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.
And John's Gospel is the Hellezination of a Jewish sect. It was actually a Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jew, Philo (circa mid 1st century AD), who began using this Greek pagan concept, until then alien to Judaism. Philo;s influence on Christianity was immense. Eusebius (3rd century AD), the first church historian, refers to Philo as "St. Philo"!
By adopting the Greek pagan concepts, such as the logos (who resembles the demiugre, the creator of the world, but not God), Christianity becomes Platonized and more acceptable and understanble to the Greeks. After that, neo-Platonism defines the sect for some time to come.
Aristotelianism finally influences western Christianity, and is best manifested in Aquinas' work. Very few Christians realize how Hellenized Christianity became and how alien to its Judaic roots.
Well, I have to depend on ordinary mortals to tell me what God did. Isn't that why God supposedly used his "prophets"? :)
Except that you have to make a blind leap of faith so he can reveal himself to you (your own words), and more importantly, you have to a priori accept that the Bible is his word. Every Bible college requires that of its entering freshemn—unconditional blind) acceptance that the Bible is his inerrant word.
I think the kind of pride God despises is the kind that refuses to trust in him and accept what he has seen fit to reveal about himself.
So, in other words, ask as long as you accept what I dish out? LOL.
It is a kind of stubbornness that stomps its feet at God hardening their hearts unless he responds to them on their terms or not at all.
The Bible says it is God who hardens hearts and sends deceiving spirits.
I can prove I went to Bible college, but would you just take my word for it?
Depends. For ordinary conversational purposes, sure. For hiring purposes, no.
Good, then you can tell me what is God.
I have no doubts today at all about God. I may not understand all that he permits in my life and the world but I trust him completely. I know him in a personal way that is not even possible to adequately relay. It just must be experienced individually. I pray for you often and hope one day you will be able to say, "I know as I am known."
Appeal to personal anecdotal experience is something every Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, follower of Zoroaster, pagan, etc. can do. As they say at hiring interviews, I know what you like (a job) but tell me why should I hire you (i.er. "buy" your story) instead of someone else?
Just because I like certain dish or drink doesn't mean everyone else should.
I just did, here. As I suspected, you twisted the a story a little. Dawkins speculated that it is possible or imaginable that somewhere in the universe a highly advanced civilization evolved, and hinted that there is a possibility of an "intelligent design" but not through divine means. I find that a little to far fetched (and so does he, apparently, but he used it as a pure speculation).
Also, the wekaness of Ben’s argument (if I can call it that) is that he uses the argument from ignorance — if science can’t answer it, that “proves” the religious explanation. Wrong.
I was with you up until that last sentence, which is interesting considering the fact that no other ancient writings have been or even could be subjected to the extent of scrutiny as has the Bible. Comparing the New Testament to the classical literature, for example, the latter does not even come close to coming close to the wealth of attestation and number of early manuscripts as the N.T.
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability
Nevertheless, documents that could be corroborated and coming from converted Sanhedrin and Pilate would greatly enhance the Christian story.
Well then, Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus. should be right up your alley. </deadpan>
Cordially,
The healings performed, the resurrection of Christ, the operation of God's spirit...all just fairy tales to make the ignorant followers feel good.
Such is the sophisticated, modern understanding of “Scholars” studies.
Don't buy into that? Well...just who do you think you are? Published any books? Have a professorship? No? So, who are you?
I too think a person can and should be challenged on their beliefs, the truth will not suffer under close examination, but I will not concede the possibility finding the truth in the rants of those that hate the Scriptures and their author or those that dismiss them as some sort of not so pious frauds.
As Paul said, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he becomes a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6)
Well, Josephus' calling Jesus the Messiah is no more than 20-30 years after the fact, yet it is an unreliable forgery because a Pharisee would not call Jesus the Anointed One. The reason the Bible is so scrutinized is because it makes fantastic claims! When we read the Odyssey, we don't have to believe that Hydra really existed! But when you claim that people who have been dead for days get up and walk away as if nothing happened...that is a slightly different ball of wax.
Well then, Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus. should be right up your alley.
Why should I believe them? Mid second century, Medieval forgery? LOL. Does that meet "corroborated" evidence?
You only watched a few minutes of the end of the film. I would greatly recommend watching the entire movie. I found a clip of Ben Stein on the Glenn Beck show talking about Dawkin's response. In it he reiterates that Dawkins concedes that there MUST have been intelligent design to account for the complexity such as DNA. It is amazing that he is willing to accept that an alien species (an advanced civilization somewhere in the universe) could have seeded the earth with the beginnings of life yet refuses to allow that seeder of life could be "God". He also failed to explain where "they" came from. Watch it here
Face it, there were no video cameras back then, no cameras, no recording devices, no printing presses, no paper like we have today and no ballpoint pens. If anything is to be believed that happened 2000 years you're going to have to accept the written eyewitness testimony. Too bad it's not in the format you will accept, but nonetheless it's all we got. The archaeological record has proven it, the historical record has proven it and the written testimonies have been preserved for all this time. Not only that, we have the witness of the very lives of the Apostles and disciples from the first century both in the Bible and in extraneous writings of early church fathers. Just as Abraham told the guy in Hades, if they won't believe Moses and the prophets - and we also have the NT - then neither will they believe if someone comes back from the dead. To disregard it all as prejudiced or biased is to ignore that not all of those writers started out as believers.
An honest, sincere study of the accuracy of the Bible and the beginnings of the Christian faith will reward the honest seeker with the undeniable truth he is searching for. I know it is true and I am not alone. That leap that you fear is not such a huge chasm as you imagine.
The Bible is not in error. Your attempted disarticulation is.
What "seed" (sperma) would that be?
Incorruptible. Can't you read?
We have difficulty, it seems, accepting the world as it appears (to us) without adding to it our own "explanation" as to why it is the way it is. The world looks, smells and sounds a lot different to different species then it does to us, and their reality is quite different from ours.
We just have difficulty saying "As of this moment, we don't know." We succumb to our fancy and create answers. Dawkins obviously succumbed to his, at least for a moment.
To the contrary, boatbums, on all accounts.
An honest, sincere study of the accuracy of the Bible and the beginnings of the Christian faith will reward the honest seeker with the undeniable truth he is searching for. I know it is true and I am not alone. That leap that you fear is not such a huge chasm as you imagine.
A Muslim would have said nothing different. Maybe he or she would be willing to strap some dynamite and become "martyred" for that faith. What does that "prove"? That their faith is "true"? Hardly! Dying for one's beliefs does no such thing.
Nor does personal testimony. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true. How do we know if something is "true" or "real"? For real things you don't need a leap of faith. It affects everyone, and not just the "elect" few: if you jump you will fall, if you try to walk on water you will sink, if you touch a hot stove top you will be hurt, etc.
Reality does not distinguish between believers and nonbelievers, nor does it require—never mind demand!—that you believe in it a priori in order to effect you!
It is you who isnists the translation, written under "inspiration", is in error.
Incorruptible. Can't you read?
I can read, I just wasn't aware that anything divine "procreated" or had "seed".
Well, I guess you rolled right through that </deadpan> tag after the Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus sentence without seeing it. I probably should have used a </tongue-in-cheek> tag on that one.
Cordially,
This has nothing to do with the meaning of the Greek words used in John 3:3 and 3:7
The term "born again" is only used in 3:3 and 3:7 where it is translted from the Greek words gennatha anothen -- in the New Testament it is translated everywhere else as "from above"
So, the proper translation of John 3:3-7 would be
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.For orthodoxy, that change in translation affects nothing -- 5 is critical Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. and this is being born of above, i.e. of water and Spirit together.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born from above
Jesus, our Lord, God and Savior uses the waters in baptism through which he grants us His grace of salvation
the union of water and the Holy Spirit is what we read in John 3:5 -- this was no mere symbolism as He says you must be "born of water"
When one is baptised into orthodoxy, God does this baptising through the hands of whichever Christian is sprinkling the water. Water has no inherent power but the Holy SPirit's presence that comes through the means as Christ said is what Ananias meant when he said "be baptized and wash away your sins"
That's rich coming from folks who deny that the Early Christians even knew what they themselves believed in.
Why do the BAers think that just song and dance and trying desperately to ignore the abyss will help them forget?
Why try so desperately to ignore God's word?
Why does your group treats the inexorable much like naga or tantic worshippers or the worshippers of Bhavani or Ayyappa -- sing and dance and ignore the horror awaiting or just let's play with the theological construct?
Your sects fail because Tt be just song and dance without detailed, deep study is as bad as to be dry text without the joy. The balance is lost, the tying force that brings the loss of fear of the inexorable abyss is gone in both of these extremes and they lead to despair in one and delusion in the other.
The main problem in the BAers is the separation or compartmentalisation of God and of His worship -- it is not this OR that, but this AND that.
No I am not! You claim the difference between the capitalized Logos and the lower case logos. I don't. In any case, even supposing the translation is in error, it has no bearing on the truth of the source.
I can read, I just wasn't aware that anything divine "procreated" or had "seed".
So you are confused by metaphor. What is new?
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.