tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post8179695471201054518..comments2023-05-24T05:37:27.382-07:00Comments on Grace and Miracles: The Moral LawAnette Ackerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-38891501865048436172010-08-23T11:19:41.958-07:002010-08-23T11:19:41.958-07:00Of course they take apart one ridiculous statement...Of course they take apart one ridiculous statement by Collins in chapter 2, and that's about all they say about that chapter:<br /><br /><i>Collins tries to argue in favor of doubt by stating that an airtight faith would be a bad thing because "then the world would be full of confident practitioners of a single faith. But imagine such a world where the opportunity to make a free choice about belief was taken away by the certainty of the evidence. How interesting would that be?" (p.34)</i><br /><br />All they have managed to establish is that Collins, impressive as he is, is not infallible. :)Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-52149888967868781472010-08-23T05:46:09.485-07:002010-08-23T05:46:09.485-07:00Anette, you may be interested in an ongoing chapte...Anette, you may be interested in an ongoing chapter by chapter critique of Francis Collins', <i>The Language Of God</i>, at DaylightAtheism.org.Rick Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853103127435018152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-15376268475073055202010-08-19T22:02:28.268-07:002010-08-19T22:02:28.268-07:00Rick,
I skimmed an article about altruism and evo...Rick,<br /><br />I skimmed an article about altruism and evolution (Stanford), and there doesn't seem to be a very good explanation for it. First, it talked about group selection, which they determined didn't work that well because the selfish animals would take advantage of the altruistic ones. <br /><br />Then they talked about kin selection. But the problem with this in the context of what we are talking about is that <i>all</i> normal parents are willing to make sacrifices for their children. It is very natural to be invested in our immediate family. And this doesn't necessarily mean that parents will act with this type of unselfishness toward others. Have you ever been around competitive mothers?<br /><br />I just don't think there's a very good evolutionary explanation for agape, true altruism, or whatever you want to call it. The article says this toward the end: "As Sober and Wilson (1998) note, if one insists on saying that behaviours which evolve by kin selection / donor-recipient correlation are ‘really selfish’, one ends up reserving the word ‘altruistic’ for behaviours which cannot evolve by natural selection at all."<br /><br />They never arrive at a very convincing evolutionary explanation for true altruism in humans. This confirms what Collins said in the above quote (in the comments).Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-64158842646227605502010-08-18T19:14:38.788-07:002010-08-18T19:14:38.788-07:00I am not moving the goal post. I simply used the w...I am not moving the goal post. I simply used the word <i>agape</i> to describe what I've been talking about all the time. I have used the example of a person dying to rescue a stranger or even an enemy, or making major sacrifices to do the right thing. Call it what you want--that's what I've been talking about all along.<br /><br />How does naturalistic evolution explain that?Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-58238444902754253452010-08-18T19:02:17.329-07:002010-08-18T19:02:17.329-07:00Anette, you are moving the goal posts. Why do now ...Anette, you are moving the goal posts. Why do now cite C. S. Lewis's definition of love as the definition of altruism? Altruism is defined by Merriam-Webster Online as:<br /><i>1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others<br />2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species</i><br /><br />There are examples of non-human animals displaying that behavior. Evolutionary biology uses the mechanism of kin selection to explain that behavior. <br /><br />Agape is different from altruism because agape is a Christian concept and not a philosophical or scientific one. If you are saying that naturalism cannot explain agape then you are correct. But your statement was, <i>There simply is no natural explanation for altruism</i>, and that is not correct.Rick Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853103127435018152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-65214824750616426202010-08-18T12:58:47.254-07:002010-08-18T12:58:47.254-07:00"There simply is no natural explanation for a...<i>"There simply is no natural explanation for altruism"<br /><br />But there is an explanation - kin selection.</i><br /><br />But that is not altruism. <br /><br />In his book, <i>The Four Loves,</i> C. S. Lewis identifies four forms of love: agape, affection, friendship, and romantic love. Kin selection fits best into the category "affection." Agape, on the other hand, is selfless altruism. It is different from the other three types of love. <br /><br />How does naturalistic evolution explain that?Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-26628638898976513492010-08-18T10:40:29.016-07:002010-08-18T10:40:29.016-07:00The Bible often contains several layers of symboli...The Bible often contains several layers of symbolism, and I think eating the “fruit of the knowledge of good and evil” could also symbolize theistic evolution. Genesis 1:27 tells us that God intended to create us in His image. But in Genesis 3:22, it appears as if humans caused it to happen. Theistic evolution says that both are true. That is, God planned it, but the creatures used their constrained, but somewhat free, will to fulfill the plan. <br /><br />The account never explicitly tells us that Adam and Eve were sinless. All it says is that creation was “very good.” But it would be equally accurate to say that they were innocent like children or animals. So if the “fruit” here is symbolic—like it is everywhere else in the Bible, then this could be symbolic of theistic evolution.<br /><br />This does not preclude Adam and Eve being historical figures. Up through Genesis 3, Adam is usually referred to as “the man” or “the adam,” and in Genesis 4, we are given proper names. And Genesis 5:1-2 (KJV) says: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”<br /><br />The first verse indicates an historical person who is part of a genealogy and an ancestor of Christ. However, the following verses seem more generic because it refers to “man” rather than Adam, and it says that God called <i>their</i> name Adam. He didn’t call their name “Adam and Eve.” Other translations simply say that He called their name Man. <br /><br />It is quite possible for Adam to both historical and for Genesis 3 to communicate a deep “mystery” about humanity. The Bible often contains several layers of interpretation and parallelism. <br /><br />It is only in the past hundred years that Christians have become adamant about superficially literal interpretation of the beginning of Genesis. Augustine, who wrote in the fifth century, and therefore knew nothing of evolution, said with respect to Genesis: “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scriptures passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”<br /><br />That seems somewhat prophetic, doesn’t it? Especially since science is the search for truth. Someone on AC cited a statistic that over 90% of biologists are atheists (I haven't confirmed it). If true, Augustine's warning seems to have materialized.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-9395474813494196902010-08-18T10:33:54.467-07:002010-08-18T10:33:54.467-07:00After Adam and Eve fell, they hid from God among t...After Adam and Eve fell, they hid from God among the trees of the garden. God went looking for them and called out to Adam. Adam responded to God. When Adam responded, God slaughtered an animal and made garments of skin to cover them. <br /><br />This means that sin separates us from God, not because God is hiding from us but because we are hiding from Him. But God is the one who initiates our redemption; He was the one who called out to Adam. When Adam responded, God covered them with the skin of an animal like He will cover us with the righteousness of the sacrificial Lamb—Christ—when we respond to His call. <br /><br />Genesis 3:15 says: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between her seed and your seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the head. To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth.”<br /><br />The “woman” is Israel and the church (Israel typifies the church), the “seed” is Christ, and the serpent is Satan. Revelation 12 contains a lot of parallels here. “A great sign appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars [the tribes of Israel and the disciples of Christ]; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth” (Revelation 12:1-2). Micah 4:10 connects labor with “the daughter of Zion,” and Micah 5:2-5 prophesies Christ. <br /><br />Revelation 12:3-9 talks about the “great red dragon,” which is Satan according to 12:9 (or the “serpent of old”). It also connects the “seed” of the laboring woman with Christ (12:5).<br /><br />The mention of childbirth is significant, because the church is “in labor” because of sin. Without sin, God could have taken us straight to heaven. And the labor of the early church (which was also “the daughter of Zion”) was particularly painful. <br /><br />There is a lot more I could say about that, but I don’t want to make this too ambitious, or I’ll never get it done.<br /><br />Genesis 3 explains the problem of evil in a nutshell. It shows the commandment of God, an act of free will (eating the fruit), the temptation by Satan, and the suffering and death that is the consequence of sin. It shows how Satan deceives us by maligning God and telling us that our actions will not have consequences. <br /><br />It also explains why we cannot eat of the tree of life and live forever. In our sinful state there has to be an end to our existence. However, Revelation 2:7 says: “To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.” <br /><br />So this indicates that death and suffering is a necessary evil because of free will, but it is something that grieves God. This is illustrated in the story of Lazarus dying, where John 11:35 simply says: “Jesus wept.” (It’s interesting to see how accurately the Scriptures portray human nature in the following verses: “So the Jews were saying, ‘See how He loved him!’ But some of them said, ‘Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?’” The rejection of Christ doesn’t always have anything to do with intellection doubt. The same principle is illustrated in the two criminals on either side of Christ in Luke 23:39-43.)<br /><br />Jesus then resurrected Lazarus from the dead, typifying the resurrection.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-63730582111737261292010-08-18T10:30:03.623-07:002010-08-18T10:30:03.623-07:00As promised, I did try to do this yesterday, but I...As promised, I did <i>try</i> to do this yesterday, but I failed. It was a very busy day. Here's an outline of the imagery or typology in Genesis 3. I did not have the time to fully develop these points, so let me know if it doesn't make sense:<br /><br />The temptation of Eve parallels the temptation of Jesus. 1 John 2:16 says that there are three categories of temptations: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. "The woman saw that the fruit was good for food [lust of the flesh], and that it was a delight to the eyes [the lust of the eyes], and that the tree was desirable to make one wise [the boastful pride of life], she took from the fruit and ate" (Genesis 3:6). <br /><br />Likewise, Satan tempted Jesus to turn rocks into bread when He was fasting (lust of the flesh), he offered Him all the kingdoms of the world (lust of the eyes), and told Him to jump from the temple and have legions of angels come to His rescue in order to impress all the spectators (the boastful pride of life). <br /><br />Eve typifies the church--that is, she foreshadows and symbolizes the church. How do I know that? Because Romans 5:14 says that Adam is a type of Him who is to come--that is, Christ. And Ephesians 5:31-32 first quotes Genesis and then ties it to Christ and the church: "'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church." <br /><br />Adam is a type of Christ and Eve is a type of the church. Jesus is often described as the bridegroom and the church the bride. So it is of great significance that we get a play-by-play of how Eve fell into temptation, and not Adam. And it is also significant how Jesus "fulfilled all righteousness" on behalf of the church, so He withstood the testing by Satan.<br /><br />After Adam and Eve sinned, they sewed coverings for themselves with fig leaves. <br /><br />In Mark 11:13-14, Jesus curses a fig tree because it has only leaves (it was not the season for figs). There’s no explanation at all, except that the text tells us that He was hungry. Then in the next passage He turns the table over in the temple. Then He leaves, and the disciples note that the fig tree his withered. <br /><br />This makes little sense so far, but in Luke 13:6, Jesus tells the following parable: "A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard keeper, 'Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?' And he answered and said to him, 'Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.'" <br /><br />So fig leaves appear to symbolize "dead works" that we use to cover up our sinfulness. The fig tree was in a vineyard, which symbolizes Israel or the church. And “fruit” symbolizes characteristics or good works that emerge naturally when we are rightly related to Christ (John 15).Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-58919964505164528202010-08-16T17:21:13.821-07:002010-08-16T17:21:13.821-07:00QED and clamflats,
I apologize for taking so long...QED and clamflats,<br /><br />I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. Although my comments on AC are often ignored, I've had an embarrassment of riches in the past few days. And since the scenery there changes <i>a lot</i> faster than it does here, I've had to reply quickly.<br /><br />But I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-62965421372280377012010-08-15T14:48:52.495-07:002010-08-15T14:48:52.495-07:00There simply is no natural explanation for altruis...<i>There simply is no natural explanation for altruism</i><br /><br />But there is an explanation - kin selection.Rick Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853103127435018152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-81103868880949107072010-08-13T16:15:27.590-07:002010-08-13T16:15:27.590-07:00Anette -
You said that "each of these author...Anette -<br /><br /><b>You said that "each of these authors was steeped in the tradition and customs of Hebrew culture and religion." That indicated to me that you were not taking into account how radical Christianity was to the Jews, even though it is an extension for Judaism--at least from the perspective of Christianity.</b><br /><br />Well, each of these authors <i>was</i> steeped in Hebrew culture and religion. They were very well versed in it. <br /><br />You seem to overemphasize the importance of how "radical Christianity was to the Jews". It was certainly radical to <i>some</i> Jews, but so what? The Essenes were considered radical and the Pharisees and Sadducees had substantial theological differences. In fact, the NT has Nicodemus revealing that Messianic "cults" were not uncommon.<br /><br /><b>I didn't say that. I said that Hebrews expected a political savior. I meant Hebrews in general, but not necessarily all. Simeon and Anna expected "the Lord's Christ." Simeon knew by the Holy Spirit (Luke 2:25), and he said, "My eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light of revelation to the gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel" (Luke 2:30-32).</b><br /><br />Then I can only wonder what your point could be, since the fact that most Hebrews came to believe in a political savior seems irrelevant. But perhaps you mean to suggest that a sect of Jews would not probably come up with "Christianity" given their proclivity to hope for a political savior. I find no reason to think this is true however, since there were various radical Jewish sects before, during and after that time.<br /><br />Furthermore, it is not hard to imagine that Jesus' followers really thought that He would be a political messiah and only later, after His death, reinterpreted His purpose upon writing their accounts.<br /><br /><b>It is most definitely surprising, because the message of the Christians was blasphemy to the Jews. When Jesus admitted to the high priest that He was the Son of God, He was accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death (Matthew 26:64-66). Stephen was stoned to death by the Jewish leaders for proclaiming Christ (Acts 7).</b><br /><br />Again, I don't see why. Maybe it is surprising to you, but as I stated above, there were a number of radical Jewish sects. Obviously not <i>all</i> Jews found the idea to be blasphemous, so appealing to the fact that <i>some</i> regarded it as such seems strange. In fact, one could make the argument that it would be more surprising if no Jews accepted the idea of a "God-in-the-flesh" type of savior, since various OT "prophecies" seem to clearly indicate that the Messiah would be divine in nature. A few examples might be:<br /><br />1. The name Immanuel.<br /><br />2. David's statement, "The Lord says to my Lord..."(Psalm 110:1)<br /><br />3. God's declaration that this Immanuel would be "Almighty God".(Isaiah 9:6)<br /><br /><b>If you want I can briefly outline all the Christian imagery in Genesis 3.</b><br /><br />Go for it.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-29318916509829412422010-08-13T12:35:30.916-07:002010-08-13T12:35:30.916-07:00No, not at all. It's just that in a discussion...<i>No, not at all. It's just that in a discussion about the reality of a particular concept, I find empirical evidence to be more convincing than fictional accounts, although fiction, parables, analogies and the like can be an efficient shorthand tool.</i><br /><br />That's true. My bad.<br /><br /><i>There must be something in the dog's genetic makeup that allows it to transfer its allegiance beyond its progeny and onto another species. I guess we could propose that a divine creator installed that trait as part of His design. The C.S. Lewis quote you included, on its own, could be just as true for dogs as it is for humans.</i><br /><br />I think the challenge for those who rely on non-theistic evolution is to explain altruism in Darwinian terms. Even if we concede that animals have morals, the question of <i>why</i> still remains. (And you're right--the Lewis quote could apply to animals as well.)<br /><br />Francis Collins is one of the country's leading geneticists and he accepts theistic evolution, but he says, "Agape, or selfless altruism, presents a major challenge for the evolutionist. It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning. It cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves. Quite the contrary: it may lead humans to make sacrifices that lead to great personal suffering, injury, or death, without any evidence of benefit."<br /><br />Darwinian evolution by itself does not explain altruism because it goes against the theory of the selfish gene. There simply is no natural explanation for altruism. As a mutation, it should have been stamped out because it doesn't perpetuate the gene. Dying for a stranger or an enemy makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-30845807685008069072010-08-13T10:46:44.416-07:002010-08-13T10:46:44.416-07:00I don't think I anywhere indicated a lack of d...<i>I don't think I anywhere indicated a lack of difference between Judaism and Christianity.</i><br /><br />You said that "each of these authors was steeped in the tradition and customs of Hebrew culture and religion." That indicated to me that you were not taking into account how radical Christianity was to the Jews, even though it is an extension for Judaism--at least from the perspective of Christianity.<br /><br /><i>This matter aside, it seems incorrect to think that Judaism predicted a "political savior".</i><br /><br />I didn't say that. I said that Hebrews expected a political savior. I meant Hebrews in general, but not necessarily all. Simeon and Anna expected "the Lord's Christ." Simeon knew by the Holy Spirit (Luke 2:25), and he said, "My eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light of revelation to the gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel" (Luke 2:30-32).<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, I don't see why it is surprising that a sect of Jews would completely reinterpret their culture and religion. Such a thing was not exactly unheard of in that era. The Essenes, for instance, are a good example (there are many other examples as well).</i><br /><br />It is most definitely surprising, because the message of the Christians was blasphemy to the Jews. When Jesus admitted to the high priest that He was the Son of God, He was accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death (Matthew 26:64-66). Stephen was stoned to death by the Jewish leaders for proclaiming Christ (Acts 7). <br /><br />The early Christians proclaimed that Jesus had risen from the dead after being crucified. Christianity was an extremely radical sect. It is easy for us to forget that because we're so used to hearing the Easter message and associating it with middle-class respectability and conservatism. <br /><br />But getting back to the typology and prophecy in the OT, it is like a brainteaser where you can't see something because you're looking at it the wrong way. But when you look at it the right way, it makes perfect sense. The typology fits perfectly. But of course there is too much of it for me to spell it all out. If you want I can briefly outline all the Christian imagery in Genesis 3.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-79139074647340793472010-08-13T10:42:40.416-07:002010-08-13T10:42:40.416-07:00Is your point that there are no real-life examples...<i>Is your point that there are no real-life examples of people going against popular opinion to do the right thing?</i><br /><br />No, not at all. It's just that in a discussion about the reality of a particular concept, I find empirical evidence to be more convincing than fictional accounts, although fiction, parables, analogies and the like can be an efficient shorthand tool. <br /><br /><i>Parents protecting their young is not true altruistic behavior because that can be explained by the "selfish gene."</i> In the blue jay story that I cited it was an entire group of jays who acted in concert to protect the fledgling. There are other examples of non-human animals putting themselves at risk for a non-family member. An obvious example is the domesticated dog. For millennia, humans have relied on dogs to protect the home and its family. Is the dog attacking an intruder acting altruistically? There must be something in the dog's genetic makeup that allows it to transfer its allegiance beyond its progeny and onto another species. I guess we could propose that a divine creator installed that trait as part of His design. The C.S. Lewis quote you included, on its own, could be just as true for dogs as it is for humans.Rick Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853103127435018152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-86907813972688719082010-08-12T17:28:06.362-07:002010-08-12T17:28:06.362-07:00Anette -
I think you are forgetting that the Hebr...Anette -<br /><br /><b>I think you are forgetting that the Hebrew religion is different from Christianity, and the Hebrews expected a political savior. They had to completely reinterpret their culture and religion when Jesus came. To them, the ceremonial law was important in and of itself, but if you look at it from the vantage point of the NT, it perfectly typifies Christian doctrine. And as I said to Rabbitpirate, the entire OT is full of this kind of imagery and foreshadowing of Christ.</b><br /><br />I don't think I anywhere indicated a lack of difference between Judaism and Christianity. However, "different" may not be an appropriate term, since Christianity is more like an <i>extension</i> of Judaism. This matter aside, it seems incorrect to think that <i>Judaism</i> predicted a "political savior". Instead, we are told that the Hebrews <i>came to believe</i> that the Messiah would be a "political savior" on account of their ongoing circumstances with the Romans.<br /><br />Furthermore, I don't see why it is surprising that a sect of Jews would completely reinterpret their culture and religion. Such a thing was not exactly unheard of in that era. The Essenes, for instance, are a good example (there are many other examples as well).<br /><br />I'll consider you "typology" in a little while.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-24457320680837405942010-08-12T16:42:59.636-07:002010-08-12T16:42:59.636-07:00Anette, I find your use of fictional characters an...<i>Anette, I find your use of fictional characters and fictional accounts of historical characters to illustrate your point to be unconvincing. In both cases, Atticus Finch and Thomas More, the authors are intent on showing the exact point you are offering as evidence. If we start down this path then Ayn Rand or Edgar Allen Poe should also be consulted!?!</i><br /><br />Well, Rick, most authors of classic novels have worthwhile insights into human nature. That's one of the things that make for good fiction. :)<br /><br />Is your point that there are no real-life examples of people going against popular opinion to do the right thing? What about all the examples in John F. Kennedy's <i>Profiles in Courage</i>? Or the early Christians who were willing to be tortured rather than renounce Christ? (Yes, I have found secular historical verification of that.)<br /><br />The fact that I used fictional accounts (although Thomas More really did sacrifice his life for his convictions) doesn't undermine my point because there are numerous historical examples as well. I just happen to like those two movies. <br /><br /><i>By the way you phrased this it seems you are arguing that only humans are capable of altruistic behaviors. There are animals that risk their lives to protect the young or disabled. See this account of blue jays (http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/5994)</i><br /><br />Parents protecting their young is not true altruistic behavior because that can be explained by the "selfish gene." The Moral Law, on the other hand, requires us to rescue those we don't know and even an enemy who is in danger. How can this be the result of evolution? The example Collins gave of the dominant male ape committing infanticide to make way for his offspring is the evolutionary flip side of the bluejays sacrificing their lives for their young.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-67350492309156271522010-08-12T05:12:02.262-07:002010-08-12T05:12:02.262-07:00Anette, I find your use of fictional characters an...Anette, I find your use of fictional characters and fictional accounts of historical characters to illustrate your point to be unconvincing. In both cases, Atticus Finch and Thomas More, the authors are intent on showing the exact point you are offering as evidence. If we start down this path then Ayn Rand or Edgar Allen Poe should also be consulted!?!Rick Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853103127435018152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-40218608540305623352010-08-12T04:59:31.691-07:002010-08-12T04:59:31.691-07:00Anette, You wrote, One might argue that a sense of...Anette, You wrote, <i>One might argue that a sense of right and wrong is a by-product of evolution, since animals also exhibit care for members of their group. But what about altruism? Why do humans almost universally agree that it is right to risk one's life in order to save or protect someone else? And why do we feel particularly inclined to protect the vulnerable or disabled? These things are universally considered morally right—not simply wise or expedient. Altruism is by its very nature the unselfish giving of oneself for the benefit of someone else.</i> <br />By the way you phrased this it seems you are arguing that only humans are capable of altruistic behaviors. There are animals that risk their lives to protect the young or disabled. See this account of blue jays (http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/5994)Rick Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853103127435018152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-88462478694760237702010-08-11T20:17:28.720-07:002010-08-11T20:17:28.720-07:00QED,
You said in an earlier discussion that the B...QED,<br /><br />You said in an earlier discussion that the Bible has been severely discredited. Since you made that claim, the burden of proof technically rests on you. However, I have not and will not call on you to substantiate that claim. I can tell you most sincerely that my goal is not to "win" a debate, but instead to try to help you find the evidence you need. So I will assume the burden of proof in a series of future blog posts to establish that Jesus lived, died, and based on strong logical inferences, most likely rose from the dead.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-53675210745399581582010-08-11T09:30:36.064-07:002010-08-11T09:30:36.064-07:00First, I don't believe that the Bible is compl...<i>First, I don't believe that the Bible is completely consistent.</i><br /><br />Well, since I'm the one who made the claim that it is completely theologically consistent, I am prepared to substantiate that claim. <br /><br /><i>Second, whatever consistency it does possess (even if "complete" given a "proper" understanding) I don't see why this is very remarkable. Even though the Bible was written over a span of approx. 1800 years by 40 authors each of these authors was steeped in the tradition and customs of Hebrew culture and religion. Furthermore, the writers of the Bible were able to "piggy back" and/or build off one another, since older works were available to later writers.</i><br /><br />I think you are forgetting that the Hebrew religion is different from Christianity, and the Hebrews expected a political savior. They had to completely reinterpret their culture and religion when Jesus came. To them, the ceremonial law was important in and of itself, but if you look at it from the vantage point of the NT, it perfectly typifies Christian doctrine. And as I said to Rabbitpirate, the entire OT is full of this kind of imagery and foreshadowing of Christ. <br /><br />This is one of the ways that the Bible authenticates itself. None of the authors of the OT knew that they were talking about Christ (Colossians 1:26). However, the OT is so densely filled with typology that if I were to explain everything in just Genesis 3, my explanation would probably be at least twenty pages. I keep discovering new imagery. And all of it fits perfectly.<br /><br />Sometimes Jesus and the NT authors identify the typology, but most of the time they don't. God has left it there so that honest skeptics can authenticate the Bible as God's word without the need for outside sources, which are inherently unreliable. Bible critics often rely on the absence of historical evidence for details in the Bible, which is their version of the theist's god-of-the-gaps argument in science. <br /><br />The Bible never says that honest skepticism is a character flaw. Resistance to the truth is a character flaw. "Doubting Thomas" has gotten a bum rap over the years, but he is actual the model honest skeptic. <br /><br />John 20:25-28 says: "So the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord!' But he said to them, 'Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.' A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.' Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"<br /><br />Jesus gave Thomas the evidence he had asked for, and it was not until then that He said, "Stop doubting and believe." And Thomas replied by calling Jesus his Lord and acknowledging that He was God. In other words, he responded with intellectual <i>and</i> practical faith. <br /><br />John 20:29 says that those who believe without seeing are "blessed"--faith comes from being close to God. But that did not stop Jesus from meeting Thomas where he was. If Thomas had then claimed that it was a mass hallucination or refused to call Jesus Lord, he would have gone beyond being a honest skeptic to being resistant to the truth.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-46116578426466410722010-08-10T12:09:39.651-07:002010-08-10T12:09:39.651-07:00Annette -
As for the implications of the consist...Annette - <br /><br /><b>As for the implications of the consistency, it depends on how likely that it would be consistent. If consistency is very likely, like in a novel written by one author, then consistency means nothing. However, if the subject matter is extremely nuanced, in that it has to explain human nature in great depth, it has to be consistent with science, has to be consistent with itself, and cannot make a fundamentally illogical statement, then it becomes very unlikely that a compilation of sixty-six books written by forty authors over a long period of time would meet this standard. If it is also the best explanation for reality, then it meets a high standard of proof as the inspired word of God. However, conclusive proof is impossible.</b><br /><br />First, I don't believe that the Bible is completely consistent. Second, whatever consistency it does possess (even if "complete" given a "proper" understanding) I don't see why this is very remarkable. Even though the Bible was written over a span of approx. 1800 years by 40 authors each of these authors was steeped in the tradition and customs of Hebrew culture and religion. Furthermore, the writers of the Bible were able to "piggy back" and/or build off one another, since older works were available to later writers.<br /><br />A truly remarkable feat would be a consistent message written by different authors of vastly different cultures such that each writer was completely insulated from the works of all the others.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-69220991856512552552010-08-09T15:21:35.636-07:002010-08-09T15:21:35.636-07:00I also don't see how you can expect, at the ou...<i>I also don't see how you can expect, at the outset, that it should be logical and morally intuitive. A proper interpretation should simply lead to the ability to assess these things.</i><br /><br />Exactly. But before I ask people to assess that, I will have determined to the best of my ability that it is theologically accurate, logical, and morally intuitive. But since I am not infallible, I appreciate it when people point out my mistakes and the holes in my logic. Also, I don’t want to tell people what to think—I want them to think for themselves, so I do want them to assess for themselves whether my interpretation is correct. Critical thinking is a good thing that should be encouraged.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-36442382674470791022010-08-09T15:20:03.313-07:002010-08-09T15:20:03.313-07:00It seems your task is much harder than you think. ...<i>It seems your task is much harder than you think. Before you go about attempting to show that the Bible is consistent you must prove the implication itself. That is, you need to first prove that consistency and best explanation implies divinely inspired word of God.</i><br /><br />You never answered my question on your blog about what standard of proof you are using. Are you using a mathematical standard of proof? If so, it is impossible to prove the Bible's veracity in that way because we don't have enough information. Mathematical proof is only possible when we have all the information we need.<br /><br />This is why scientific theories are not proven. Nobody knows about future scientific discoveries. Likewise, we can say that our present understanding of cosmology is consistent with what the Bible teaches, but of course this doesn't conclusively prove that the Bible is the word of God. <br /><br />As for the implications of the consistency, it depends on how likely that it would be consistent. If consistency is very likely, like in a novel written by one author, then consistency means nothing. However, if the subject matter is extremely nuanced, in that it has to explain human nature in great depth, it has to be consistent with science, has to be consistent with itself, and cannot make a fundamentally illogical statement, then it becomes very unlikely that a compilation of sixty-six books written by forty authors over a long period of time would meet this standard. If it is also the best explanation for reality, then it meets a high standard of proof as the inspired word of God. However, conclusive proof is impossible.<br /><br /><i>A correct interpretation should have little to do with the content of a text. By this I mean that any interpretation should not be based on the a priori assumption that the content is infallible. You therefore cannot make your standard include no contradictions.</i><br /><br />Let's say that we both have a very complex puzzle. I have been told that it is impossible to solve because the pieces don't fit together. People have told me that it is just a combination of sixty-six puzzles made by forty different people over a long period of time, and most of them didn't know each other. My experience has been that it <i>is</i> impossible. <br /><br />But you have the same puzzle, and you tell me that one person oversaw the project and made sure that all the pieces fit together, and he has helped you solve parts of it. You know this person and can vouch for his trustworthiness. You further explain that although you haven’t solved the whole puzzle, you’ve solved enough over time to believe the maker’s assertion that all the pieces fit together. <br /><br />But I tell you that I don't believe that you know the person and that he has helped you. Then I say that you can't assume that it is possible to solve the puzzle because that would be begging the question. You then try to explain to me that you have to assume that in order to keep trying to solve it--otherwise you'd just give up and conclude that it's impossible.<br /><br />You then offer to solve parts of it that I've struggled with so that I can see if it fits together or whether you've forced the pieces in places that they really don't belong. After you do that, I say, "Well, I still don't think the rest of the pieces fit together." Then you might say, "Okay, let's try another part of the puzzle then." <br /><br />My point is that I am telling you that I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, that it is completely theologically consistent, consistent with reality, logically consistent, and consistent with the Moral Law. That is an assertion that is either true or false. The only way for me to substantiate my claim is to demonstrate it.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-59524037775673872722010-08-09T09:20:30.530-07:002010-08-09T09:20:30.530-07:00Annette -
I'm fine with rephrasing it in tha...Annette - <br /><br /><b>I'm fine with rephrasing it in that way and having the burden of proof that it is consistent with itself and reality and the best explanation for reality. That is how I have proceeded all along, here and on AC. <br /><br />Since a lot of people left the faith after deciding that it wasn't consistent with itself and reality, I figure this is the best way to approach. But since it has to be consistent in every way, it will take me a while to demonstrate this.</b><br /><br />It seems your task is much harder than you think. Before you go about attempting to show that the Bible <i>is</i> consistent you must prove the <i>implication</i> itself. That is, you need to first prove that <i>consistency and best explanation</i> implies <i>divinely inspired word of God</i>.<br /><br /><br /><b>There are correct and incorrect ways of interpreting the Bible, and a correct interpretation should be airtight. There should not be any part of the Bible that contradicts it, it should be logical, and it should be intuitively morally right. If my interpretation meets these criteria, I conclude that it is correct and I am willing to publish it for other people to read.</b><br /><br />A correct interpretation should have little to do with the <i>content</i> of a text. By this I mean that any interpretation should not be based on the <i>a priori</i> assumption that the content is infallible. You therefore cannot make your standard include <i>no contradictions</i>. I also don't see how you can expect, at the outset, that it should be logical and morally intuitive. A proper interpretation should simply lead to the ability to assess these things.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.com