Posted on 12/29/2011 1:01:09 PM PST by daletoons
An amusing observation indeed, though you’ll forgive me if I neglect to join in in the theological...”discussion” you’re having with the ever-fallacious grey whiskers.
It’s really the science I stopped by to comment upon; the philosophy and theology that backs the creationist side I’d just as soon avoid. People tend to take it personally, after all.
>Why would that be such a startling “yarn” to you, Muridae? If God is about making a physical creation, why wouldn’t He use the “physical materials” that He specially created for that purpose? I.e., “physical materials” here symbolized as “dirt,” or “the dust of the ground?”
>Even that very reduced and concrete term, “dirt,” manifests from ideas of space, time, matter, and law — all divinely created.
Actually, you bring up a rather good point; if there is a god fitting the definition you prescribe to, and if said god did indeed make stuff, it would presumably be using upon physical materials.
The thing is that - and I mean no offense - there is nothing to suggest that dirt, time, space, matter, or anything else is divinely created. The typical argument from the other side is “but how could it get here if not by god”, which is not exactly a defensible point; it can be countered by noting the uncreated pre-existance of god which is presumed by such a declaration (as the comic itself uses a red herring to avoid having to counter), where as if you have a god that “just exists”, having a universe that “just exists” is no less feasible - and in fact possibly more so, as having a universe that just exists cuts out a middle man, if you will; there’s one less unexplained variable.
Now, I really didn’t come here to talk theology (though I suppose I got myself into this anyway), as I prefer to discuss things that have more concrete support and evidence, though I can if you wish.
To say quite simply, if you’re going to propose a deity as having created everything, I must ask how you support such a statement; what is your evidence, and how would such an idea be falsified?
And, of course, on the other hand I must ask you this: If the “dust” in Genesis is symbolic for the base physical materials out of which we are indeed composed, could not the entire creation story be metaphor (if a...fairly inaccurate one) or symbolism for life diversifying via evolutionary means? I don’t see your faith as being necessarily opposed to the findings of science.
...I’m not really sure what you’re trying to get at.
Is that supposed to be related in any way to my earlier points, or a rebuttal thereof? It’s a red herring if that’s what you’re going for.
I wasn’t aware that this form had introductions; I found my way here from another dark corner of the internet, and I don’t believe it’s graced my monitor before today. If you like, I’d be happy to introduce myself - though I’m not quite pleased with your hostility.
>Then you question the morality of Muslims. Good to hear it! Welcome to FR!
Thanks for the welcome! And I do indeed - some more then others, you’ll understand.
I like to think that questions of morality are not restricted by creed, and thus I’m quite happy to question the morality of people with quite a variety of beliefs (or a lack thereof).
I aspire to be an equal-opportunity questioner, and frequent devil’s advocate thanks to it.
Thank you; it is much appreciated.
>What I find amazing is how closely the Genesis account conforms to what we do know to be true from science. It is unlike other primitive creation stories that have turtles and other animals carrying the sun on its back, etc.
Well there are two ways we can take about this. On the one hand, I could simply point out that if people tried and tried to come up with (mythological) explanations of the world, life, and all that, someone’s bound to come up with something that can be reinterpreted in a way that might fit if you wedge it in with a hammer and squint. The second way is to examine and address your claims (which also feels like less of a cop-out). So, let’s have a look:
...well, ok; more generalities first. We begin with an insistence that I read what is actually there. If you like, I can start at the *very* beginning, and point out that in the creation story according to Genesis, it all starts with waters being parted, which is rather inaccurate, as water wouldn’t have been around for some time after the big bang, at least long enough for the early stars to fuse some oxygen. But I expect this sort of piecemeal debunking is really not what you want, based upon this line:
>Now,,,,Could your **great** mind write as concise and accurate explanation to a primitive people explaining the creation of the universe, earth, the appearance of the various forms of life upon it and man? How would **you** explain it in a manner ( for a primitive people) that did NOT seem magical? Huh?
At which point we understand that the creation story is, in your view, metaphor - a tale told to a primitive people by a creator to explain something that by all rights they don’t have the capacity to understand. That fair, if unfalsifiable, but it does have a few more problems - simple mistakes such as the land plants arising before fish in the sea (evolutionary backward) and other questions of the story getting the order wrong seem like something that would be fairly easy to avoid if I were telling the tale.
In short, there are still problems.
I don’t mock Genesis, but I do read it for what it is - an oral tradition containing (among later things) two creation stories; mythology. It’s an (arguably) lovely bit of poetry, and an interesting anthropologist view as to how humans explained themselves and the world in more primitive times, but it’s clearly not a scientific work, and not something I’m going to base a lecture on in a science classroom.
While I appreciate the point put forth by apologetics such as yourself that it was a story aimed at a fairly ignorant, warlike people quite a long time ago. It’s an interesting point to consider. But that point is, on the one hand, unfalsifiable - what evidence could you possibly find that a god did *not* give the story to the people - and therefore not exactly useful, while on the other hand a bit of special pleading, and requiring of a number of other assumptions.
Plus, it does indeed bring up other questions, often things along the lines of “why did god choose them, when they couldn’t understand, to give his story to when as an omniscient being he’d be able to give it to a later generation that would get it?” or “why doesn’t god come back and correct the mistakes?” or “If he were omnipotent, couldn’t he have found or made a way for them to fully understand?” and so forth. And the fact that most of these questions can’t be answered (or answered satisfactorily) is a bit of a problem.
This sort of apologetic rhetoric leads to a number of theological questions about the nature of god and why he acts like he does; it’s a fairly sticky issue, all things considered.
This is, as a note, one of the reasons that I prefer to dwell in the scientific; it deals with evidence and tests and all things empirical. Theology is generally too ephemeral for me.
I am not having any conversation with that one.
You’re welcome! I agree. :)
Again, a whole lot of assuming of evolutionary theory to interpret the evidence to support evolutionary theory.
Genesis was written for a primitive people. It is not a metaphor. It is an attempt to accurately explain an event to people who have no vocabulary for it. “Dust” is a good choice of words, for something that we would call elements and atoms, and still not be metaphorical about it.
How would **you** describe creation of the universe, earth, and the appearance of plant and animal life and man to a primitive people using concepts and words they could grasp? Do little ole’ **you** think you could do a better job? Really?
Here's another task:
Write a rather short essay, to be heard ( not read) by a primitive people, describing a modern combustion engine car and its uses.
Try it. See how well you do. Do you think it would sound a tad magical? Huh?
Survival of the fittest. You're out of your niche, better adapt. :-)
Schadenfreude.
Cheers!
With this statement, I think you demonstrate that you know that just "law" is what best "promotes peace and order in societies." (Just as "law" promotes whatever peace and order that we observe in the natural world). I totally agree with you!
The point on which we differ, however, seems to be that I do not believe — by reason, logic, or direct experience — that "law" can be, in any way, shape, or form, the result of a "random natural process." Nor is it something interjected into Nature by means of human will. To me, law precedes any natural process whatsoever, including the thinking of the human mind. To such an extent that, if there were no law, there could be no natural process, nor any rational human thinking about the World of Reality into which we are inseparably joined as "parts and participants."
Clearly you see that "peace and order in societies" is a very good thing.
But, can you explain to me how this can be so in your world, which is trying to do everything it can to deny any concept of a ground or criterion of universal Truth? Which, by the way, can only be accounted for by re-introducing God back into the World of His Creation — from which modern science has been trying to evacuate Him over the past several decades?
Do you see my concern at all?
It isn't that the numbers changed: it's that someone who had never posted on FR before signed in today, and of all places, joined in on this thread to help you when you were getting your ass kicked.
Actually, you're being a dishonest troll. Because all you can do is whine and mewl about changing the rules.
When you admitted upthread that you are an atheist, this is a pro-God site, and that you are knowingly subjecting yourself to the risk of ZOT at any time, you forfeited your right to complain of any supposed inequitable treatment.
Survival of the fittest. You're out of your niche, better adapt. :-)
Schadenfreude.
Cheers!
"Concise" is the best word I can think of to describe the way God told us and yet I still feel that that falls woefully short.
Oh wow! No it doesn't.
Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ( Yep! First the heavens and earth were created. True!)
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, ( true) darkness was over the surface of the deep ( true) , and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. ( what word or words for “water” would you use that would be better for a primitive people to grasp?)
Here's another challenge that will be impossible for you. Find another creation story of a primitive people that more accurately describes what we now know to be true about the creation of the universe, earth, the appearance of plant and animal life and finally man.
Please, try to find one. ( No, the Babylonian creation story doesn't count. It is either a variation of the Genesis story or a somewhat corrupted version of the same story.)
Criteria I have no doubt that you will reject off the cuff, but here goes.
Order, complexity, and information.
No, it's NOT random and natural. It's trial and error. Judaic law was set down well after humans had been trying to live together for a good long time. Think about the Ten Commandments, and at what point in history they were introduced. After Egypt. After Slavery. Well into human existence. Look, Moses was not an idiot, and I never said he was.
Well played, in this word game we got going here..
“Made out of dirt” is the simplest most straight forward way to express “it”.. across maturity, dialect and culture..
An honest person would have to admit it.. a beautiful metaphor..
A lineage of “begats” has always been quite boring..
even when they relate to the birth of a “messiah”.. or God-creature.. (bible)
Genesis 1 thru 3 may indeed be a metaphorical rendition
of things “we” couldn’t possibly understand, even Now...
The arrogance and hubris of humans may be limitless..
Which makes “the Test” of humans in this life mandatory..
For all are tested to weed out the spiritually weak and chronically naughty..
Is God cool or WHAT?...
I don't take it personally. Welcome to FR!
"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago.
Prior to this there was existence, but so what? There was life, but who cares? With no one to consciously experience it, what was the point? Without self-conscious observers, the whole cosmos could bang into being and contract into nothingness, and it would be no different than the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it.
One of the reasons why this is such a lonely and unpopular blog is that it takes both science and religion seriously. Most science and religion are unserious, but especially -- one might say intrinsically -- when they exclude each other.
A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings. And I mean this literally, in that it will be a science that applies to a different species, not the one that is made to know love, truth, beauty, existence, and the Absolute. Science must begin and end in this principle -- which is to say, the Principle -- or it is just a diversion. ...."
In taking science seriously, we must obviously take "evolution" seriously. I place the word in quotation marks not because I don't believe in it, but for reasons we have discussed at length in the past HERE or THERE.
Evolution was around long prior to Darwin, and the word didn't even appear in the first five editions of The Origin of Species. It was only inserted later, after which time evolution and Darwinism (natural selection) became conflated, even though they are in many ways at antipodes.
In other words, evolution disproves Darwinism, and vice versa, despite the semantic and metaphysical games materialists deploy to try to reconcile the two.
In our effort to demonstrate the essential unity of religion and science, we specifically want to avoid the superficial and metaphysically incoherent approach of the materialists, which essentially reduces to magic -- no different than the young earth creationist who sees God as a kind of magician.
But creation is not magic; rather, it is thoroughly rooted in, and infused with, order and Reason. Yes, there are myths that describe creation as if it were a giant magic act, but the purpose of myth is to awaken Truth within, not to force consent from without. ..."
Ah yes, “Welcome to FR, newbie!!” We hate unions, but we love seniority.
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.