morality is not tied to religion. Atheists are amoral, but not immoral. Atheists are amoral because they do not, inherently, have a defined system of morality. An atheist can choose any system of morality.
A key source of morality is our natural empathy toward other human beings. Psychopaths do not have that feeling of empathy, which leads them to immoral acts. The most popular system of morality is “the golden rule” or Kant’s Categorical Imperative. (By the way, Prof. McCullough @ CCCC has a great ethics class).
To answer your question, you can’t objectively say anything is wrong or immoral. It all depends on one’s system of morality. Theoretically, if any system of morality is firm, then you could objectively categorize actions. But, even if there is a firm system, there is always some subjectivity.
Is there a reason you would need to objectively categorize actions? We have a system of courts/laws and professional ethics workers (i.e. applied ethics). You certainly couldn’t objectively categorize based on Christian morals. Even if you did, Christians may follow different systems of morality, and have different beliefs.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
Andrew you proved the point you were trying to disprove. You are saying their is some instilled direction of right or wrong in each person? Do you think that is part of evolution? How come no other creature can chose right from wrong? I just feel you are reaching here. Even if Atheists are immoral they still align themselves with some form of morals. My good friend is Atheist but she doesn’t steal, kill, cheat etc.. She drinks and wears clothes I would not so we differ in our morals, however she has still aligned herself with an ideal that originates from the commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Does she know that is where they came from…no, and she doesn’t care, the fact is that she abides by moral law that was dictated by God.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 am
No, I don’t think so.
Yes, I am saying that there is an innate direction of right and wrong in each person. It is part of evolution. The level of morality among mammals is related to the amount of sophistication and consciousness.
Atheists are amoral, not immoral.
I don’t believe morals were derived from the commandments. I think that the commandments (and other theistic morals) were derived from our empathetic feelings. Do you think that without the commandments we would have an absolute absence of moral behavior?
That’s not to say that the commandments weren’t important. I think they reinforce empathy, and in a lot of cases that is overall good for society. The problem with theism arises with conflicting beliefs and that you should do whatever your respective God tells you to do. In Christianity, you have scary passages in the Book of Deuteronomy (specifically 17:2-7) and Leviticus (though I recognize that Christians largely do not feel bound by Levitical code). Also, Dave has pointed out before that he believes Christians are no longer bound by the rules of the Old Testament. My belief is that we have become more empathetic and sophisticated since the time the Bible was written. We are now (for the most part) accepting of different races, religions, and sexual orientations.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am
There’s a good summary of the evolutionary perspective of morality here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Evolutionary_perspectives
If you still don’t think that other mammals show empathy, just look at this picture:
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/10/28/grieving-chimps/
November 24th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I took McCullough’s philosophy class.
I am not saying that atheists don’t have any morals. What I am saying is that you can’t objectively say anything is wrong. By what standard can you say murder is wrong? It is wrong for one ant to kill another ant? Objectively how are we any different. We are just more atoms arranged more complexly then ants.
You may have a natural moral compass but where did that come? I believe that was given to us by our creator. I think that is a lot easier to believe then it somehow came to be from evolution.
There is too much order, too much beauty, too much complexity for it to all happen by chance in my opinion.
What is keeping the earth from falling out of orbit? It is just the right size at just the right tilt and at the right distance from the sun to keep us all living. It’s a lot to swallow.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
(posting again since my formatting messed up a bit)
That’s fair.
But, again, I think this in disagreement with the science. But, I think it’s fair game to say that the science was (somehow) influenced or designed by a higher being.
I hate to keep recommending videos, but last night I watched a great 18min TED talk by Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
At the 5 minute mark he starts talking about some of the psychology. He notes that there are 5 clear foundations of morality across cultures and across species. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript of the video, since I can’t say it any better than this:
The five foundations of morality are:
justice/fairness – protection of individual rights
harm/care – maternal instinct of nurture protection and avoidance of harm
ingroup/outgroup – favoring one’s own group over other groups
authority/respect – adherence to hierarchy
purity/sanctity – avoidance of health risks through shame and disgust/adhering to God’s laws
I copied that list from a blog entry on the topic:
http://www.ali-asad.com/2008/10/understanding-your-morality.html
But, it’s also in the video.
Gravity.
It is amazing, I agree
Astronomy is fascinating. But, note that things are not entirely in balance. For example, the Earth day increases every century by 0.0018 seconds because the Moon is moving away from the Earth (and therefore slowing our rotation).
The search for life has only began and we’ve already identified many candidate satellites that could have or could currently support life (Mars, Europa, etc.). Quoting Contact (the movie), it’d be a “giant waste of space” if we were the only planet with intelligent life.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
@Andrew
Who wrote the law of gravity?
I am not sure what you are stating here. Everything you are saying about morality to me is essentially describing what morality is and that it is fairly universal. It sounds like you are conceding that a creator of some sort is what put it there. Is that correct?
This doesn’t mean much to me. If there was no creator I would expect things to be much more unstable. Things follow a distinct pattern consistently and has for thousands of years. A change of .0018 seconds per 100 years is pretty stable in my opinion.
If you have unlimited resources (God) then is there really such a thing as waste? He created the stars for us. Also who are we to question the will of God. I suspect there is no other intelligent life in the universe but the Bible doesn’t specifically say that is not the case.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
November 25th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Dave: Who wrote the law of gravity?
Andrew: Sir Isaac Newton
No he just discovered/observed it. I believe God wrote and enforces it.
“Looking at the Earth’s timeline, one could argue that is unstable since we will likely be wiped out one day.”
Expectation of future instability is not really a case for it being unstable.
For a planet to stay sustainable for thousands of years I don’t think is possible without divine intervention.
“Well, I would argue that in an unstable environment intelligent life could not evolve. It took a long time for humans to evolve (like 3.8-4.5 billion years) and many species have come and gone since then.”
I don’t believe in that timeline. I think it would be exponentially harder to believe that earth would by chance be sustainable in any way for that long.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:32 am
That’s a matter of definition. By write, I meant actually physically write the theory (it’s scientific theory, as I discussed before).
There is no evidence for or against a higher being designing it. So, it’s fair to believe the origin was God.
That’s the root of our disagreement here. I believe in the archeological evidence.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
@Andrew
What can you present for archeological evidence that man or man-ish beings has been around that long?
I would also concede that is could be possible for the earth to have been here for that long because in the Bible it says that the earth was “shapeless and formless” in the beginning. So maybe that means it was more like mars before God really made it special.
If you are going to reference carbon dating I have heard that is not a reliable means of measurement.
I have also heard that there have been findings of humans and dinosaurs buried next to each other. If that is true how could they have such a huge gap in time between them and still be buried at the same level?
November 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
@Dave
Actually, there’s a large variety of radiometric dating methods that cross-check radiocarbon dating.
There is an error margin, but the error margin doesn’t totally invalidate the dating method. It’s kind of like trying to guess the exact age, to the minute, of a tree after you cut it down and study the rings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
I have never heard that. Any news or journal articles about these discoveries?
November 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
@Dave
Looks like I got caught as spam again… please approve my last comment on this thread–thanks!
November 29th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I will look into the evidence for humans and dinosaurs and get back to you.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=6
Here is a Christian video that talks all about dinosaurs. It’s long but it keeps your attention for the most part.
You might have to bear with some cheesy 90′s humor but it’s worth watching.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
\
The lecturer in the video is “Dr.” Kent Hovind. He received is BRE (Religious Education) from a non-accredited school. He was awarded his MS and PhD in Christian Education from another non-accredited school. The school, Patriot University in Colorado, interestingly no longer even offers the Christian Education program.
I wish someone would award me a PhD so I could be called a doctor.
Oh, and Dr. Hovind has a history of legal problems, which has resulted in jail time.
I should listen to this guy? This guy is absolutely nuts!
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
December 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I will try and find another source.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Thanks. One thing that interested me was that “Dr.” Hovind had enemies on both sides of the fence!
December 7th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Try this one. It’s shorter and the guy’s wikipedia article doesn’t have any felonies.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/bible-explains-dinosaurs/bible-explains-dinosaurs
December 7th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Well, that’s a new one to me. Didn’t the 1946 New Revised Edition introduce the word “homosexual”? The word “dragon” was invented in the 13th century.
I watched about 20 minutes of part 1… Ken Ham didn’t present any scientific proof that humans existed alongside dinosaurs. His “proof” is asking the question “were you there?” and interpreting passages from the Bible.
Ham argues that the Book of Genesis is entirely true and the Earth is only 6000 years old. If you can find any science professor with a PhD that believes that, I would be amazed. As I stated before, radiometric dating is accurate. It has been tested by comparison to other dating methods, and historical items where we know the age (e.g. King Tut’s coffin).
Arguing the Earth is 6000 years old is just, once again, flat out ignoring science.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Language changes but the Bible stays the same. There may be some issues with translation but he was contrasting it with science books which really do change.
You are right it isn’t proof. He does use logic though. He points to examples in the Bible of dragons (dinosours) and also points to several cultures all having dragons in carvings etc.
Why would all of these cultures and the Bible mention dragons if they didn’t live along side them?
It is also curious that the descriptions of them are accurate when you compare them to specific dinosaurs.
Can you prove to me that Mankind has been here longer then 6000 years.
January 24th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
maybe there is only one religion, but just like the word ‘cat’ can be said in a thousand different languages……….only an absolute fool would think that the word he uses to describe a cat is the only valid one
January 31st, 2010 at 2:03 pm
@Matt – I am not sure what your point is. I can know certain things about God by what he reveals of himself through his Word.
God is what he is not matter what people believe. If one person says God is forgiving and another person says he is not then logically one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
This is a very interesting thread… one of which I usually stay away from. I was taught to believe in God… but have found myself really not knowing for sure whether I believe in him or the concept of him. I was taught as a young child that he knows all and sees all. I was also taught not to question him. But I have to. How could a God so mighty and powerful let little children die violently? or be sexually molested? These are just a few questions that I have… that I’m not supposed to ask.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
@Scott
Thanks for joining the conversation. There is nothing wrong with questions.
God gave us free will. And the fact of the matter is that we as humans have sinned and because of that we live in an world with evil in it. One that is influenced by our own evil desires as well as Satan and his demons.
This free will is bitter sweet. It allows for humans to do horrible, horrible things but at the same time without free will we would not be able to love either.
Things will not be right again until His kingdom comes. Only then will there be no more suffering.