Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.
On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.
I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.
Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.
Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,
We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.
That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!
It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.
There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,
I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.
There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.
The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.
Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.
You don't have to give me the history on the exclusion principle. But I will give you an A on that reply. It was very good : )
You claim never to make a "'bone-headed statement," never a mistake? Where on earth do you get this confidence from, if you do not recognize a criterion of truth outside of yourself?
On the contrary, I am constantly making mistakes. I used to have a placard on my desk. "Make my day, prove me wrong." It isn't what I don't know that worries me it is what I think is right, but is really wrong that worries me. To paraphrase someone.
For that reason, I find all your statements "bone-headed!"
Then you will be thrilled to know that I consider evidence outside of myself to be the criterion of truth.
Now back to you Betty, do you have any evidence outside of yourself, to back up your belief in God?
What now???
I await your evidence, outside of yourself. Now do you see how this is played? Simple really.
LOL!
No, I don't believe that at all. I think you are deadly serious, and you don't love anyone or anything at all beyond yourself. The existentialist term for this is "alienation."
I am sorry you feel that way. I used to not fear my death at all, but now I do because of the hurt it would cause those who love me. Ironic isn't it?
Do you have the capacity to understand what I am trying to say?
Prove to me/us where he has said such things. Both you and Cronos have been chasing PNSN from thread to thread with your accusations yet I have not once seen anything he has posted stating what you accuse him of. It sure sounds like hypocrisy to complain and blame "Christians" fighting amongst themselves for ones loss of faith, and then participate in the very same things.
Well said. I doubt the person you addressed this to, understands the depth of it, unfortunately.
The "evidence, outside of myself," is the way I (a sinner) try to live my life.
I'm not all that concerned about "what I don't know" (though I continue to seek) because I recognize that all is in God's hands (so to speak). He knows; His knowledge is Absolute; and His Will eternally prevails "on earth as it is in heaven." My job here on earth is to understand His Will to the (limited) extent I can, and do it — for love of Him and His Logos, His Truth, by His Grace....
I do see the worrisome problem of the thing that one thinks is "right" might actually turn out to be "wrong." But since God is the touchstone, the criterion of Truth, it seems the closer one is to Him, the better one knows what the "right" is.
Just some thoughts....
So, do you admit what you hold as true could be wrong, too?
Again james - see you still quibble on your terminology. Were you to bother to read Romans as I earlier indicated, you will find there that there is a universal witness of God - some call it general revelation. Since that knowledge is recorded in our scriptures, it is known to us as well as to that individual in the jungle who's never encountered anyone else. That is in the bible james.
They are "saved" by following that "inner voice" that they cannot name as Jesus
Show us your conclusion from scripture james - not your personal book of second opinions.
If these people are "saved" in such a manner, then of what use are the scriptures? Couldn't everyone be "saved" by "hearing" that "inner voice" and obeying it, instead of reading the texts handed down by mere men, and obeying the dictates therein - thus being forced to have faith in the accuracy of the conveyance from deity to prophets to men, before they can have faith in the deity, instead of direct telepathy from the deity itself, as these tribals did, thus being able to have faith in deity alone without the pre-condition that they have faith in what men have told them about the deity?
Sigh, since you want to entertain the prospect of a God in your construct, then you are going to have to accept a few other items.
1. Absent your documented "inner voice" scripture passage - your first condition is false. And I am not worried about this condition changing any time soon - your strawman here doesn't exist scripturally.
2. The condition of sin (a particularly hard concept for most atheists) is a condition of SEPARATION from God - a condition under which all exist. Adam and Eve (your original 'tribals') did relate directly with God - their sin separated that open communication. Your scenario is puny compared to that which God has laid out in the bible.
3. God chose his prophets to convey his message to mankind in a way they could understand. Since God chose to have his communications with man recorded in such a manner - God being God is able to preserve those communications, and that is what the faith is based upon. There is no "pre-condition" james, what is required is the initial recognition that the individual has sin in their life and that it has separated them from God.
4. But God didn't stop there james, He came down as God the Son - Jesus to once again deal with the sin issue personally. He validated what the OT recorded and his followers documented his actions and teachings.
Faith in a deity alone doesn't bring salvation james. Since you are attacking Christianity, at least spare the platitudes in that regard. Even within Christianity it is not faith that brings salvation - but is it God's grace extended to us through the sacrifice of Jesus. And for those who have heard, we have a name to associate with it - Jesus. And if your 'tribal' individual is saved outside of traditional methods of knowing Jesus - his salvation is still founded upon that same sacrifice. And example - People are not lost because they have not heard. They are lost because they are sinners. We die because of disease, not because of ignorance of the proper cure (Boa and Moody, 1982)
Atheists like you are so narrow minded when it comes to the grace of God revealed in the bible (and you have the nerve to call us narrow minded) when coming up with your little constructs. The bible tells us that who so ever seeks after God in truth will find him - that includes your individual tribesman james.
In your case, absence of response is evidence of an inability to respond. Care to try a second time?
Yet you will be quick to bleat -PROVE IT TO ME - seen if from you time and again. I'm glad it is God that is all knowing - to rely upon atheists only show their weaknesses.
Oh, but then is some one else using your account? You seem to be the one repeating the question and making claims about salvation ("saving" business). Care to try again?
When we are young, we rarely fear our own death. It's a question that never comes up.
Later in life, sooner or later, the question becomes urgent. We seek to understand it, often in terms relating to the loss experienced by our loved ones. But this is not to face the question of death squarely — rather it is to deflect the question to others' experience, so that we do not have to engage the problem directly, to ask: What happens to me when I die? Which is the same sort of question as, Where was I before I was born?
Plato was fond of saying that all of philosophy is but preparation for death. Sounds pretty screwy by modern standards, I'm sure. Still, there's much going on there, beneath the surface level of the statement. Or so it seems to me.
Do I have the capacity to understand what you are trying to say? You tell me, LG.
Just restatement of previous points james. You indicate whole people groups, scripture/ Christianity refers to individuals. The rest of you bleat has been dealt with.
Muslims believe the same, too. Hence the "claim" that the Quran can never be corrupted.
There is no "pre-condition" james, what is required is the initial recognition that the individual has sin in their life and that it has separated them from God.
Again, this is your faith. However, there is NO WAY you can arrive at this conclusion about your chosen deity, without people telling you about this "property" of the deity. This is a problem that arises precisely because faith in a particular dogma and the associated deity relies on scriptural knowledge of the same, and is thus a pre-condition. You wouldn't be a Christian without having access to the Bible men have brought to you, would you?
This where it started, when I asked Betty Boop:
1. What is the mode of salvation for, say the stillborn infant, of a member of a tribe that has not yet heard of your religion? Is it damned?
2. What is the mode of salvation for those born mentally deficient? Are they damned?
3. As we know now, mammalian cloning is a reality. If you were cloned with a muscle cell of yours, and brought to life through the application of known science, would this clone have a soul? What is its mode of salvation? How would it affect your very own?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2713145/posts?page=1940#1940
Since God chose to have his communications with man recorded in such a manner - God being God is able to preserve those communications, and that is what the faith is based upon.
Supply scripture to support your construct james - you may learn something in the process. Fundamental point no. 1 - they are not 'saved' because they are ignorant of God, they are not saved because they sin. It is sufficient to inform then that they are in need of a savior. At such point, as they seek after the truth of God, God has promised in scripture he will be found by them. The exact mechanism for the development of that final step is not spelled out. What is spelled out is that God will reach out to those who reach out to him.
Muslims believe the same, too. Hence the "claim" that the Quran can never be corrupted.
The koran doesn't stand the scrutiny on a daily basis as the Bible does. INteresting to note that atheists spend their time attacking Christianity and not islam.
Again, this is your faith. However, there is NO WAY you can arrive at this conclusion about your chosen deity, without people telling you about this "property" of the deity.
Oh really - so very confident of you james - you've become all knowing now? The same statement could be made of atheism I suppose. The point of the issue is that I arrived at this conclusion from multiple avenues of investigation. But the fundamental point is that atheists like you can't handle Jesus, can't handle textural criticism, can't handle the externals of the development of the church, can't handle the resurrection. It isn't a great wonder that many Christian apologists are former atheists who challenged these claims james. But since you can't read my mind in-spite of all your bravado, you statement is still invalid.
This is a problem that arises precisely because faith in a particular dogma and the associated deity relies on scriptural knowledge of the same, and is thus a pre-condition. You wouldn't be a Christian without having access to the Bible men have brought to you, would you?
I wouldn't be a Christian today if it wasn't for the LIVES I witnessed in those who eventually brought me to the bible james. I further wouldn't be a Christian if it wasn't for the supernatural calling by God on my life leading me to him and out of a family situation that was counter to such an endeavor.
When balanced against all the evidences james, the bible wasn't necessary to judge me of my sins - I knew them well enough on my own to recognize my badness. What the bible does provide is a communication record on how to know God and when put to the test - historically, contextually, internally, externally, textural critically and experientially I found it to be reinforced on every level.
Your presupposition (learned from someone else's teachings) is that there is no god - therefore there can be no inspired writings from same god. Mine is focused on Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Is there a degree of faith in that - yes - but not from just the bible - but from the results of that event. Nothing else - not even atheism's bleats - can adequately explain that event in a logical, substantive manner.
And you are asking because I used the word "seems?" In your reasoning, "seems" is not equal to "certainty." Therefore, I'm on shaky ground. :^)
But how can I, an image of God, tell you "with certainty" what God knows and thinks? For me to do that would be to commit what the philosophers call a major category error.
What I know of God comes through vision of two types: (1) eye sight (not of God directly of course, but of the things He has made) and (2) inner sight. It's difficult to explain this, but William Blake captured this idea exceptionally well when he said, "We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye." Human cognition depends on both kinds of vision in order to arrive at Truth.
As Saint Paul testified, it is both the visible and the invisible things of God which unfailingly testify of Him, so we have "no excuse"....
But that doesn't mean that we know, or can know, what God knows — with total certainty. To make statements regarding "certainty" respecting God is to reduce God down to the size of our cognitive apparatus. When that happens, we're not talking about God anymore.
Capice?
Fine - 1 and 2 are easy - since it requires the ability to make a conscience decision to repent and accept Jesus, the stillborn (anywhere in the world) and those mentally impaired are not damned - very easy case to make from the bible.
A clone would be more difficult now wouldn’t it. What is more scary is how clones will be treated (primarily by atheists) than their actual presence in society. Yet there is a form of cloning - twins - that shows that yes, both would be in need of salvation, since both developed into humans. So too, if a complete human was cloned - that person would be equivalent to a twin, a human, still in need of salvation and protection from atheists who would want to treat them as something other than humans.
Fine - 1 and 2 are easy - since it requires the ability to make a conscience decision to repent and accept Jesus, the stillborn (anywhere in the world) and those mentally impaired are not damned - very easy case to make from the bible.
A clone would be more difficult now wouldn’t it. What is more scary is how clones will be treated (primarily by atheists) than their actual presence in society. Yet there is a form of cloning - twins - that shows that yes, both would be in need of salvation, since both developed into humans. So too, if a complete human was cloned - that person would be equivalent to a twin, a human, still in need of salvation and protection from atheists who would want to treat them as something other than humans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.