Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
Jan 18,2010, 11:58AM

How dare religious zealots blame Haiti for its misery

I took upon myself a most modest task. Critique the monstrous claim of Pat Robertson that the terrible earthquake that has decimated Haiti was a result of God's providential judgment on the nation. Apparently Robertson has more support among conservative Christians than I had wanted to believe. Four of the respondents in the thread came out actually defending the aging fundy. And they weren't just saying "He's a senile old man, so just leave him alone." No, they actually defended his claims.

Ososami mused: "The worldview hates any hints at divine judgement because it scares them ... this may be a call for repentance and soul searching as we do everything in our power to help Haitians...and could be a wake up call for all(not just Haitians)..."

With these rather cryptic words, Ososami seemed to be suggesting that just maybe this was God's judgment.

Dixie made a similar point: "God gives every opportunity for a country to repent prior to judgment - look at Ninevah, Sodom and Gomorrah, the world itself at the time of Noah, just to note a few. Why would we not think that His longsuffering and patience in Haiti would be met with some kind of wake up call to repentence."

If Ososami and Dixie were relatively qualified in their espousal of the divine judgment hypothesis, our next two commentators were not. Redphilly comments:

"Pat is telling it like it is. In fact, if he doesn't say this, God will retaliate against him. ... If Haiti did the grossly un-Godly thing that Robertson spoke of, then what has happened to them is because of it. We have a Jealous God and He has no problem admitting this to us. He put it in His Book. If Haiti went that far, it was spitting in Jehovah's Face and He is outraged every time He thinks about it. And Haiti suffers for it."

Redphilly goes on to say "If Haiti did this, they are our enemies." (The referent of "our" is not clear: The church? America?)

Finally, the most chilling comment comes from Dutchlionfrans who starts off colorfully by repudiating those who reprimanded Robertson as spewing vomit. Dutchlionfrans goes on: "Pat merely stated something that removed God's protection over the land of Haiti...." Finally, "So, instead of attacking Pat Robertson, attack and prosecute your criminal members of Congress, the Senate, the Judges who allow minorities, even 1 person to impose his/ her will over millions of Americans through the abuse of the court!"

Ososami and Dixie strike me as seriously misguided, if well intentioned, but Redphilly is scary. And Dutchlionsfrans is, well, terrifying. There is so much vitriol, hatred and xenophobia in Redphilly and Dutchlionsfrans that it is hopeless even to begin to engage them. All I can note is that Jesus didn't hang out with angry religious fundamentalists. He hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and Samaritans.

The other day a young Haitian girl was on the news. Her legs were caught underneath a large slab of concrete and doctors, desperate to free her, were preparing to amputate both legs without anesthesia.

Now think about it. There are Christians out there -- including four in my last thread -- who believe that this little girl is receiving the brunt of divine wrath because of the ill-defined sins of a nation state. How can I say in stronger terms that the suggestion is putrid, despicable, and evil and it can only increase the misery of this world whilst undermining the moral resolve of self-righteous religious zealots to help others in desperate need?

How dare religious zealots blame Haiti for its misery
I took upon myself a most modest task. Critique the monstrous claim of Pat Robertson that the terrible earthquake that has decimated Haiti was a result of God's providential judgment on the nation. Apparently Robertson has more support among conservative Christians than I had wanted to believe. Four of the respondents in the thread came out actually defending the aging fundy. And they weren't just saying "He's a senile old man, so just leave him alone." No, they actually defended his claims.
Most recent comments
1.January 28,2010, 11:19AM
"The Christian God punishes in the afterlife, not in the present day, and not for any sin other than disbelieving."
--

Is this an example of Poe's Law?
--AcesLucky
2.January 27,2010, 4:11PM
The Christian God punishes in the afterlife, not in the present day, and not for any sin other than disbelieving.
--EssEff
3.January 26,2010, 11:53AM
@ AAN
& MGT2

Pardon the intrusion, you've got a lively conversation going on there. You'll both remember that it jumped off at the "good vs bad explanation" juncture, where it then got rather technical with evolution being the questionable example.

Remember the basic idea: a good explanation is "hard to vary" whereas a bad explanation is "easy to vary."

On Evolution:

Never mind about 140 years of data that support it, and never mind its TESTABILITY (the breeding, the lab work), and never mind its PREDICTIVE value in biology and medicine (we make workable vaccines from it), never mind any of that because all of it could still be false!

The value in the theory of evolution is in its ability to EXPLAIN what's going on, and the fact that it is testable and has predictive ability is a testament to it being a GOOD EXPLANATION! Varying from the explanation does not yield the same results observed in reality. It is thus hard to vary.


On "God did it":

Maybe God DID do it! But it can't be TESTED and it contains no PREDICTIVE value; thus it is "easy to vary". For example: "The Leprechaun did it!" Such a change (variation) in the explanation "God did it" yields the exact same results, in spite of the fact that a major component (God) was changed!

Ergo, because it is easy to vary, it is a poor explanation.
--AcesLucky
4.January 26,2010, 11:06AM
MGT2, thank you for clarifying that it was not a specific prophecy. I appreciate your honesty.
--ConverseAtheist
5.January 26,2010, 10:54AM
CA

“When did this specific prophecy come true?”

We are living in that unfolding right now just as we are living in the unfolding of prophesies about the increase in earthquakes, wars, sufferings… The end time or last days is not a particular day or date, but a “period of time.” How long will it last? We do not know. What we do know is that the last days (End Times) started during the age of the apostles. There are culminating events yet to take place and we may or may not live to see them.
--MGT2
6.January 25,2010, 11:32PM
MGT2: "... Yādha′ means to perceive, understand, acquire knowledge…"

When did this specific prophecy come true?

Were people in the year 200 AD comfortable in knowing that the End Times were well in the future because "a sufficient increase of knowledge had not yet come about"?
--ConverseAtheist
7.January 25,2010, 7:20PM
AAN

The Hebrew word used for knowledge in Daniel 12:4 is Da′ath, noun (derived from yādha′) and means knowledge, insight, intelligence, understanding. It also means technical knowledge as in Exodus 31:3 and 35:31.

Yādha′ means to perceive, understand, acquire knowledge…

The Hebrew word for evil is Ra′ and it means bad, disagreeable, wicked in ethical quality…

Both da′ath and ra′ are used in Genesis 2:9, “…and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” – NRSV.

There is nothing in the meaning of Da′ath that would justify translating it as evil. I think you have uncovered an error in this edition of the NRSV.
--MGT2
8.January 25,2010, 11:52AM
MGT2 - "I simply wanted to establish that purpose does not come out of completely random processes.."

Nobody claims that it does and everyone would agree on that point. Which is why it is crucial to understand that evolution is not a completely random process.

"Natural laws are the way they are because they are non-random, why?"

Nobody knows why natural laws are the way they are.
--AnAtheist.Net
9.January 25,2010, 9:11AM
CA

Thanks for clearing that up.

AAN

Yes, it does make sense. (I will look at the NRSV later.)

I simply wanted to establish that purpose does not come out of completely random processes, and that “chance variations” are only secondary causalities (expected, due to the interaction of independent environmental agents). Natural laws are the way they are because they are non-random, why?
--MGT2
10.January 25,2010, 2:18AM
MTG2 - "Are you asking for prediction about the increase in knowledge or predictions about the end times? If the former, I explained Daniel 12.."

I was asking about the former and Daniel 12 does not make a specific prediction. Incidently, the NRSV translation renders it, "Many shall be running back and forth, and evil shall increase."

I agree with the dictionary definition of evolution. My point was simply this. When we are describing the purpose behind some living system we could mean one of two things. Let's take the following example: The purpose of the heart is to circulate blood. In a creationist framework the purpose is the CAUSE. A designer intended the heart to circulate blood and therefore it does. However, in an evolutionary framework the purpose is the EFFECT. The heart happened to evovle the function of circulating blood.

So when I claim that a non-random process combined with chance variation yields purpose I only mean purpose in the second sense - as an effect. In other words, purpose is a consequence of evolution. Purpose is not a cause of evolution. Does that make sense?
--AnAtheist.Net
11.January 24,2010, 4:15PM
MGT2: "My assumption is that you mean ‘non-directed’ instead of ‘non-random,’..."


We come to the crux of the matter. How many ways can I say no to what you just wrote? Your assumption that I mean "non-directed" instead of "non-random" is completely wrong and explains everything about why we're missing each other.

Natural selection is not random. Natural selection is the non-random selection of favored genes. Not. Random.

MGT2: "...the explanations I am getting seem to imply that a very random process, with no intention, no direction and no cause, is EXPECTED to yield purpose."

Natural selection isn't random.

Think of a large grassy field with slowly rolling hills that get higher and higher as they spread out from on a central low-point. Imagine you started a basketball near the top of one of the hills and you kicked the basketball in a RANDOM direction hard enough for the ball to roll about 2 feet. After waiting for the basketball to come to a stop you then give the ball another kick exactly as hard in a random direction.

Gravity fights how far the ball will roll uphill and it helps the ball roll a little farther every time the ball is kicked more downhill. Eventually, no matter where on the hills you started, the basketball will end up near the central impression.

Did you kick the ball in a random direction? Yes, by design. Did gravity have any intention? Only if you want to abuse language to make natural forces "intend" for something.

We have an example of a random kicks funneling a ball toward a directed location without intention. Why? Because the hills have a slope -- and this fact is utterly crucial.

How is it that random kicks should make a ball repeatedly end up in a particular area? If it was random, it would take a random walk!

Yes. If it was just random, if you did this kicking experiment on a perfectly flat grassy field, you would just take the basketball on a random walk and you would not converge on a location, ever. 100% agreement there.

The absolutely necessary fact is that the random kicking takes place on a landscape which is not random.
--ConverseAtheist
12.January 24,2010, 12:29PM
We are talking about good vs. bad explanations, and so far, the explanations I am getting seem to imply that a very random process, with no intention, no direction and no cause, is EXPECTED to yield purpose. Or else, they are taking a small event from a larger process and placing it several steps too early, erroneously making it responsible for the entire process. Personally, I do not think that you can ‘expect’ purpose from randomness without deliberate intervention. I think the process is either misdefined as random, or the adherents are denying deliberate intervention and their explanations are inadequate.
--MGT2
13.January 24,2010, 12:04PM
CA

“That is a simple explanation of how non-random natural selection can favor particular DNA sequences over other DNA sequences without ever "knowing" anything about molecules or DNA. It only knows what that DNA expresses.”

My assumption is that you mean ‘non-directed’ instead of ‘non-random,’ and that by ‘favor’ you mean that is just the way it works, and that by ‘knows’ you mean that is the inevitable outcome. That would have you saying in effect that a non-directed process with chance happenings is expected to yield purpose, and that is ok for you to believe. Otherwise, you are ascribing purpose to the process of natural selection, and by extension, to the process of evolution.
--MGT2
14.January 24,2010, 9:37AM
MGT2: "In response to my earlier question, AAN said, "external environment does not directly effect changes at the molecular level," and the discussion evolved. Now you seem to be implying that it does."

Let me quote directly from a book on evolution:

"Natural selection is the differential survival of successful genes rather than alternative, less successful genes in gene pools. Natural selection doesn't choose genes directly. Instead it chooses their proxies, individual bodies; and those individuals are chosen -- obviously and automatically and without deliberative intervention -- by whether they survive to reproduce copies of the very same genes." -- p248, The Greatest Show on Earth.

Do you follow what that paragraph says?

Let's say that in a certain environment, taller animals survive and reproduce more successfully than their shorter relatives. That fact means that as the generations pass, the entire species will evolve toward the taller animal. Why? Because whatever molecular and DNA underlies the "tallerness" of the animal -- that's what's replicated and passed on more frequently.

The environment "selects tallness" to put it in anthropomorphic terms -- the environment does not directly "select DNA sequence tagcaataggatccagt".

If it so happened that that sequence does encode for "tallness" -- well, then that specific DNA sequence would become dominant in that animal species. Did the environment select that sequence, then? Not directly. The environment could care less about that particular sequences. What the environment rewards is "tallness".
That is a simple explanation of how non-random natural selection can favor particular DNA sequences over other DNA sequences without ever "knowing" anything about molecules or DNA. It only knows what that DNA expresses.
--ConverseAtheist
15.January 24,2010, 8:46AM
CA

Are we at least in agreement through here?”

Maybe not. Lets back up. In response to my earlier question, AAN said, "external environment does not directly effect changes at the molecular level," and the discussion evolved. Now you seem to be implying that it does. You may have a point, but there is a difference in the circumstances.

Your scenario introduces a different situation from natural selection, an artificial or unnatural selection by the deliberate, directed intervention of people. That is a big difference. They may not have understood what happens at the molecular level, but they understood what the mixing of the breeds would yield. They purposely brought the breeds together for a predictable outcome, creating an unnatural, purposefully directed external environment that seem to have direct impact at the molecular level. There are no longer any randomness; no chance happenings.

If you mean simply, that regardless of the characteristics of the external environment, any resultant molecular change is because of its direct impact, yeah. But that fundamentally changes the discussion without resolving the issue, and in my mind, undermines the arguments of evolution as good explanations.
--MGT2
16.January 24,2010, 7:53AM
AAN

“What specific predictions were made?”

Are you asking for prediction about the increase in knowledge or predictions about the end times? If the former, I explained Daniel 12. If the latter, I have already mentioned Revelations 11, but you can read from chapter four onwards about prophesies of the end times. You can also read Matthew 24. For more, I refer you to http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

You say, “The appearance of 'purpose' is an expected result of evolution + natural selection - it's called adaptation.”

I think you may be missing the point of my original question. I admit to not being an evolutionary biologist, but I always thought that natural selection was just one of the mechanisms of evolution. To be sure that I am not making this up, I quickly looked up ‘evolution’ online and found:

“change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.” –Dictionary.com

You seem to look at it otherwise.

Anyway, this is what I get from your answer: a non-directed process with chance happenings is expected to yield purpose. OK.
--MGT2
17.January 24,2010, 6:23AM
MGT2: "So, is selective human breeding inadequate as an explanation of the size of a Great Dane? Not at all. But it is directed and purposeful, by humans."

Yes -- but the humans did nothing directly on the molecular level.

You wrote: "Now, since evolution is not a directed process, and external environment does not directly effect changes at the molecular level at which variation is more or less random, then it is insufficient as an explanation..."

Let's take this one step at a time and focus on the "external environment does not directly effect changes at the molecular level" part.

You agree that human selection on dogs was only taking into account physical attributes of the dogs -- not acting directly on the molecules, ever. Right?

People did not directly select changes at the molecular level, but their selection produced changes at the molecular level.

Are we at least in agreement through here?
--ConverseAtheist
18.January 24,2010, 1:30AM
MGT2 - "I explained predictive prophesy and how it is authenticated in an earlier post on the previous thread, to that extent Nostradamus is not a prophet."

What specific predictions were made?

"So purpose is an accidental result of evolution? And is fully explainable by evolution?"

No. The appearance of 'purpose' is an expected result of evolution + natural selection - it's called adaptation. And yes, that is the claim.
--AnAtheist.Net
19.January 23,2010, 4:13PM
AAN

“You are slipping into a teleological mode of thought that is simply not correct.”

The basic premise of David Deutsch’s talk is that the increase in knowledge afforded by science and the conventional explanations offered by scientists, as opposed to other categories of people, provide the only good explanations. His examples made it clear that he included explanations for everything, including beliefs and universal truths, morals, ethics, empiricism, as well as the teleological, starting with his explanation of what makes stars shine.

Ironically, he did not really demonstrate how the scientific explanation is better (has less variability) for those examples, he just says so. Thus, my questions.
--MGT2
20.January 23,2010, 3:32PM
So, is selective human breeding inadequate as an explanation of the size of a Great Dane? Not at all.

But it is directed and purposeful, by humans.
--MGT2
21.January 23,2010, 1:14PM
MGT2: "Now, since evolution is not a directed process, and external environment does not directly effect changes at the molecular level at which variation is more or less random, then it is insufficient as an explanation of how and why the creosote plant is able to produce toxins for the specific purpose of eliminating the competition for the water necessary to its survival. Consequently, evolution is inadequate as an explanation of purpose."

Tell me, when human breeders selected which dogs to breed to give certain particular outcomes -- think Great Dane and Dachshunds -- were they directly affecting changes at the molecular level at which variation was more or less random?

No, they were selecting (artificially as opposed to naturally) for physical characteristics, and with no knowledge of genetics, DNA, or evolution for almost the entire history of dog breeding. So, is selective human breeding inadequate as an explanation of the size of a Great Dane? Not at all.
--ConverseAtheist
22.January 23,2010, 1:04PM
AAN

I explained predictive prophesy and how it is authenticated in an earlier post on the previous thread, to that extent Nostradamus is not a prophet.

So purpose is an accidental result of evolution? And is fully explainable by evolution?
--MGT2
23.January 23,2010, 12:38PM
MGT2 -

(1) Prophecies: It is like those silly Nostradomus predictions. If they are vague enough then people can read into them after the fact all sorts of amazing things. The problem is that they can never actually predict something specific in advance. And that's why I asked you what specific predictions were made?

"the scientific quest for knowledge in order to explain these things as well as our world, began in the Church"

It began with the ancient Greeks.

(2) Evolution: "...it is insufficient as an explanation of how and why the creosote plant is able to produce toxins for the specific purpose of eliminating the competition"

The explanation is sufficient for the same reason that it is sufficient to explain why bugs become resistent to particular insticides. Darwin's great acheivement was to explain the appearance of purpose or teleology in the living world in terms of adaptation. We can see because we have eyes or we have eyes so that we can see? Darwin argued for the former. The creosote plant is successful at eliminating its competition because in its genetic diversity a few of the plants were lucky enough to produce a toxin and consequently those were the plants that (obviously) reproduced the most successfully. It is NOT that the toxin appearred for the express purpose of eliminating that competition. You are slipping into a teleological mode of thought that is simply not correct.

"For if, it is not directed, is marginally influenced by external environment and is simply random at the molecular level, then it is purposeless and cannot be used to explain adversarial, symbiotic or complementary relationships in nature..."

No evolutionary biologist worth his/her salt would agree with you there. Even Darwin talked extensively about these relationships in the Origin. He felt very strongly that natural selection can explain them. You have read that book, right?
--AnAtheist.Net
24.January 23,2010, 11:59AM
Evolution is very useful at explaining certain natural phenomenon, and is great as a scientific theory for explaining natural selection. However, it is woefully inadequate to explain the swath of things that many scientists use to do. For if, it is not directed, is marginally influenced by external environment and is simply random at the molecular level, then it is purposeless and cannot be used to explain adversarial, symbiotic or complementary relationships in nature which are intrinsically purposeful.

Everything in nature is about relationships, whether of animate things or inanimate things, and are therefore purposeful. One may say that there is no purpose to anything, but then there would be a purpose for saying that. Consciousness, morality, logic, the sense of justice, which we all possess, serve a purpose and beg the question, “how and why?”
--MGT2
25.January 23,2010, 10:44AM
AAN

“The passage that you cited says "knowledge shall increase" and you say that this "indicates more than a mere incremental increase in knowledge." How? What specifically is being predicted by this?”

Traditionally, the Church has always seen this, along with the prophesies concerning the last days, as referring to the acquisition of knowledge of things and events through the development of history that will enable us to understand what was being said. Many prophesies were puzzling as to how they could possible happen given the knowledge they had then. For example, the prophesy of Revelation 11:9, implies that the entire world would be able to simultaneously see the bodies of the two witnesses. Scholars were challenged to explain it until the invention of the television brought it into the realm of possibility. Other examples are the prophesies of Ezekiel and Revelation about flying vehicles that were difficult to comprehend then, but are taken for granted now.

Some early theologians were inclined to see some of these prophesies as merely symbolic and metaphorical because they had no knowledge of the inventions of modern science. As it turns out, the knowledge afforded us by modern science is proving that not only are the claims of the prophetic utterances possible, but that many of the “miracles” described in the Bible were probable.

Bear in mind also, that the scientific quest for knowledge in order to explain these things as well as our world, began in the Church and continues even through today. So we understand that the “explosion of knowledge” is part of the historical unfolding leading to an increase in knowledge.
--MGT2
26.January 23,2010, 8:12AM
AAN,

“Evolution is not a directed process. Natural selection is the mechanism of adaptation, although about all it really means is the non-random elimination of chance variations. The external environment does not directly effect changes at the molecular level. At the molecular level, variation is more or less random. Evolution and adaptation workes like a sieve or a screening process.”

That I know; we all learnt that in introductory evolution classes. It is not about the terminologies, anyone can look up their meanings; it is about how we understand and use the concepts to explain things, and that is my point.

Now, since evolution is not a directed process, and external environment does not directly effect changes at the molecular level at which variation is more or less random, then it is insufficient as an explanation of how and why the creosote plant is able to produce toxins for the specific purpose of eliminating the competition for the water necessary to its survival. Consequently, evolution is inadequate as an explanation of purpose.
--MGT2
27.January 22,2010, 4:59PM
MGT2 -

(1) The passage that you cited says "knowledge shall increase" and you say that this "indicates more than a mere incremental increase in knowledge." How? What specifically is being predicted by this?

(2) Evolution is not a directed process. Natural selection is the mechanism of adaptation, although about all it really means is the non-random elimination of chance variations. The external environment does not directly effect changes at the molecular level. At the molecular level, variation is more or less random. Evolution and adaptation workes like a sieve or a screening process.
--AnAtheist.Net
28.January 22,2010, 3:52PM
"Saying that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution does not answer the question of how *it is able to direct...*"

Ooops!
--AcesLucky
29.January 22,2010, 2:34PM
MGT2: "“But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” -Daniel 12:4 ... Your point is well taken, but the context of scripture, including prophesies, indicates more than a mere incremental increase in knowledge."

Ok, then. When people proclaimed that the end of the world was going to happen "soon" in the 1600's -- were people saying, "no no, we haven't had enough of an increase in knowledge, we're still years away"?

If you think that this prophecy came true -- and cannot name when it came true even after the fact -- you have a very very squishy prophecy.

So, when did this prophecy come true?
--ConverseAtheist
30.January 22,2010, 1:09PM
Saying that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution does not answer the question of how it is able to direct a particular mutation to meet a specific need or solve a specific problem.

Take the creosote plant for example. It is adapted to the desert and produces a toxin that prevents other plants from growing close to its territory. This phenomenon, it is reasonable to assume, preserves its supply of water. Did this plant develop the toxin specifically for this purpose, to restrict competition for the water supply? Were there a group of plants competing for water in a restricted geographic location and one plant species, the creosote bush, developed a genetic mutation in response, specifically to eliminate the competition? What directed that response; how and by what mechanism did it use the information from its external environment to effect changes at the molecular level?
--MGT2
31.January 22,2010, 8:15AM
AnAtheist,

Your point is well taken, but the context of scripture, including prophesies, indicates more than a mere incremental increase in knowledge.

ConverseAtheist,

Saying that the mechanism by which evolution works is natural selection is like describing water as being ‘wet.’ Bad explanation.
--MGT2
32.January 22,2010, 12:06AM
In fact -- it would be a pristine example of what that video describes as a "bad explanation".
--ConverseAtheist

I was getting ready to write that but I didn't want it to be taken personally so I passed. But you are correct, it is a perfect example.
--AcesLucky
33.January 21,2010, 11:28PM
AnAtheist: "Any slight addition of any type of knowledge would fulfill that prediction. It is virtually a truism."

In fact -- it would be a pristine example of what that video describes as a "bad explanation".
--ConverseAtheist
34.January 21,2010, 11:26PM
MGT2 - "So the Bible anticipated the explosion of knowledge thereby acknowledging early man’s limited knowledge."

A very general statement about knowledge increasing is not anticipating the explosion of scientific and technological knowledge from the 1600s to the present. Any slight addition of any type of knowledge would fulfill that prediction. It is virtually a truism.
--AnAtheist.Net
35.January 21,2010, 10:15PM
MGT2: "Just watch any program dealing with origins and you will hear the “evolution did it” dictum."

Origins? You probably mean origins of species, or are watching bad science tv (which is possible).

Also, it's a shame that they apparently didn't mention the mechanism by which evolution works. That mechanism is natural selection.

Now you know.
--ConverseAtheist
36.January 21,2010, 9:31PM
I listened to David Deutsch and was impressed. He made a number of good points that I agree with totally. For example, he explained that early humans could not know how to explain things because of their lack of knowledge. He went on to describe the explosion in knowledge. I also resonate with his despair of claims that lack explanations.

At the end of his talk, I was impressed at how much confirmation he gave to the Bible. Here is what I mean. Look at the explosive increase in knowledge, the bible says, “But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” -Daniel 12:4. So the Bible anticipated the explosion of knowledge thereby acknowledging early man’s limited knowledge.

However, the lack of explanation is interesting. Atheists like to accuse theists of resorting to “god of the gaps.” I was watching a program on Nova about hummingbirds. To explain the adaptation of plants to the various beak shapes of the birds, and vise versa, the narrator said that evolution did it. But he never explained HOW evolution did it, what mechanism was employed or how it directed a specific mutation to achieve a narrow goal. Just watch any program dealing with origins and you will hear the “evolution did it” dictum.

It is ironic that Deutsch should characterize other such claims as wizardry while accepting similar claims of evolution.
--MGT2
37.January 21,2010, 1:04AM
Aceslucky: "...I hope an important few of you will take a listen to David Deutsch addressing TED (TED talks at ted.com)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A "

I really hope that I'm a part of that important few :) -- Let me also highlight the worthiness of that talk.

Go watch it, everyone.
--ConverseAtheist
38.January 20,2010, 1:29PM
There is a most exquisite explanation of all that we have discussed here, not just on this topic but practically all of the topics!

I hope an important few of you will take a listen to David Deutsch addressing TED (TED talks at ted.com).

"For tens of thousands of years our ancestors understood the world through myths, and the pace of change was glacial. The rise of scientific understanding transformed the world within a few centuries. Why? Physicist David Deutsch proposes a subtle answer."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A
--AcesLucky
39.January 20,2010, 9:18AM
RD,

You make an important and astute observation:

"The other day a young Haitian girl was on the news. Her legs were caught underneath a large slab of concrete and doctors, desperate to free her, were preparing to amputate both legs without anesthesia.

Now think about it. There are Christians out there -- including four in my last thread -- who believe that this little girl is receiving the brunt of divine wrath because of the ill-defined sins of a nation state. How can I say in stronger terms that the suggestion is putrid, despicable, and evil and it can only increase the misery of this world whilst undermining the moral resolve of self-righteous religious zealots to help others in desperate need?"
---

Looks like you're beginning to see the invisible hand for what it is... a superstitious justification of a natural event. That earthquake would have happened whether there were people there or not.

And you're also beginning to see the folly. No god can work this way and be considered moral. Your continuous exercise of "reason" is beginning to make you reject the superstition.

I know you won't appreciate this coming from me, but your B.S. detector is engaging.
--AcesLucky
40.January 19,2010, 10:50AM
Robertson and the four posters you called out are downright scary and are filled with something other than love for Yahweh and His creation. Defending Robertson who is a false prophet and thus not a man of God is to align oneself with the Adversary - intentionally or not.

If I am understanding (which I may be misunderstanding your position in general) your position in relation to God's judgment and innocents (relatively speaking since none are truly innocent) suffering for the sins of their fathers (that this doesn't happen), Scripture speaks differently. Israel and Judah were judged and many innocents were damaged, killed or suffered greatly along with the nations as a whole. Prophets of God suffered along with the nations as proof.

Grace and Peace,
Jim
--oldstudent
41.January 19,2010, 5:59AM
It's interesting to agree with you for once RD.

Note how easily the people in the last post fell into the fallacy of argument from authority--as if Pat Robertson knew any history.

It seems like something of a backward argument, affirming the consequent maybe. All those people disagreeing with you seem to assume that they MUST have sinned egregiously for this to have occurred. We understand plate tectonics. Why must we be so egotistical to assume that the reason for the earth shaking is us?
--samael
42.January 18,2010, 3:52PM
Homoousia316,

I'll come back to this question.
--RD Rauser
43.January 18,2010, 3:51PM
ConverseAtheist,

I have offered them pragmatic and rational defeaters for their beliefs to ensure that those beliefs are not properly basic.
--RD Rauser
44.January 18,2010, 3:50PM
sorceror,

"But how to reconcile that with "God's Curse on creation", or the curses on Adam and Eve's progeny?"

There are many interpretations of Genesis 1-3 held by Jews and Christians, some of which would not be compatible with what I've said (i.e. a Calvinistic view of imputation of sin) but others of which would be.
--RD Rauser
45.January 18,2010, 3:18PM
So God did not intend for that little girl to have her legs crushed during an earthquake, and for them to be removed without anesthesia? From whence, then, comest such evil?
--Homoousia316
46.January 18,2010, 3:04PM
How dare religious zealots blame Haiti for its misery?

Seems rather simple to me. I imagine if they'd been trained as a theologian that they'd say something like:

'I am reared in a community of faith in which I am taught that Yahweh is God and he has the set of attributes attributed to him according to Christian doctrine (and one of the most devout Christians I learn from is the famous Christian Pat Robertson)... Time and again I have had these experiences which, according to my plausibility framework, strongly suggest that God (defined as the Christian God that Pat Robertson has sketched out for me over the years) is active in my life. Now no doubt I (and the Christian tradition) have got some things wrong about God. For example, while I believe that God is triune, nobody in ancient Israel believed this, and yet many of those people were in intimate relationship with God. So it is very plausible that I have got some things wrong as well. But on the whole my experience suggests that if I (and my tradition) is wrong in certain matters about God's attributes, we are not fatally wrong any more than were those ancient Israelites.'

How dare religious zealots blame Haiti? -- Is not their religious belief properly basic? Do they not trust the leaders of the community (like Pat Robertson) to give them direction (which they follow)?
--ConverseAtheist
47.January 18,2010, 2:25PM
Any time you want to actually tackle Perfect Being Theology (on which christological hermeneutics depends), I'm game.

On the other hand, the "natural law" argument is interesting. Of course I agree that it's "immoral to punish one person ... for the moral indiscretions of others". But how to reconcile that with "God's Curse on creation", or the curses on Adam and Eve's progeny?
--sorceror
48.January 18,2010, 1:50PM
Well said, RD. Unfortunately, this is often how Christians are seen by those who are unfamiliar with the the Gospel. They have no real compassion for their fellowman, only for their religious ideology.
--MGT2
49.January 18,2010, 1:35PM
Three reasons:

(1) a christological hermeneutic: (i.e. I understand God through Christ as revealed in the New Testament)

(2) natural law:

Let's think for a minute about the idea of punishing the nation of Haiti. Nations really are just collections of people, territory, and cultural artifacts. Since you cannot punish territory or artifacts -- these being non-sentient -- you are left punishing people. And it is immoral to punish one person -- e.g. that little child -- for the moral indiscretions of others -- e.g. other Haitians who may have committed evil acts.

(3) knowledge of the divine nature intuited and reasoned through a Perfect Being Theology framework.
--RD Rauser
50.January 18,2010, 12:59PM
Rauser - you write,
There are Christians out there -- including four in my last thread -- who believe that this little girl is receiving the brunt of divine wrath because of the ill-defined sins of a nation state.


I ask, in all curiosity... how do you know she isn't?

(Of course I agree that's not the reason she's suffering, and I can explain how I know... but I'm pretty sure my answer doesn't look anything like yours.)
--sorceror
Comment on this Story
Don't have a christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click here
Copyright © The Christian Post. All right reserved.About Us|Contact Us|Media Kit|Registration|Terms and Conditions|Disclaimer|Corrections