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.
If you attack the Church, the least you could do is say what denomination, confession, etc. you belong to or follow - without identifying city, etc. - out of fairness for corresponding comparison and criticism. I think most, if not all, on here have done so. Are you willing to do that?
If you a Christian and follow Christ, and deduce from Christ’s teaching, Holy Scripture or otherwise that God is the author of sin and evil, that God hates, that He is mutable and subject to passions; then somewhere, somehow, friend, you have made a wrong turn.
Are you suggesting that Isaiah 45:7 is a lie?
No, I’m saying if you get what I describe from Isaiah or the Old or New Testament, then you are not following the teaching of Christ or the theology of His Church.
So you go far afield determining what I might believe based on the fact that I posted God's own words pertaining to the creation of evil?
Based on your recent posts, I inferred you were stating the beliefs of Calvinist predestination - or at least a similar view of God as the author of evil and the denial of free will, which is contrary to the Christian view of God, as Christ taught.
If I erred in this, I sincerely apologize.
What I believe is that God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending. Calvin is the name of a man.
Thanks for your reply. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Calvinism. If so, may God bless you with remaining so.
:)
I've heard of it and also Arminianism. Both are the wisdom of men.
And thanks,
God bless you and those you love. :^)
Most certainly, we reject the wisdom of men, including ourself, when we come to His Church.
:)
and those you love also, Andrew.
thanks for the courtesy of your post.
g’night.
My general geographic location is no secret. There are not a lot of individual churches of the denomination which we attend in this area. Even mentioning that would provide enough information to narrow it down enough to find out who I was.
I have stated before that my overall doctrinal positions are closest to those of the likes of Billy Graham, or Chuck Swindol. I have not heard of anything that either of them have preached or written that I disagree with. They have published/produced more than enough material for reference.
Here is a link to Chuck Swindol’s radio broadcasts.
http://www.insight.org/
Salvation is by grace alone,by faith alone, in Christ alone. It’s about forgiveness, granted through Christ, not denominational affiliation, doctrinal adherence, sacrament participation. It’s a relationship, not a religion/system of do’s and don’t’s established by men in an effort to curry God’s favor or earn His approval.
Some have told of their denominational affiliation, such as Dr. E and look at the relentless harassment and constant haranguing she and the rest of us put up with over it. Several Catholics obsessively misquote and misrepresent the OPC doctrines, conflate them with other denominations, use it to pot stir and try to pit Protestants against each other, with the likes of *Say, ______, Look what the OPC says about your denomination, the Lutherns. What do you think about that?* sort of nonsense.
No, I am not going there. I will not provide ammunition nor cooperate with that kind of attempts are fomenting sectarian infighting.
A little insight on Isaiah 45:7 for your consideration, which may mess with some people’s theology, but it is what it is.
http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm
New International Version (©1984)
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
English Standard Version (©2001)
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I make light and create darkness. I make blessings and create disasters. I, the LORD, do all these things.
King James Bible
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
American King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
American Standard Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.
Douay-Rheims Bible
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.
Darby Bible Translation
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.
English Revised Version
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.
Webster’s Bible Translation
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
World English Bible
I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create calamity. I am Yahweh, who does all these things.
Young’s Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.’
*************************************************************************
I do note that the Douay-Rheims Bible version also credits God with creating evil, so Catholics are in no position to criticize anyone else for accepting that translation.
That said,....
http://biblos.com/isaiah/45-7.htm
In the Hebrew, the word that is translated as *evil* is also translated otherwise in different portions of the OT.
Strongs lists the Hebrew word as *ra*, (7451)
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7451.htm
According to Strong’s the short definition is *adversity*. Elsewhere is it translated as......
adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress
From ra’a’; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral) — adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. Feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).
**********************************************************************
I find that the concept of God creating evil is inconsistent with the nature of God as revealed elsewhere in Scripture. OTOH, I do not see it inconsistent at all to see God creating calamity, adversity, or affliction. Precious few people seek God out when everything is going well and they are fat, dumb, and happy. He uses the pressure of adversity to show us our need for Him, our dependence on Him, and thus to bring us to Himself.
IMO, the translation of *ra* into *evil* was not the best one because it does not fit with the rest of the revealed character of God in Scripture.
So we should read Genesis as stating, "the tree of knowledge of good and adversity"? It is the same Hebrew word in both cases. No, in Isaiah 45 God tells us about the foreground/background dichotomy. He made peace. He formed the light. God is love. At least that is my understanding of Isaiah 45. Which also states...
Isa 45:9 ¶ Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! [Let] the potsherd [strive] with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
FWIW, I was baptized Catholic and raised a Catholic through all my growing up years. I do know what I was taught in the Catholic church and within that context. Other Catholics have taken exception to what I've related but all that ever was what I experienced.
As far as *attacking* the Catholic church, I didn't realize that recognizing sin and pointing it out and condemning it as sin was *attacking* anybody or any thing.
Those molesting priests are wrong. The admitted (by the Church itself) cover up of those priests is wrong. It'd be wrong if any one else did it too.
If that's an attack on the Catholic church then the Catholics on this forum are equally guilty of attacking every single non-Catholic denomination they point out sin and rightly condemn it in. At that point, someone could equitably slap on the label of *anti* or *hater* on them.
Saying one thing and doing another is hypocrisy. And recognizing that is not *attacking* someone else either.
It seems to indicate that.
It certainly is a far better fit with the rest of Scripture than attributing evil to God.
We have words in English that have more than one meaning.
No, I think that the translation in Genesis of *evil* for knowing good and evil, is the best one for that passage. I don’t know that forcing that definition into Isaiah is the right one. The other definitions make sense, more sense IMO.
Also, there are other translations of Scripture which use the other meanings. Even in the context of Isaiah 45:9, I don’t see that it justifies charging God with being the creator of evil, as in moral evil. That is something I am NOT comfortable with.
Creating calamity or adversity, which are considered evil, is not the same as claiming that God created moral evil.
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.