Donald,
We are clearly on the same wavelength since you have anticipated where I was going in my posts by addressing the exact subjects I was going to post about. :-)
Your hyperlinks demonstrate a point that I, too, believe in. There is nothing wrong with having Faith. I believe people should act ethically. If Faith in the Bible provides them with the guidelines for acting ethically, then all the better. I, myself, live by the general moral guidelines of Western culture which are heavily (if not completely) influenced by the Bible.
People with Faith in the Bible should not feel threatened by science. If anything, it is the people of science who should feel threatened by the people with Faith in the Bible - in particular, Fundamentalists, since they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. In any case, I don't see why scientists should be mutually exclusive from people with Faith. As you have pointed out, Newton was a religious man.
It seems, however, that science and Faith are doomed to butt heads in the field of education. Personally, I think evolutionary theory should be taught in school. Newtonian physics still is. Both theories have "problems". And it is true that some scientists treat evolutionary theory rather dogmatically... one might say, religiously... ha ha... I do not, however, think creationism is sufficiently grounded in empirical data to be taught in schools as a science. I haven't read all the web-sites to which you've directed me, but I see a trend more of criticizing evolutionary theory than actually presenting empirical data. (Yes, there's a lot of "isn't it obvious?" arguments). This is not to say that I think scientific creationism should be censured. I don't believe any ideas should be censured. I doubt whether Christianity would suffer one iota if creationism weren't taught in public schools. I guess, though, that Fundamentalist will continue to promote creationism since it does act as an excellent rallying point for advancing political agendas. Too cynical? Then don't ask me what I think about the immigration and abortion issues. ;-)
Now, let me address some of the direct questions you had.
Actually, I re-read your answer and did a little research, and I must say I like your answer a lot. We should return to the subject of the "Kingdom of God" later on. I think it actually has some rich and subtle territory in which to journey. But let's put it on hold for now. Agreed?
I picked up Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". You've read how Jesus affected his life (p. 363-7), right? Tell me... what do you think of him from his little "autobiography"? Yes, I came away with a reasonably negative view. I'm not judging his book by that, mind you; that would be committing the "fallacy of genesis" - pre-judging information by its source (i.e., genesis). If you've ever read "A Bridge Too Far" by Cornelius Ryan, you can see how many lives can be lost when you commit the fallacy of genesis.
I think the idea of monotheism is a little more complex than the quote from Isa 43:10 suggests. Let's leave this subject for later, too. Ha ha... no, I'm not trying to side step issues... didn't we agree to try to address one subject at a time as best we can? :-)
It strikes me as a little theologically arrogant... or... of wanting humility? ;-) ...to suggest that other (previously or currently worshipped) gods are merely religious myths. Your suggestion that they did not survive BECAUSE they are or were in error is a two-edged sword. Should religions be judged by whether they still exist? Is a religion wrong just because it has no current followers? This could lead to the concept that religion is legitimized by the number of its adherents. You see where this is going, eh? Are you a Roman Catholic? There's a lot of people (maybe all one billion Roman Catholics) who believe that Roman Catholicism is the one and only true church. Wasn't the first pope St. Peter, on which Christ said he would build his church (Matt 16:18)? Of course, He called him Satan, too (Mark 8:33). :-)
As to your questions:
1. Jesus: Lord, liar, or lunatic? Why don't you let me read chapter 7 of McDowell before I answer that fully. Suffice it to say, for now, that I think Jesus can have a very positive effect on people. And this, of course, is regardless of what I think of Jesus. In fact, I wish more Christians would adhere to the ideas of compassion, kindness, and goodness rather than always drawing the sword on those of other beliefs and religions. To me, I think peaceful missionaries are very noble.
2. I live my life with an understanding (not necessarily complete or even correct) of good and evil. I learned this understanding from the Western culture in which I grew up... and I credit my parents with instilling within me a strong desire to be a good person and do good things. And these things I am, IMHO. I do not, however, believe there is any such thing as absolute good and evil. This may seem like a pretty cold, distant way of looking at things... and I've been told that people to whom I am not close regard me as cold and distant. Interesting parallel, eh?
3. So this brings me to what constitutes good and evil. I think all those things which people traditionally consider good are things which facilitate the societal tendencies of humankind. Be kind to each other. Help each other in times of need. Turn the other cheek. Have compassion for others. Love one another. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Be a good neighbour. Honour your Mother and Father. Have a positive outlook on life. Relieve the suffering of others. Similarly, I think all those things which people traditionally consider evil are things which are anti-social; and, we are "told" not to do them. Don't murder. Don't commit adultery. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't steal. Don't bear false witness. Don't say anything if you can't say something nice. Don't hurt others. Don't ignore other peoples feelings and desires. Don't be cruel. Don't be inhospitable. Don't be an asshole.
I do not need to know that my judgements of good and evil are handed down to me by God. Of course, since I learned them from Western culture, then, in some sense, they already are handed down by YHWH. So why don't I credit Him by believing they are absolute? Because, even if there were absolutes (I don't believe there are), these absolutes have been passed down only through the interpretations of humans. Divine guidance strikes me as a little too much like the divine right of kings.
Well... this is certainly a long post... ha ha... I hope I covered everything you asked. I know I've opened up a lot of different subjects into which we may journey; however, I'd still like to stick with the subject of evolution/creationism. OK?
Oh... and the odds being 10^40,000 or whatever... I tried to find their calculation, but I have, as yet, not found it. I have to read more about this panspermia (sp?) concept, too. Could you refer me to their actual calculation. I view these sorts of calculations on par with the calculations of the odds that there is life on other planets... uh... yeah... sure... next!
Greg |
