Christian medical students want anti-evolution lectures

Aftenposten (Norway News) ^ | 19 Nov 2003 | Jonathan Tisdall

[ElCapitanAmerica]

Why are some religious people still having a problem with evolution? Christians, specially! C'mon, around the year 400, Saint Augustine had figured it out :

---

It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial.

What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?

But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with the knowledge he has acquired, may resolutely withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation.

---

Get on with the program guys.

[bluejay]

I don't believe that God, the creator of all, can be explained by logic, or any other human means. Myself, I just believe that God exists, with no way, or need, of substantiating it. It's just faith.

I agree with you that God cannot be explained by logic. His creation, however, can and should be. I recall that one of the first commandments, that Bible records, is a command for man to go out and name all the things that were created for him. In trying to understand Lord’s creation we are simply obeying His will.

[general_re]

Make that ag nauseam.

So you must be an Aggie then? Proud graduate of Texas A&N University - Agricultural and Nauseatical? ;)

[stuartcr]

Why do you believe that God's creation can and should be explained in logical terms? Can you logically explain a miracle, virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection, the Trinity? To name is not the same as explaining.

[Abe Froman]

you see, to me -- an atheist -- "G-O-D" is a letter string that is only meaningfully defined by other people. It has no inherent value or meaning to me, so I really don't understand what you mean with your definition without further clarification.

I defined it with further clarification, along with reasoning to show why your non-belief in God is actually affirmative belief that God may not (or does not?) exist. See post 565.

[Dimensio]

Yes, I saw it. Ultimately you're trying to argue that it is "faith" to withhold belief in something in abscence of evidence. I also have seen no evidence that invisible dragons live on the surface of Mars -- do I have "faith" that they don't exist, since I certainly lack belief in them?

[Abe Froman]

What I'm saying is that a total "lack of belief" is disingenuous and not logical. In order for one to "withhold" belief in dragons on Mars one must affirmatively believe that it is possible that they don't exist. If not, one cannot claim non-belief. Since one's non-belief must neccessarily be predicated on other affirmative beliefs it is not really "non-belief" at all. Therefore a-theism is, in fact, a belief, not the lack of same.

[bluejay]

Why do you believe that God's creation can and should be explained in logical terms?

As I explained in my previous post, Lord's command to go out and give names to all the things that were created for our benefit certainly sound like a command to go out and learn about the Universe. Furthermore, I believe, that by learning all we can about God's creation we pay homage to the Creator.

Can you logically explain a miracle, virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection, the Trinity?

No. This, by the way, is where our faiths part ways. However, believing in the divinity of Jesus does not invalidate my argument. Explaining the creation is not the same as explaining the Creator - neither your version of the Creator nor mine.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanksgiving placemarker.
PatrickHenry

[RightWingNilla]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

....and Go Dolphins!

[Dimensio]

In order for one to "withhold" belief in dragons on Mars one must affirmatively believe that it is possible that they don't exist.

What a bizarre statement. You seem so desperate to prove that atheism involves "belief" that you're inventing new logical rules for assumptions, insisting that withholding belief requires "belief in the possibility of naught". Of course, to believe such, you must also believe that it is possible that it is possible that they don't exist, and you can go several levels deep before you realise that you're wasting your time on semantics rather than logical reasoning. There's also the fact that lack of belief in something can simply be a matter of never hearing of the thing in the first place -- as such, someone who has never heard of god-concepts before and lacks belief as a result is still an atheist.

[Abe Froman]

The idea of nested possibilities when referring to the same possibility is illogical. If it is asserted that something is "possible to be possible" then the only alternative is "impossible to be possible" which exactly the same as simply "impossible". No matter how many layers deep you go the meaning remains the same---the root possibility is either possible or impossible. I don't understand how this can escape you.

As for those that never heard of god-concepts----I have a hard time seeing how this is relevant. The child who has never been introduced to the concept of an airplane, and that people can fly through the air in one, obviously doesn't have an opinion on it. He has no belief or non-belief. There is no concept, in his mind, from which he may withhold his belief. As soon as someone introduces him to the idea (but does not show him an actual airplane) he has three choices----to believe it is true, false, or withhold the decision until more information becomes available. Upon introduction to the idea, contemplation about which of the three choices to make is inevitable. You have heard of the idea of God or god(s) so you can't claim ignorance about the subject.

Besides, even if we define a-theism (or a-aeronauticalism) as not having belief or disbelief in a concept one knows nothing about, it would not apply to you. If one is truly an a-theist in this sense one does not even know that one is an a-theist and as soon as one is informed of this one ceases to be a-theist. Therefore by your own definition you are not an a-theist. You are a disbeliever. You affirmatively believe God or god(s) does not exist.

At any rate your insistence on disingenuously arguing even with the vastly agreed upon classifications of atheist, agnostic, and believer is indicative of either psychological problems or just antagonism towards those on the other side of the debate. Trying to smite God by saying you don't even acknowledge the decision you have made in your own mind just makes you look ridiculous.

[newguy357]

However, just as enough chimpanzees on enough typewriters will eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare (and your average Howard Dean speech in a matter of days. . .), the several billion years and planet full of opportunities would raise the chance of an individually rare occurance to happen. . .to near certainty.

Rather than repeating the urban legends of pseudointellectuals, I suggest you read up a bit on statistical physics. Problem 2.2 in Kittel and Kroemer's Thermal Physics is pertinent. If you have 10 billion monkeys that have been typing 10 characters per second since the beginning of the universe (10^18 seconds) the probability that they would have written Shakespeare's Hamlet by now (10^5 characters) is 1/10^164345. And that is in the case you accept lower case letters for upper case letters. In reality, 1/10^164345 is called zero.

[Doctor Stochastic]

QED

[Doctor Stochastic]

It was actually: kai su teknon; Ivlivs Cæsar spoke Greek.