Who's Afraid of the End of the World?

If we are talking about the end of life as we know it on earth, scientists tell us that in an expanding universe, the end will surely come in a natural, not a supernatural, fashion. As for the timing, science and religion agree on one point: "Thou knowest neither the day nor the hour."

What will it look like? I won't know, because the odds are astronomically in favor of my sloughing off this mortal coil before the world comes to an end with either a bang or a whimper.
I am quite sure, however, that there will be no one left to read my books after the end of the world, so I wish, for admittedly narcissistic reasons, that science could come up with a different scenario.

One of the more bizarre American religious developments of recent decades is the growing preoccupation of fundamentalists with the "end times" scenario. Visit raptureready.com
and learn how your more deranged countrymen are preparing to greet the day when Jesus will return to earth on the plain of Armageddon, trailing clouds of glory as he and his angels sic locusts with "hair as the hair of women, and their teeth...as the teeth of lions" on everyone who has not accepted him as the Messiah.

For further gory details, see the Book of Revelation. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid, all you Jews, Muslims, atheists and sane Christians who see Revelation as the work of human lunacy it is rather than as the word of God.

Incredibly, public opinion polls show that around 60 percent of Americans believe that the grisly fantasies in Revelation will come true one day. But the same opinion polls also show that only a third of Americans can name the four gospels, so perhaps they do not even know what is written in the later Book of Revelation. Europeans and Asians are utterly baffled by American beliefs in this regard, since almost no one in other developed countries is ignorant enough to pay the slightest attention to such nonsense.

If someone told you the world was going to end today, you would suggest that he or she see a psychiatrist. If people would only apply the same logic to predictions of supernatural events slated to occur at some unspecified date in the future (or, for that matter, to accounts of supernatural events that are supposed to have taken place in the distant past), America would be a more rational society.

In his "On Faith" commentary last week, Charles W. Colson made the absurd statement that Christians encounter both "hostility" and "discrimination" because they "make a truth claim."
The opinions of the sort of fundamentalist Christians who believe in "the Rapture" elicit
well-justified ridicule and disagreement not only from secularists but from religious believers whose faith makes room for secular knowledge.

One person's "truth claim" is another's page in a textbook of clinical psychological disorders, and belief in the Rapture end-of-the-world scenario offers an excellent example of the latter. Revelation certainly has nothing to do with the Jesus of the gospels (which were written much earlier than the Armageddon script). Unless I have forgotten my scripture, the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to say about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Or did Jesus actually say, "Cursed are the bad people, for they shall see locusts?"

A "truth claim" that has the angels of the Lord of Hosts doing away with everyone who doesn't accept the fundamentalist Christian version of salvation deserves no intellectual respect. Our Constitution requires us to respect people's right to belief that the earth is flat; it does not require us to respect the belief itself.

I am more concerned about the extinction of the human species through its own self-destructive behavior than I am about the demise of the universe--even through the natural process envisaged by science. The physical world can get along very nicely without us for a good long time, but we can't get along without it.

The scientists' black hole certainly sounds less painful than hairy lion-toothed locusts. But, as Saturday Night Live's Emily Litella used to say, "Oh, never mind...."

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

There has for a long time been much debate over whether the "Rapture", as envisioned by those presently promoting the concept, is even scriptural. The Biblical text that states the concept most succinctly and probably most in line with the "Left Behind" version is 1st Thessalonians 4:15-17.

Now, if God was dictating the text literally through Paul, or if Paul could somehow see the actual event in the future, there is little to argue but that the text means exactly what it says. If one accepts, however, that Paul was trying to make his grieving Thessalonian friends feel better and to strengthen their faith, particularly since many had no doubt expected Jesus to have returned already...as many early believers did, then one might see Paul's words as an attempt to use powerful, dynamic images to reassure his flock that they would, indeed, one day be reunited with their deceased friends and with Jesus himself.

I see no reason to believe that God wrote every word of the Bible through human beings. After all, nowhere does the Bible say that God dictated the Ten Commandments to Moses who then chiseled them into two stone tablets. According to Exodus 31:18, God himself wrote upon the tablets. Therefore, God could simply have written the Scriptures and handed them to the "writers" or just have left them somewhere to be found. I would like to think that if God, not Paul, wrote Paul's letters, for instance, Paul would have mentioned it. Nor do I imagine it likely that Paul could see thousands of years into the future.

My personal opinion is that Paul was expressing his own hope of resurrection to those who shared his core beliefs and that the Rapture, as portrayed in modern Christian fundamentalist theology, is largely a misunderstanding of this fact, as well as a whopping good story about how God is going to punish all those pesky non-believers.

As for me, if I see people start floating up into the air I'm heading for the storm shelter.

Posted by: Jerry | December 19, 2007 9:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I. THE BIBLICAL PROMISE
CONCERNING THE LORD’S RETURN
1. The Bible contains a wonderful promise of the Lord’s return. From the Old Testament through the New Testament, every book touches on the subject of the Lord’s return. Bible students have counted the number of times that the New Testament speaks of this subject and have told us that one out of every twenty verses in the New Testament speaks of the Lord’s return. This is an important subject. Do not think that everything was finished when God’s Son came and accomplished the work of redemption. The Lord will come back to this earth. From Genesis to Malachi, the Old Testament repeatedly speaks of Christ’s second coming. The same is true in the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation. We can say that this subject is the greatest subject in the Bible. The biblical record of the Lord’s first coming is considerably smaller than that of His second coming. We should pay much attention to the subject of His second coming. We should memorize at least a few passages of the Scripture concerning this subject. Please carefully read these references: John 14:1-3, Acts 1:10-11, and Hebrews 9:28. A fourth reference appears in the last book, the book of Revelation. This book was written over sixty years after the Lord’s ascension. Jerusalem already had been destroyed, and the first generation of apostles was almost all gone. Even then, however, the Holy Spirit spoke in Revelation 22:20 of the coming again of the Lord Jesus.
II. A HEAVENLY CALLING
Today we not only look back at the work of the cross; we also look forward to the second coming of Christ. We are not only here serving the Lord, but we are here waiting for His coming back. It is not our only intention to serve Him here on earth. In the past we have spoken several times concerning the subject of the breaking of bread. Our breaking of bread is a remembrance of the Lord; this remembrance will last until He returns. Every Christian’s eye should be set on Christ’s second coming. While it is true that we preach obedience, praise, service, and many other subjects, it is not our only intention to be serving in this way forever. Our hope is that the church will become the bride of Christ one day. Everything we do is with the view of the second coming of Christ. Although we emphasize the local church and our work, we are not building anything on earth today. We are waiting for the Lord’s coming back. We are not preaching the doctrine of the Lord’s second coming; we are truly waiting for His coming again. Our calling is a heavenly one; it is not earthly. Our ministry and service are heavenly. We are not looking for a great building on earth. Everything on earth will pass away one day. Five great signs in the Bible indicate to us that the Lord’s coming is very near.
The Christian life on earth is a life of waiting for the Lord’s return. What does it mean to wait for His return? To wait for His return means that while we live as others do, we have an expectation of His return always within us. Miss M. E. Barber was a person in whom I found no trace of thought of remaining on earth for a long time. She was genuinely waiting for the Lord’s return. Once I was walking with her on a street, and she said, “Perhaps, I will meet the Lord when we turn this corner.” She asked me to walk at a distance from her on the other side of the sidewalk, and repeated, “I do not know whether this will be the corner for me.” Those who wait for the Lord’s return are like a man walking down a precipitous hill; he does not know for sure when he will turn a corner and meet someone walking up the same path. Our sister genuinely expected the Lord’s return daily and hourly. Notice that we are speaking of our expectation of His return, not our belief in His return. Many people can speak about the Lord’s return. They study the Lord’s return and believe in His return, but this does not mean that they are expecting His return. Many people pay much attention to such subjects as the rapture, the judgment seat of Christ, the millennium, the New Jerusalem, and the new heaven and new earth. Many people are very familiar with the prophecies concerning the Lord’s return, but they are not necessarily waiting for His return. We have to remember that we are heavenly citizens. We should be taught by grace to expect the Lord’s return. We put no hope in this earth. We know that this earth will never change for the better. While we serve, work, and labor with God here on earth, we are calling and gathering a group of people to come under the Lord’s name for His satisfaction. We serve and work for the sake of His second coming.

III. THE TWO COMINGS OF CHRIST
2. Christ has two comings, and these two comings are different. In His first coming to earth, He died on the cross for the remission of sins. Through this, sinners are reconciled to God; they can draw near to God and partake of His life. But this work for man is only half complete. The problem of sin has been settled, but sin itself is still around us. The power of death is finished in us, but our body still has to pass through death. Although we have a new life within us, we do not yet have a new environment. If Christ does not come again, nothing will be completed. The more holy we become inwardly, the darker, more sinful, and more lawless the world is to us outwardly. Our lips were once unclean. One day the holy fire came and cleansed our lips. However, we are still living among men with unclean lips. The second coming of Christ will not settle our personal sins but will settle all the sins in this world. In His first coming, He settled our personal sins. In His second coming, He will settle the sins of this world.
IV. THE PROBLEMS IN THIS WORLD
A. Social Problems
Today the world is full of all kinds of problems. How will these problems be solved? What should be our attitude towards these problems? Many social reformers pay much attention to the problems in society. Some say to Christians, “Your personal problems have been solved. But what do you say about the existence of classes, the poverty of the peasants, the suffering of livestock, and the proliferation of sinful establishments such as theaters, brothels, dance halls, and gambling casinos?” Those who pay attention to society are disturbed to see many social ills such as crime, sickness, poverty, and inequality still prevailing. They ask us what should be done about these things. We must tell them that God is not oblivious to these problems. God is not merely for individuals being saved, forgiven, and going to heaven. We must tell them that the salvation spoken of in the Bible is not only for individuals. Heaven is not merely related to the matter of individual salvation; it relates to a time when the whole world will turn to Christ. (However, we are not talking about universalism.) The Bible first speaks of personal salvation. But this does not mean that it ignores social problems. We cannot tackle social problems now, because they are not within our ability to solve at the present time. According to the Bible, God has called us to a heavenly calling, which means that Christians are only responsible for the preaching of the gospel. The responsibility of the church is to gather men into the name of Christ. Our hope and work are not on the earth. We are not here to improve society. The Lord said that there is no hope or peace in this world. All social problems will be settled when the Lord comes back again. When He comes back, all social ills will be removed. Christianity does address these problems, but there is a matter of time as to when they will be addressed. When the Lord comes again, these problems will be solved.
God’s children have no other obligations besides leading men to Christ and waiting for His return. We do not expect class distinctions in this world to be removed. We do not expect sin and crime to be eradicated from this world. One day the Lord will deal with all the problems that the sociologists and scientists cannot handle today. Our expectation is different from that of the world. We expect the day of the Lord’s return, and this day is drawing near. There are two aspects to the Lord’s return, the personal aspect and the world’s aspect. Personally, we wait for His return because we want to see Him. As far as the world is concerned, the Lord’s return will solve its many problems. Many Christians try to reform society, and in the end they are corrupted by society itself. Many good Christians try to change the world, and in the end they themselves are defiled. We should never be tempted to engage ourselves in these works, because we know that these are the Lord’s work.

B. The Travailing of the Creatures
3. Today many people say that animals are suffering and abused and are even near the point of extinction. They say that we should do something to protect them. The trouble is that humans today are treated worse than cows and horses. How can we first take care of the lower forms of creatures? In other countries there are advocates of animal rights. Romans 8 says that the whole creation groans for deliverance. We know that one day the whole creation will be freed from the bondage of corruption. Then, as foretold in the Old Testament, the world will be a place where “the wolf will dwell with the lamb; / And the leopard will lie down with the kid, / And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; / And a young boy will lead them about. / The cow and the bear will graze; / Their young will lie down together; / And the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 11:6-7). We know that one day all the creatures will be delivered. But that day is not today. Today, protecting the animals is not our work.
C. Earthly Squabbling for Power
Every group of politicians in every nation of the world is vying for the center stage, and every nation in this world is trying to take advantage of other nations. There are strife and unrest nationally and internationally. We are not called to engage ourselves in the work of the League of Nations; our work is not to help weak and struggling countries. The angels one day will proclaim that the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ (Rev. 11:15). We can answer the unbelievers even today with this word.
Christians’ personal problems are solved by Christ’s first coming. The social problems of this world will be solved at the time of Christ’s second coming. Then the world will not be like the world we have today. All of the problems listed above will disappear in the twinkling of an eye.
V. WHAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD DO TODAY
What then should Christians do in this world? A Christian should do his best to render help to others. For example, a doctor should do his best to help others by treating their diseases. A scientist should do his best to help others by improving nutrition and other things. But one thing should be kept in mind: We should remain pure before the Lord. We should not be contaminated by the world. Neither should we close our eyes to the affairs of this world. During His first coming, Christ labored on individuals; He did not try to do anything about the social system. In the same way, today Christians should labor on individuals; they should not try to build up any system or institution. Before our personal problems or the world’s problems were solved, we were sinners and we lived among sinners. Today we have believed in the Lord. We have become the righteous among the sinners. But there will be a day when the righteous will be among the righteous. All the problems will be solved on that day when the Lord comes back. Today we should give to others what we can afford to give. We should not engage in any form of revolution. Revolutions happen because there are bad institutions. Men start revolutions because they hate these institutions. They even sacrifice their blood for their revolutions. But we cannot sacrifice our blood for the sake of destroying any social system. When Christ comes the second time, He will change all social systems and institutions. Today, if we engage in such a work, there is a great possibility that we will be disapproved. It is foolish for us to sacrifice ourselves today. The world has become what it is today because too many innocent people have sacrificed themselves. Christians should not aspire to change any institution of this world.
The Bible shows us a heavenly calling. Our calling is not on earth. This world is not our concern. We live day by day in this world. But nothing with us is permanent; nothing is indispensable for us, and nothing is compulsory. There is nothing in this world that we cannot live without, and there is nothing that we must have. We take what the Lord gives to us in this world. It is all right for us to have more and it is all right for us to have less. If the Lord arranges for us to have a smooth pathway, we can take it. If the Lord arranges for us to have a rugged pathway, we can take it as well. We are here to wait for the Lord’s coming; we are not here to seek after worldly blessing. When Christ comes again, every earthly thing will be finished. While we live on earth, we do not live for ourselves, for our families, or for society; we live for the Lord. When the Lord comes again, that will be the happiest day of all days. Everything in this world is changing; only things pertaining to righteousness abide forever. If we do not belong to this world and do not settle down in this world, that day will be of unspeakable glory to us. On that day, the glory of the Lord will fill the church. His kingdom will come on earth, and the whole universe will be subject to Christ. This is why the church does not have any lingering love for the works of this earth.

VI. WHAT CHRIST WILL SETTLE WHEN HE COMES
4. A. Injustice
When the Lord comes back, the first thing He will settle is injustice. Today the biggest problem in the world is injustice. Isaiah 11:4 says that the Lord will “judge the poor in righteousness, / And decide with equity for the afflicted of the land.” To judge with justice is something more than what the world can do today. It is not a Christian’s job. When the Lord comes again, He will execute justice.
B. Wars
When the Lord comes again, He will settle all wars. Today man cannot deal with the problem of wars. World War II has just finished, but many places in the world are still at war. Everyone agrees that there should be peace, but there is no real peace. Man cannot achieve peace through war. Yet Isaiah 2:4 says that when the millennium comes, men will “beat their swords into plowshares, / And their spears into pruning hooks, / Nation will not lift the sword against nation, / Nor will they learn war anymore.” We should realize that we are not the ones to disarm others of swords and spears. We do not wage wars, and we do not stop wars in the hope of achieving peace. These are things beyond us. When Christ comes, He will annul all wars and bring in peace.
C. Sicknesses
When Christ comes He will settle all sicknesses. Today many people pay attention to public health, hygiene, and medical aid. But sickness will never be thoroughly eradicated today. In the Bible the two books that speak of plagues the most are Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Both books show us that plagues are in the Lord’s hand; the Lord is in control of these things. In the prophecies in Revelation and Matthew, we are told that plagues will increase in the end times. A Christian should not be given merely to the work of hygiene and medical aid. We must realize that sicknesses in this world will increase. Isaiah 33:24 says that when Christ comes, no one will say, “I am sick.” Ezekiel 47:12 says that in the new heaven and new earth, the tree of the new city will be for the healing of the nations. Hence, when the Lord comes again, the problem of sickness will be solved.
D. Famine
When the Lord comes again, the problem of famine will also be solved. In China many people have recently turned their attention to the problem of famine. Some have done very commendable works. One interesting thing that our eyes have observed is that the harvest of man’s labor always requires much plowing and tilling, whereas thorns, thistles, and weeds grow well without man’s tending. The tares do not need sowing, yet they make their way through the wheat. No matter how hard scientists and horticulturists try, they cannot stop weeds from growing. In Genesis God cursed the land, and it no longer yielded its strength to man. This is a fact. Today the earth no longer yields its strength to man. We have never heard of a thorn that requires man’s tilling. It is true that we have made achievements in irrigation and machineries, and improvements in seed and fertilizers, but we still cannot eliminate weeds. Neither have we been able to take care of all of man’s other needs.
Man has to fight against nature and wrestle with it in order to survive. If he allows nature to take its own course, he will not have a harvest. We are not depreciating the efforts of the scientists. We are merely saying that such problems cannot be solved by man. God also has no intention for the church to solve these problems. We are here only for the Lord’s return. The Bible says that when Christ comes back, the earth will once more yield its strength to man. Isaiah 43:19-20 and 35:1 speak of God making “rivers in the desert” and of the desert blossoming “like the rose.” Isaiah 51:3 says that God will make the “wilderness like Eden.” When Christ comes again, there will be no more desert, and the thorns and thistles will all pass away.
E. Education and Knowledge
Educators and philosophers teach men about good and evil and to turn away from evil and to choose good. But no one can solve the problem of sin in man’s heart. No educator can give a man the knowledge of God. Hebrews 8:10-11 says that when Christ comes back again, we will have the knowledge of God that comes from our intuition, and all will know God, from the least to the greatest.
F. Establishments of Vice
There are many establishments of vice in this world. Many places are hotbeds of sin. The church and the Christians are saving men out of these sinful places. Yet these establishments remain unchanged. Matthew 13:41-42 says that when the Lord comes again, the angels will cast out all the stumbling blocks and those who practice lawlessness, that is, those who corrupt others. In an instant the Lord will cleanse the earth.
What we have spoken of can be considered as the social philosophy of a Christian. In other chapters we have seen various aspects of the Christian faith and walk. While we remain on earth, we should do what we need to do, but our hearts should always be set on the Lord’s return. Our attention should be on the heavenly calling. We have no permanent plans for things of this world. Even the most spiritual things cannot bind us or imprison us in the earthly realm. Christians should not take root on this earth. The earth is not a place for Christians to plant their roots. God’s Word is being fulfilled bit by bit, and the Lord is at the door. Today our eyes are not set on the problems of the church; we are waiting instead for the Lord’s coming. This is our heavenly calling. May the Lord be gracious to us and may our eyes be set solely upon His return.

Posted by: rafael | December 13, 2007 10:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: rafael | December 13, 2007 10:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

oyhtm ralqyfox dnzeboq uzvwtsf afpmuhst csblwmt vxgj

Posted by: dfntevlpa ivoyasfj | October 26, 2007 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

oyhtm ralqyfox dnzeboq uzvwtsf afpmuhst csblwmt vxgj

Posted by: dfntevlpa ivoyasfj | October 26, 2007 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks, Maurie. So it's not in Revelations at all, but in 1 Thessalonians. Wikipedia claims the interpretation of that epistle first arose in the 1830s. Also, the focus on the Rapture and Armageddon seems seems peculiarly American. Both of those fit in with a theory I read recently. According to the theory, American Christianity (especially in the Old South) has a heavy focus on the afterlife because of the legacy of slavery. This shift in emphasis was apparently the way that slaveholding Christians reconciled their religious beliefs with their ownership of fellow human beings. Since premillenialism really took off in the 1970s, I believe that was a reaction to the social turbulence of the previous decade.

Posted by: Tonio | April 3, 2007 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio,

Look up wikipedia for the history and current beliefs about the rapture. It also provides the scriptural basis for such beliefs.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | April 2, 2007 3:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Is the Rapture actually in the New Testament somewhere, as a name or description? I looked through Revelations some time ago and couldn't find anything that resembled it.

Posted by: Tonio | March 31, 2007 9:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Fred,

Yeah, I think you're describing the mental solidity of all of Christianity. Along with Judaism and Islam.

That reminds me: Have you see "The Rapture" (1991, Mimi Rogers, David Duchovny)? It's about what happens when a fundamentalist Christian actually lives through the rapture, taking the Biblical fantasies at face value. Very fine movie.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 31, 2007 8:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Maurie Beck:

Jeeze, now I'm shivering. I wonder what they're doing to precipitate these fantasies?

Posted by: John Conolley | March 31, 2007 8:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John Connolley,

I just googled "rapture". If a single person would fantasize such idiocies, he would probably be retained in an insane asylum for his own security. But if millions of idiots maintain this, it becomes a public issue, is discussed, taken halfway serious. Books are published etc.

A dirty comparison: Eat sh..., billions of flies cannot err!

Posted by: Fred | March 31, 2007 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John Conolley,

It gives me cold chills too. And yes, I hid under desks in the 50's too. What bothers me is that many of the fundamentalist community are looking forward to the "End Times", and the first place they look for a sign is from some conflagration in the Middle East.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 31, 2007 12:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Maurie Beck:

I don't know how old you are, but I remember the emergency drills of the 1950's (get under your desk, put your head between your legs, kiss your ass goodbye) and many, many, too many nightmares about mushroom clouds. Proposing one over a city, even hypothetically, gives me cold chills. If no one wants to discuss it, I don't blame them.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 30, 2007 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio:

You would think it would be obvious, wouldn't you?

Posted by: John Conolley | March 30, 2007 7:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Not one of the fundamentalists on this thread has answered how they would feel about a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem. Cowards all.

Gerry said, "Some men have evolved. Some have not."

Pablo, Annonymous, and their ilk give apes a bad name.

There have been a number of quotes from biblical scripture, including "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." -- Matthew 5:22 (KVJ)"

I have a feeling that this all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient god our fundamentalist brethren keep talking about is actually a toothless, enfeebled, frustrated wannabee. I've known many people with real power. They don't have to rant about what they will do if their subjects don't follow their rules. Their subjects know exactly what will happen to them. Ranters are often harmless “idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (Macbeth Act 5, Scene 5). Perhaps the god from the three-headed monster of the Middle East is actually nothing more than a third-rate desert demon with delusions of grandeur?

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 30, 2007 6:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo quotiation, as a last entertaining quip from him:
"I have said this over and over and you have yet to refute anything I have said. You do not have one shred of proof that nature created the universe and that man evolved."

1. If somebody says something over and over again, it has to be true, isn't it?

2. One has, for the first time (!), to admit that Pablo is correct. Nature did not create the universe! Right. Nature IS the universe.

3. And reading his posts, we have to agree with him again, at least partly:

Some men have evolved. Some have not.

Posted by: Gerry | March 30, 2007 8:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

John Conolley,

I would add that I don't believe in the concepts of heresy and blasphemy. The concepts imply that an organization or an individual has the right to determine what people should believe or not believe. There is no such right. Granted, a group of believers has the right to codify its beliefs, but it should be a bottom-up process, not a top-down process. If a member disagrees with one of the group's doctrines, he is free to either leave or argue his case for changing the doctrine, but the group has no right to brand him as evil and sinful simply because of his disagreement.

Posted by: Tonio | March 30, 2007 8:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Again, the fundamentalists disappear. Does that mean I'm winning? It doesn't feel like winning.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 29, 2007 11:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous:

"SO, instead of "you'll go to hell" they might say you'll suffer "the wrath of God". Seriously, what else do you think the wrath of God means?"

That's what we're trying to get at. What does it mean? What does it say in the Bible, without your opinions as intermediary? God threatens unbelievers with wrath, and he threatens sons of the evil one with "the furnace" (which I will grant is probably Hell), but where does it say what wrath unbelievers get? Where does it say they get hellfire? Where does it spell out burning for eternity if you don't turn your mind over to the church for cold storage?

Posted by: John Conolley | March 29, 2007 1:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo:

"Them men quoted above are heretics"

Point A: One of them men am a woman.

Point B: You are committing ad hominem on people who aren't even here.

Point C: Gregory of Nyssa is a heretic? Are you out of your ever-loving MIND? Gregory of Nyssa was one of the Cappadocian Fathers, for God's sake. He helped cook up the doctrine of the Trinity. He was a defender of the Nicene Creed. He was present at the Council of Antioch and the Second Ecuminical Council. You're calling Gregory of Nyssa a heretic? I can only think of one thing to say.

"Thou FOOL!!!"

Posted by: John Conolley | March 29, 2007 12:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo: "All within the cat kind. Lions, tigers, Persian cats. All cats are cats and are 100% dedicated to reproducing cats."

So if all cats are the same kind, why do we never see a lion give birth to a housecat?

If lions and tigers, cheetahs and alley cats are all the same kind, why do you draw the line there? Can I just replace "cat" with "mammal" in your post? 'All within the mammal kind. Elephants, mice, whales. All mammals are mammals and are 100% dedicated to reproducing cats." Can I use "vertebrate"? All cats are vertebrates. How about "eukaryote", since all cats are also eukaryotes?

What I want from you is this: Given two random organisms, what objective test can I make to decide if they are the same "kind" or not?

Posted by: Craig | March 28, 2007 9:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo: '"The fool has said in his heart there is no God" That is God's word not mine.'

"whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." -- Matthew 5:22 (KVJ)

Posted by: Anonymous | March 28, 2007 9:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"anyone who referred to himself as an agnostic Jew obviously had his own problems deciding where he stood on the whole 'why am I here' question."

I don't know much about his personal biography. While I'm not Jewish, I do know that many Jews say they regard their Jewish identity as having ethnic and cultural components.

In any case, Gould had every right to be agnostic, and it wasn't up to anyone else to determine what he should and shouldn't believe. Even if he never finally decided on the "why am I here" question, that was his concern and no one else's.

Posted by: Tonio | March 28, 2007 3:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I see Pablo didn't want any part of my previous question.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 28, 2007 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I wouldn't be thrown out of a "formal" debate with Pablo because I never would enter into one. You cannot have a debate with a prayer wheel nor with a manichaean hate monger, brandishing his infantile hell and heaven chips.

Nietzsche: A lie is much better than a conviction. A lie can be debunked. So let's have him enjoy his "victory" against his windmills.

There is a certain degree of entertainment in this "debate", but it is worn out now, so I am leaving, at least for quite a while.

Gerry

Posted by: Gerry | March 28, 2007 1:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lyn, aka Anonymous,

Yes, I fear it's been beaten to death. But then there's always the Resurrection.

Best wishes.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 28, 2007 1:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie,

You are quite amusing today!

Have we about beat this one to death?

Posted by: Lyn, AKA Anonymous | March 28, 2007 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie 89:18

O Anonymous: Hide not thy name under a bushel.
Reveal thyself and let the light of truth shine upon thy visible face. Or are ye ashamed of what will be revealed?

He without a name has no identity and will not be found by the Anointed One (PBUH) at the Apocalypse.

Posted by: The Holy Norrie | March 28, 2007 12:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I don't know Tonio, I have a little trouble with Mr. Gould. I mean, anyone who refered to himself as an agnostic Jew obviously had his own problems deciding where he stood on the whole "why am I here" question.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 28, 2007 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dang, what happened in here after I left yesterday?!

I see some of you want to argue about the "going to hell" question. OK, here's the deal. They didn't always say things back then the same way we say them now. SO, instead of "you'll go to hell" they might say you'll suffer "the wrath of God". Seriously, what else do you think the wrath of God means? This is in opposition to eternal life - it's big stuff.

Need another one?

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
...when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,
dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.

Matther 13:37-43
"The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at (AK)the end of the age. "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father He who has ears, let him hear.

I suppose you can try to interpret these differently, but we all know what they're really saying.

I thought we had gotten past this arguing point yesterday...? (sigh)

Posted by: Anonymous | March 28, 2007 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

Thanks. Glad you liked it.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 28, 2007 11:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Zechariah:
I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. --11:9

Posted by: THE HOLY BIBLE | March 28, 2007 10:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie,

You crack me up! I loved your cat scripture on Dr. Brooks Thistlethwaite's discussion.

Posted by: Andrea | March 28, 2007 10:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Don't you think 'why am I here' and 'why are we here' are the same question? Or do you think that everyone, rather than being created for a purpose, needs to find out what their own best reason for being is?"

I go with the latter. I cannot decide someone else's best reason for being, nor should I try to do so. And I deeply resent anyone attempting to define my best reason for being. I question any claim that all of humanity was created for a single purpose, because that violates Gould's NOMA principle.

Posted by: Tonio | March 28, 2007 10:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie 16:35
Threaten not others with hellfire, as it will return to you threefold times seventeen, as yon Pablo discovered to his great distress.

Posted by: The Holy Norrie | March 28, 2007 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo also doen't know how to debate either Andrea. He makes Canyon Shearer look somewhat sane.

Posted by: Brutus | March 28, 2007 9:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

What sort of formal debate are you proposing that would "throw" someone out? I don't think you know the rules of a debate.

Posted by: Andrea | March 28, 2007 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

That is the men John Conolley quoted above are heretics

Posted by: Pablo | March 28, 2007 9:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Them men quoted above are heretics

Posted by: Pablo | March 28, 2007 9:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry,

Again you dodge the issue because you have nothing to refute what I have said. You are defeated and are gathering your friends for cover. I never said you wrote, "Can't the guy even read?" I do not know where that came from. Anyway, you and Maurie are the kings of the straw man. You would be thrown out of a formal debate. Either give us some proof or bow out of the debate. Again you will not answer with proof but will get together will your buddies but that will prove nothing.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 28, 2007 9:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Great White Throne Judgment
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Posted by: The Holy Bible | March 28, 2007 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Defeat of Satan
7And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven[b] and consumed them, 10and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Posted by: The Holy Bible | March 28, 2007 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Seventh Trumpet
15Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever." 16And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17saying,

"We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty,
who is and who was,
for you have taken your great power
and begun to reign.
18The nations raged,
but your wrath came,
and the time for the dead to be judged,
and for rewarding your servants,[c] the prophets and saints,
and those who fear your name,
both small and great,
and for destroying the destroyers of the earth."

19Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings,[d] peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

Posted by: The Holy Bible | March 28, 2007 8:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Coming of the Son of Man
29"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Posted by: The Holy Bible | March 28, 2007 8:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: The Holy Bible | March 28, 2007 8:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I want to go back and count how many times in this thread and others Pablo claimed "straw man."

Posted by: Andrea | March 28, 2007 8:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Abomination of Desolation
15"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, 18and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 19And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 20Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 21For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25See, I have told you beforehand. 26So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

Posted by: The Holy Bible | March 28, 2007 8:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

9"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10And then many will fall away[a] and betray one another and hate one another. 11And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Posted by: The Holy Bible | March 28, 2007 8:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Signs of the Close of the Age

3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" 4And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray. 5For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. 6And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

Posted by: The Holy Bible | March 28, 2007 8:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo is even too lazy to read about what he is quoting: I never wrote the following quote. Can't the guy even read?

"Dear Gerry,

If it has not been observed or measured as you have just said in your words below it is not science. You, therefore, believe evolution by faith.

"Wanna know why evolution isn't observed? Because it takes hundreds, even thousands of years for it to happen. even though we don't see the process, we do see the results, in various skeletons found throughout the world."

Exactly what skeletons are you talking about?

etc.etc."

I am glad to find some reasonable, sane fellow-hell-dwellers like Maurie, Conolly and a few others. I surely wouldn't want to spend "eternity" with Pablo and his ilk.

The hatred Pablo is spewing against us atheists is immanently necessary for him to maintain his world view. He belongs to the sort of people who easily, with the cleanest conscience, would burn us at the stake, even stating that he does it for the glorification of God (=his world view). Even Martin Luther was fervently in favor of witch burning: It belonged to his "religious belief" of Truth. So Pablo is in the best of company!

I do agree with Susan Jacoby: Be very afraid!

Posted by: Gerry | March 28, 2007 7:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

P.S.
You are correct, I care nothing about God. I care considerably less about your threats of hellfire. Better men than you have laid hellfire on me, boyo. No matter how right you think you are, no matter how sincere, no matter how deeply you believe, by my lights you are full of it. Kindly keep your threats to yourself.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 27, 2007 11:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo:

These are the first few quotations that come to hand. These are all people whose knowledge of the Bible is unimpeachable. Straw man this, smart boy.

“The view I will be presenting relies on an austere sense of God's utter unknowableness,”
Gellman, Jerome I.
Wellhausen and the Hasidim
Modern Judaism - Volume 26, Number 2, May 2006, pp. 193-207
——————————————————————————————————-
Barth makes it explicit from the beginning that God is the unknowable and indescribable God. The hidden God remains hidden. Even when we say we know him our knowledge is of an imcomprehensible Reality. Consider, for instance, the personality of God. Barth writes: "God is personal, but personal in an incomprehensible way, in so far as the conception of his personality surpasses all our views of personality."
The Papers of Martin Luther King
Volume II: Rediscovering Precious Values
July 1951-November 1955
"Karl Barth's Conception of God"
———————————————————————————————————-
First. God is unknowable, the infinite Abyss of darkness in which the universe floats as an atom.
GOD -- His Nature And Relation To The Universe
by A. A. Hodge
——————————————————————————————————————-
God, if God exists, must, by definition, be unknowable to us.
Andrew Sullivan
discussing his book, The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back.
———————————————————————————————————————
The Íqán is invincibly true because God does not make His Self-Revelation immanent within the creatures. The Oneness of God does not descend into the variety and multiplicity of His creation. The immemorial dogma of the Unknowableness of God's Essence is affirmed once again; moreover, as this is a mature age, The Íqán proclaims it with matchless clarity. The place, form, nature, and relations imagined by man as categories of his Maker are beyond intellection: God is — and yet is transcendent to the human mind and consequently exalted above all definitions.
The Kitáb-i-Íqán: Introduction to the 1950 Edition
by Helen Reed Bishop
—————————————————————————————————————————
but since the nature of our mind, which is the likeness of the Creator evades our knowledge, it has an accurate resemblance to the superior nature, figuring by its own unknowableness the incomprehensible Nature.
Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, to his Brother Peter, The Servant of God.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 27, 2007 11:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Wow, some people really are delusional. I almost feel sorry for Pablo and others like him.....almost. they only bring it on themselves. Guess Pablo didn't have a witty retort for my earlier post. Too much thinking for him I guess. Read my post and let me know what you think Pablo, I can't wait to hear what kind of insight you have on it.

Posted by: Brutus | March 27, 2007 11:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

We really haven’t been discussing the end of the world, and since a new question is probably coming up tomorrow, I have a question on the eschatological scenario that is familiar to those who subscribe to The End Times of Lehaye.

If news reports were suddenly broadcast describing a mushroom cloud rising over Jerusalem, how would you feel? Would you be horrified, wondering how human beings could be so stupid? Or would you be happy and take this as the sign you have been waiting for, that the final battle is at hand, Christ’s return to defeat the forces of Evil has begun, and the two billion Christians on this planet would soon be ascending to heaven in Rapture?

Think carefully how you would respond to this question. Remember, there are over 700,000 people in Jerusalem. A bomb the size of Hiroshima would immediately kill ~100,000, and they would be the lucky ones. The survivors, exposed to ionizing radiation would not be so fortunate. They would suffer a truly agonizing death with ulcers inside and outside the body, sloughing of the skin, anemia, and multiple organ failure.

Such an event might be the result of stupid, deluded people doing monstrous things, or it could signal that the End Times are at hand, much like Mohamed Atta and his fellow hijackers felt as they flew their plane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, on their way to seventy-two virgins in a martyrs’ paradise.

What would be your initial response? Horrified, …………. or Happy? If it was just delusional fanatics, we all would quickly condemn them. However, let’s say it really was the beginning of End Times. Then how would you feel? Remember, the suffering in Jerusalem would still occur, the sloughing of the skin and the terrible agony. And remember too that all non Christians (four billion people) would go to hell, to suffer worse than those suffering radiation poisoning in Jerusalem, and the suffering would go on for eternity. They would even include people you know and care for, who you might even love. They might be people who led exemplary lives and gave back far more to society than they took. But they would die and go to hell because they were not Christians, while some person on death row who committed grisly murders, but converted to Christianity and accepted Jesus into his heart, would, after some time in purgatory, go to heaven.

What kind of God would do such a thing? A god of mercy? Of love? If a person did such a thing (four billion innocent people), he would make Hitler look like a choir boy. But this is God, and according to the good book, this is part of his plan. My initial reaction would be, “With a god like that, who needs the devil?”

Frankly, I wish that all the Christian Fundamentalists (along with all other fundamentalists) would just go to heaven and leave the world to the rest of us sinners (and any other Christians who love life and want to stick around). Let us live out our lives as part of the thin film of life covering a blue-green sphere, spinning on its axis, orbiting an average star in a solar system on one of the arms of an average galaxy, in an ever-expanding universe. Just let us live without ideology, enjoying strawberries and sex, living in wonder at the amazing diversity of life, wondering at our place in this universe that is bigger than we can imagine, occasionally asking ……………… Is Anyone Out There?

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 27, 2007 11:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Maurie,

"Pablo is never going be be amenable to intelligent discourse that includes such mundane elements as evidence and reason"

Ad hominine attacks do not prove one word I have said wrong. I have laid out my case against evolution and for super natural creation by God. You have not refuted one of my points yet you have the audacity to claim I do not want to enter into discourse that includes reason. You believe evolution with no proof. Yes there are changes within kinds but they still retain their identity. I have said this over and over and you have yet to refute anything I have said. You do not have one shred of proof that nature created the universe and that man evolved.

Maurie you are walking in blind faith the very thing you accuse Christians of. I reason based on a God of order who is the source of reason and knowledge. I do not even know why you try to reason. If it is true that the source of reason is chaos and nature as naturalism asserts then you should not expect to reason based on chaos.

Maybe you do not understand what I am saying but do not accuse me of not using reason.

"The fool has said in his heart there is no God" That is God's word not mine. I believe Him over your finite musings.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 27, 2007 10:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John Conolley,

You make no sense at all. I never said you could not know God. The Bible does not say that you cannot know God. I know God through His Son Jesus Christ. His nature and attributes are seen in all He has made (See Romans 1:18-32). So your argument is a straw man that you have erected to kick over to make yourself feel good. You should heed Jesus' words and repent or you will face the judgment of God. I am not always this blunt but your arrogance calls for it. "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." I do not think you really care about God but you will find out that the Christians were right. Every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord. You will either do that as His child or as one banished to hell fire for all eternity. I pray that it will be as His child.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 27, 2007 10:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Garyd quoted Susan Jacoby, “‘For further gory details, see the Book of Revelation. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid, all you Jews, Muslims, atheists and sane Christians who see Revelation as the work of human lunacy it is rather than as the word of God.’

nd precisely Mr. Beck what do you think she meant by this comment.”

I’ve always enjoyed warmer climes.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 27, 2007 10:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

James, “However: Pablo is never going be be amenable to intelligent discourse that includes such mundane elements as evidence and reason,

so I would advise you to stop tilting at this particular windmill.”

To all the other rationalists on this website, James is right on the mark. It is futile to tilt at this particular windmill with those who have let religion turn them into less-than-rational human beings. To discuss science and natural phenomena with fundamentalists is a waste of time without resolution.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 27, 2007 10:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

"You know you have broken God's law and as Jesus said: 'No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.'"

This answers neither one of my posts.

I repeat: How do you know so much about the unknowable nature of God?

And if you were trying to answer this one,

Where does the Bible say "unbelievers will go to Hell?" Not perish. Not be pissed off at. "Go to Hell."

Posted by: John Conolley | March 27, 2007 8:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

2 Kings "Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?'--18:27

Posted by: THE HOLY BIBLE | March 27, 2007 8:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks for the question Criag,

All within the cat kind. Lions, tigers, Persian cats. All cats are cats and are 100% dedicated to reproducing cats. Nothing is doing what this fairytale evolution asserts.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 27, 2007 8:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the WRATH of God abides on him."

Posted by: The Holy Bible | March 27, 2007 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John Conolley,

You know you have broken God's law and as Jesus said: "No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 27, 2007 8:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie & anonymous,

Excuse me if I'm butting in here, but,

"...will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

is not the same thing as, "will go to hell."

Obviously, you interpret it that way, but kindly stand back and let us do our own interpreting. Where does it say, in plain English (or plain Greek), that nonbelievers will go to hell?

Posted by: John Conolley | March 27, 2007 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo:

"The word of God is the wisdom of God. I will take what He says over the wisdom of sinful, finite man no matter how many degrees they have."

The question here isn't about the wisdom of God, Bubby. It's about the wisdom of you. You claim to have certain knowledge about the nature of God, and about what's in God's mind, When very many brilliant mystics say that both are unknowable.

The question is, what makes you so special? How do you know so much about the unknowable?

Posted by: John Conolley | March 27, 2007 7:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie,

John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

That's one. There are others, but I have to go!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 5:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous,

In your 1:28 PM post to Tonio today you wrote:

"Unfortunately, a believer cannot change the fact that the Bible says a non-believer will go to hell."

I'm not a biblical scholar. Can you tell me where in the Bible it says that non-believers will go to hell?

Thanks.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 27, 2007 5:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio,

Don't you think "why am I here" and "why are we here" are the same question? Or do you think that everyone, rather than being created for a purpose, needs to find out what their own best reason for being is?

Does that make any sense at all?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pabo:
"God did make most organisms in distinct "kinds." These distinct kinds have plenty of variation while still retaining their identity."

Please provide an objective scientific definition of a "kind". You say cats are one kind. Does that include lions and tigers? If not, are tigers and lions the same kind, because they can interbeed? Are all monkeys the same kind? Are monkeys and apes the same kind?

"Evolutionists want to take the leap of faith and assert that kinds changed into other kinds."

Depending on how you define "kind", it may have been observed. If a "kind" is a species, then yes, we have observed speciation occur.

"For example, apes became humans. This has never been observed."

Actually, humans *are* classed as apes, so there's no problem there. :)

Posted by: Craig | March 27, 2007 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous,

"If you take out God or the supernatural, you're not really left with religion or spiritual meaning, but simply a set of values. Right?"

It's possible to have spiritual meaning without making any claims about the supernatural. Spirituality is about the question "why am I here?" In my view, the answer to that question is part of a person developing his or her identity. It shouldn't be about "why are WE here" because that has the effect of invalidating the individual.

Perhaps "spiritual" is the wrong word, because it isn't about spirits or worship. Maybe "philosophical" is the right word. Friend has a good point about organized religions providing some believers with a sense of community.

Mr. Mark, plenty of religious people do not treat science as an enemy. Just as an example, the Big Bang hypothesis originated with Georges Lemaître, who was a physicist and astronomer as well as a Catholic priest.

Posted by: Tonio | March 27, 2007 5:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Well, you put yourself out there and are kind doing it. Farewell, my anonymous friend.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 27, 2007 4:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I went through quite a long meditation phase during my spiritual development...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hmmm, Buddhism. Now there's something I hadn't thought of. Sometimes it seems to me that people worship Buddha, which isn't really what that religion is about. But it is a very spiritual religion, in that it relies heavily on meditation, and believes in life after death. And I know many Buddhists, especially in Japan, worship all kinds of deities, but that isn't Buddhism in its original form.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 4:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I consider myself a religious person and I don't believe in a personal god.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 27, 2007 4:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Boy, I sure am glad I'm not a religionist! It would hurt me to the core to be accused of being "anti-knowledge" by the likes of Mr. Marks!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There are religions without gods. The Bhudda was silent on the question of god.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 27, 2007 3:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

After months of reading religionists' responses on this blog, I've come to the realization that they aren't anti-evolution or anti-science as much as they are anti-any-type-of-knowledge-at-all.

Posted by: Mr Mark | March 27, 2007 3:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend,

Yes, but those are all based on the core beliefs of the religion. It is not considered a "religion" without the supernatural basis to it.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 3:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I think there is more to religion than supernatural gods and sets of values...there's phychology, philosophy, and community...

Posted by: FRIEND | March 27, 2007 3:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio,

Well, then that would entail changing the basis of entire religions as we know them, or creating brand new ones. Although, by definition, religion is a belief and worship of God or the supernatural. If you take out God or the supernatural, you're not really left with religion or spiritual meaning, but simply a set of values. Right?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 2:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"a leading premise is that God created the universe and everything in it"

And I question the need for religions to even have such premises, because that amounts to making unverifiable claims about the natural world. Earlier in the thread, I brought up Gould's suggestion that religion concern itself with ethical values and spiritual meaning. In my view, those ideas wouldn't require a deity, at least a deity that interacted with the natural world. There may be religions that presuppose that any supernatural world is completely separate from the natural world.

Posted by: Tonio | March 27, 2007 2:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio,

There are probably religions that do fit into what you suggest. However, when it comes to Christianity (and a few others) a leading premise is that God created the universe and everything in it. It is because of this that believers feel that all people should be included; we are all His creations.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 2:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous, why does any religious belief or doctrine have to include other people? Shouldn't religion be about the individual's quest to find or create his or her own meaning for life? Isn't it an invasion of personal boundaries for the individual to say what other people should or shouldn't believe? Why do religions even need concepts of the supernatural?

I know that I'm firing off questions in rapid succession. The only way to deal with such questions, in my view, is to create some kind of religion-neutral zone where no claims about the supernatural are regarded as factual, where all such claims are on an equal footing.

Posted by: Tonio | March 27, 2007 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio,

Unfortunately, a believer cannot change the fact that the Bible says a non-believer will go to hell. If you believe in God, and you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then that's what you believe. But believers should for the most part feel bad about it, not threaten people with it.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 1:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"It is unfortunate that there are people, religious and not, who feel the need to condemn, threaten, debase, and humiliate those who do not agree with them. We can only hope that the sensible ones become more pronounced."

I agree. My point is that the concepts of hell and eternal damnation do not exist outside of religious doctrine. I would argue that wanting someone to burn in hell is worse than wanting someone dead.

"As for threats of eternal damnation, I don't suppose that would be much of a threat at all to someone who doesn't believe in Hell..."

Not a threat, but certainly an attempt to offensively define others based on one's own belief system. An individual is entitled to refuse to be defined by what others say about him or her. The problem is not what hell means to the unbeliever, it's what hell means to the believer.

Posted by: Tonio | March 27, 2007 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio,

It is unfortunate that there are people, religious and not, who feel the need to condemn, threaten, debase, and humiliate those who do not agree with them. We can only hope that the sensible ones become more pronounced.

As for threats of eternal damnation, I don't suppose that would be much of a threat at all to someone who doesn't believe in Hell...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 1:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The difference betweent the Big bang and the Christian creation concept is one entirely of sematics. Both essentially state, in a nutshell, first there was nothing and then suddenly there was the universe.

Posted by: Garyd | March 27, 2007 12:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"there is unknown, absence of proof, and assumptions on both sides of this argument. "

Assuming you're right about science making unfounded assumptions (and I don't concede that), the difference would be that in the scientific community, proponents of one assumption wouldn't accuse proponents of a rival assumption of promoting evil and immorality, or excommunicate them, or threaten them with eternal damnation.

Posted by: Tonio | March 27, 2007 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend,

Thank you for the smile. A wonderful poem; and perhaps the Friend-liest answer to the main question so far.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 12:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Brutus wrote:

"The message isn't about who is right, or who is wrong, or who is going where for what they did while alive. The message is about love and tolerance and bettering yourself as a human being."

You are absolutely right, Brutus, and I can't tell you how glad I was to see it in your post. People of faith who forget this have some praying to do.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 12:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Here is my peace offering to you Anonymous, and if you are sarcastic and make fun of me, I will repect you in the morning.

Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Robert Frost

Posted by: FRIEND | March 27, 2007 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Do you believe the world will come to an end? If so, where, when and what will it look like?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I give you all that and all you hit back with are two measely little hoaxes Pablo? Scratchin the bottom of the barrel or what? Dude, go to a freakin museum, or better yet, read a history book. It frightens me to see that you are a product of our education system. Guess you really can't teach an old dog new tricks.....but at least he can be put down.

You seem to be using your religon as a crutch to stand on, and that is not healthy. You should try to depend on yourself and your own abilities. If everything you do or don't do comes from God, then you're nothing more than a puppet. And I know I don't like being a puppet in anyone's eyes, do you? Being a human means freedom, and free will. Saying that I have none of it because I am already doomed to Hell or condemned for eternity takes away my freedom, and that is not right. I am glad that you have a strong faith and that you are perpetuating the message. But guess what, you're getting the message wrong. The message isn't about who is right, or who is wrong, or who is going where for what they did while alive. The message is about love and tolerance and bettering yourself as a human being. Once you get past all the other crap then you will see what I mean. That is what is wrong with most, if not all the religions of the world.....they got the message wrong.

Posted by: Brutus | March 27, 2007 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rule Britannia! The cosmic background radiation has released a quantum of energy in an ape man's brain causing god to be created from nothingness, yet is everlasting and eternal to piltdown man.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 27, 2007 11:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Gerry,

If it has not been observed or measured as you have just said in your words below it is not science. You, therefore, believe evolution by faith.

Exactly what skeletons are you talking about? There is not one skeleton that proves evolution. In fact most of them have been proven to be hoaxes but does that change the minds of the religious evolutionary zealots. They are committed to their belief no matter what evidence is shown to the contrary.

Here are just two of the evolutionary hoaxes. You do have a lot of faith.

Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth

Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 27, 2007 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend,

You are already on the internet. I am quite sure there are scores of reliable scientific sites that can answer your questions on the Big Bnag in detail.

Posted by: Kirk | March 27, 2007 10:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you very much Marco Polo.

Here is my reason for asking this question; it will also be an attempt to determine why every time in this thread the big bang theory has been questioned, the response has been to attack the belief of God as Creator. Bear with me just a minute.

Briefly, the big bang theory says that the universe began from a really dense, hot state. (Ahh, see, I already know.) Now, physicists are not in agreement on what came before this, but many believe in a "gravitational singularity". The big bang was actually supposedly the expansion of the universe. The creation of matter came later, after some "as yet unknown" reaction took place with plasma and quarks and other really scientific stuff. The Big Bang Theory depends on 3 main assumptions: 1) The Cosmological Principle (which isn't really a principle but is actually an assumption); 2) the assumption that physical laws are universal; and 3) The Copernican Principle (which says that the universe is generally uniform throughout).

As we can see from this short description, there are a number of things that are assumed or believed to be so with the acceptance of this theory. I just thought it was necessary to make this clear; there is unknown, absence of proof, and assumptions on both sides of this argument. Lets not argue over whose assumptions are stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 10:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm sorry, Anonymous, you're right.

Best of luck on your journey.

Friend

Posted by: FRIEND | March 27, 2007 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"So someone, anyone, can you tell me why everyone keeps side-stepping the big bang issue?"

Plenty of Christians see no conflict between their own beliefs and the hypotheses of the Big Bang and natural selection. In my view, the conflict only arises when one adheres to a literal reading of Genesis.

I believe it's inaccurate to place the Big Bang and natural selection on the same level as a literal reading of any religion's creation story. Literalism is about "Because God said so," about asking believers to accept the world of scripture without question. (Whether the believers do so is not the point.)

Posted by: Tonio | March 27, 2007 10:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I could be wrong here, Anonymous, but I seem to remember from some science class or another that the universe has cycles (expanding/contracting) and on a contracting cycle, the masses collided and BOOM (either just this once, or many times before on previous cycles) and now it's expanding again. Or, I might have just made that up, but it makes sense in my mind.

Marco Polo,
I'm so sad I missed that show! Maybe they'll reair it?

Posted by: Andrea | March 27, 2007 10:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend,

Not a very friendly post from a person named "Friend". I don't recall asking for an explanation; I simply asked if there was one. I understand from you previous posts that sarcasm is your "thing", but it serves no purpose here.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 10:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous:

I think the discovery channel had a show on the Big bang, but I can't recall when it was aired. It was only aired within the last month or so, maybe you can find it. Interesting stuff. It might help.......or it might not.

Posted by: Marco Polo | March 27, 2007 9:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

John Conolley,

The word of God is the wisdom of God. I will take what He says over the wisdom of sinful, finite man no matter how many degrees they have.

Pablo

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And can I get a short, clear, consise explaination of Quantum Mechanics. You just can't say that Quantum Mechanics exists and it just happened. You would need to at least have some papers in scientific journals, but yet no one has shown any. I post this here since all of you are "scientific" experts....

Posted by: FRIEND | March 27, 2007 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm sorry, but I really, really want to know the answer to this question: is there any explanation of the "big bang" theory, or is it just that "there was a big bang"? I have to ask, because it has been asked here a number of times, but no one has ever answered. If someone can tell me "no one knows, they just think there was a big bang" then I'm ok with that. I might say that "God always was", but I can't explain how. Science saying they believe in a theory that they can't explain is just fine with me; of course, it's also a reason for them to stop ridiculing others for believing in a God that they can't fully explain.

So someone, anyone, can you tell me why everyone keeps side-stepping the big bang issue? Is it simply "we don't know, we just think there was some kind of big bang, and stuff was created from nothing"?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 27, 2007 9:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry/Pablo,

I thank you. The people thank you and my "extensive poll" thanks you....

Good night America!!

Posted by: Diamond Dave | March 27, 2007 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Diamond,

Thanks for your constructive entrance into the conversation after doing an extensive poll among EVERYBODY!

And Pablo:

The discussion with you is finished. Thinking hurts. You go to heaven, I go to hell.

Finally, a recommended reading: Luke 18,9-14.

Gerry

Posted by: Gerry | March 27, 2007 4:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo:

"The point you miss is that God is not nothing. He is something."

There have been many knowledgeable theologians and mystics who would disagree with you. They have held that to say God exists, or God is something, is to limit God, or to make him immanent. They hold that you can neither say that God is something or that he is nothing, nor that God exists or he doesn't exist.

(For more on this, see _A History of God_ by Karen Armstrong.)

You seem to be purporting more knowledge about the nature of God than some of the brightest believers who have ever existed.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 27, 2007 12:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

I recommend that you read and put in your library the many historical Jesus books which have been published in the last 50 years.

The following brief descriptions of Jesus are listed at the following internet address along with the biographies of the NT scholars/authors and listing of their books.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright

Please note that many of these scholars are members of the On Faith panel.

I guarantee that by reviewing the books of these scholars, your current "bible-only" and restricted views will change to include the end of the world scenarios depicted in said bible.

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 27, 2007 12:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

My reasoning for God coming from nothing Pablo comes straight from your post, and the ideas you spout as truths, yet are completely unfounded. Wanna know why evolution isn't observed? Because it takes hundreds, even thousands of years for it to happen. even though we don't see the process, we do see the results, in various skeletons found throughout the world. Why must you deem me to be condemned? I have done nothing wrong other than live my life the best way I know how and as joyful as I can. It seems as though the life you portray here is one of constant ridicule fueled by hate and ignorance. Maybe you are condemned, based on those principles alone. Forget your Bible my friend, you are already living in your own personal Hell, and all the preaching you do can't save you.

See you in the morning.

Posted by: Brutus | March 27, 2007 12:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

OK, ok Pablo and Gerry you two must get a life!! Please limit your vague, pointless screeds to 2 a day. The mainframe needs a rest.

Signed,

EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM.

Posted by: Diamond Dave | March 26, 2007 11:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Brutus,

Your reasoning does not follow. Can you give me one reason why God had to come from nothing? Can you give me one reason he had to have a begining?

No I am not in the dark. Jesus said:

"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12).

"I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness" (John 12:46).

You on the other hand:

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (John 3:18-20).

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 11:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry I already refuted your statement about change with the post below. You did not give a rebuttle so I will not answer you until you do. Your failure to do so demonstrates that you cannot defend what you say you believe.

God did make most organisms in distinct "kinds." These distinct kinds have plenty of variation while still retaining their identity. For example the cat kind, there is much variation within the cat kind but they are still cats. Evolutionists want to take the leap of faith and assert that kinds changed into other kinds. For example, apes became humans. This has never been observed. Not one scientist has seen one kind transition into another kind but yet they put pictures of this happening in texts books and you believe it. Stop raising the straw man that I said there were no changes within a kind of organism. Change within an organism does not even come close to proving evolution. Evolution is not science it is a philosophy rooted in materialism (naturalism).

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 11:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry,

The point you miss is that God is not nothing. He is something.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ok......Pablo has finally answered my question, yet still has not come up with a viable answer, because his own answer basically gave weight to the something out of nothing argument. God was always there? From your answer, it sounds like God came from nothing, which basically contradicts everything you've been saying. And Anonymous, at least have the gumption to use your name man.......I don't like hearing insults from the peanut gallery.

All the explanations given on this thread are fun and entertaining, and I quite enjoy the verbal jousting. Yet it is almost for naught, because it seems that Pablo and his friends are just too deep in the dark about what really goes on. There is no winning an argument when one side won't listen. Oh well, at least we can all have fun trying. I know I will. Keep it coming guys

Posted by: Brutus | March 26, 2007 9:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One more thing: Isn't the Big Bang theory a case of extrapolating way past the point where we have any knowledge of how to extrapolate, or even if extrapolation still applies? Even a cat with a lowly B.S. in math (such as I) knows better than that.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 26, 2007 9:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Fred Hoyle, the last great defender of the steady-state universe, gave up and acceded to the Big Bangers a long time ago. Fred Hoyle knew way, way more about the subject than I do, but I still have problems with the Big Bang (renamed by Calvin "The Horrendous Space Kablooie!").

Big Bang theory seems to be saying, "at a certain point in time, time began," which is a manifest contradiction.

And where did this Bang take place if there was no space?

And doesn't it imply that the universe was created from outside the universe?

And doesn't it imply that the universe was created? Isn't the whole thing just a way of sneaking God into astrophysics?

Posted by: John Conolley | March 26, 2007 9:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend - you say, "Yes, and the "The Theory of God by Supernatural Origion" is fully documented by the facts in the Bible."

The Bible is not a science book.

Posted by: E favorite | March 26, 2007 9:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

You wrote:"But where did all the order in the universe come from? Chance + nature. No way! This is what the evolutionists want us to believe. God who is great made all things with purpose. If there is no God there is no purpose."

How now way? Nature has no way of ordering itself?

Posted by: Andrea | March 26, 2007 7:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend: "Yes, and the "The Theory of God by Supernatural Origion" is fully documented by the facts in the Bible."

Except true theories must also be falsifiable. For instance, if we discovered the fossils of a modern mammal species in undisturbed Cambrian rock, it would be a big problem for evolutionary theory as it stands.

The trouble with the Supernatural Origin Hypothesis is that there's no conceivable test you could make to demonstrate that it was wrong.

And we have no way of knowing if the "facts" in Genesis are actually facts. And which version of the tale is the factual one? The one in Genesis 1 or the one in Genesis 2? They say different things.

Posted by: Craig | March 26, 2007 7:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes, and the "The Theory of God by Supernatural Origion" is fully documented by the facts in the Bible.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 26, 2007 7:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There's an astonishing amount of misinformation in this thread.

First things first -- evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that species change over time. We have seen this happen and continue to see it happen, so arguing against it is to deny reality. The theory of evolution (or theories, for there are several) is an attempt to explain how the change occurs, eg, random mutation plus selection pressure.

Think of it this way:
fact: Things fall when dropped.
theory: Mass causes a curvature of four-dimensional spacetime which gives the appearance of a force we will call "gravity".

fact: Species change over time (evolve).
theory: Mutations in the genome plus selection (natural or otherwise) plus time results in the observed changes and will eventually cause speciation to occur.

Secondly, for everyone dismissing evolution as "just a theory" -- a theory is the top-of-the-line as far as scientific explanations go. No theory is EVER "proven", only disproven. The best we ever have is a theory that hasn't been overturned yet. This is why we still refer to the "General Theory of Relativity", "Quantum Theory", and for that matter, the "Germ Theory of Disease", even though these have all passed every test thrown at them so far.

Theories do not get upgraded into laws.

Posted by: Craig | March 26, 2007 5:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The majority of believers in religions (Pablo?)owe their faith to an accident of birth. As per John Hick, a noted British philosopher, almost 95% of people of the world fit this category.

Bottom line: Various religious beliefs in the end-of-the-world scenarios are a result of an accident of birth. Those that are in this category should pause and consider this situation.

Even the authors of the various scenarios wrote their views as a result not by God’s inspiration but via an accident of birth.

For example, Revelations (92-96 CE) was written by a Jewish Christian “prophet” named John who was neither John the son of Zebedee nor the writer of the Johannine Gospel or of the Epistles. (Raymond E. Brown, An Introcuction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1997, p.774). Putting such faith in your own birth situation and that of various “prophets” should be a cause of concern to anyone.

As noted before, what we do know is that life as we know it will end sometime between now and 3-4 billion CE with the Sun going non-nuclear, an impact with an asteroid or by a nuclear war.

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 26, 2007 5:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry only God saves. No Christian can convert you to Christianity. God does that for any whom He desires to save.

This place this Universe was made for the sole pupose of allowing God to demonstrate His justice and Mercy to another intelligent more or less rational group.

All God demands of us is that we quit being so freaking selfish. Selfishness equals sinfulness.

Posted by: Garyd | March 26, 2007 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo, get it once for all: I don't want to be "saved", especially not by people like you! The whole system is fantasy. And again, don't you tell me about my conscience!

Posted by: Gerry | March 26, 2007 5:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Funny that the believers are quite comfortable with the idea that god created the universe out of nothing, but then go to great lengths accusing the scientific crowd of suggesting just that, with the same caveat the "more enlightened" (yes!) religionists pursue that nobody REALLY knows. "Not knowing" in religion is called "believing". You don't have faith in something you know, you only can have faith (logic, semantic) in something you DON'T know.

Words mean something.

Posted by: Gerry | March 26, 2007 5:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

Honestly, you're not going to win anyone over by telling them they are a sinner and they will burn in Hell unless they repent. People come to Christ because they want to and they believe, not because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they don't.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry,

You are dogging the issue and again raising straw man arguments. No your rebellion tells you that you do not want to be saved.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

But where did all the order in the universe come from? Chance + nature. No way! This is what the evolutionists want us to believe. God who is great made all things with purpose. If there is no God there is no purpose.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 5:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

what a funny god you propose: If I, to my most honest knowledge, come to a conclusion with all my heart and mind I have received from nature (or god, from wherever, from the experience of a wonderful life), you propose that I should roast in hell for nothing more than telling my truth, as far as I honestly can, that is, you will propose that I be punished FOR NOT LYING! I certainly refuse to be rewarded "with heaven" by a philosophy of the sort you propose!

Rubbish, don't you see the contradiction in your arguments? My conscience has told me that I don't want to be "saved" by you and your ilk! What an overbearing conceit to tell me if I am "saved" or not, or what MY conscience tells me! What a perverse concept of "justice" you suggest. Unbearable.

Posted by: Gerry | March 26, 2007 5:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Science must develop theories on all aspects of nature with or without facts...they must say the theories are true no matter what, even if new facts come along...they must not back away from questions where there are no facts...otherwise, how will we know if it ever really is true? It would just be speculatin'...

Posted by: FRIEND | March 26, 2007 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

I don't think science can accept that argument, because they couldn't explain where it came from. And if they do accept the argument that it "just was", the question then becomes "at what point was it just there?" Did a "big bang" then ever actually happen? Without proof of either it is just speculation. Science is trying to explain something that they have no way of knowing, which is why there are so many theories about "the beginning".

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 5:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If it is argued that God was always here, could it not be argued also that the universe was always here? Not in the same form, but always present?

Posted by: Andrea | March 26, 2007 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thiest believe that since God came from nothing and just happened, as instructed by thier churches, mosques, and other specfied holy orgainizations, this always existing, omnipotent being created law, morality, and love.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 26, 2007 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,
I misread your question. That post was mine...I can't get anything right! Sorry. :)

Posted by: Andrea | March 26, 2007 4:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Brutus,

I made a mistake about the spirit in which you asked the question. I see now that you are mocking me.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 4:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

No, I was wrong. I misread your post.

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 4:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Andrea,

Where is the contradiction? I am saying that God is that something that has existed for all eternity. He is the source of all things.

The alternative would be to assert that nature is the source of all things. In such a case one would have to assign creative design and power to nature. In other words, nature would have to have the power to design and create the universe. This is what the naturalistic evolutionists want us to believe. It is foolish but they make it sound good by cloaking in scientific language that most laymen do not understand.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ha..I don't think my post made any sense. I got confused with this whole...beginning talk. What I don't understand is how believers in science claim that there was nothing before the Big Bang when matter cannot be created/destroyed. Wouldn't there have had to be something out there? If the universe is expanding, does that mean it contracted first? When it contracted could that have caused the Big Bang?

Posted by: Andrea | March 26, 2007 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry:

No, do not put words in my mouth I do not wish God's judgment upon you. I pray you would trust Him and be saved but if you will not you will receive the justice you know you deserve. Your conscience has told you that you have done wrong so you have sinned with complete knowledge. There will be no denying this on judgment day.

Pablo

"Con" means "with" "science" = knowledge We sin with knowledge.

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 4:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

Did you just contradict yourself?

"If something exists something had to exist for eternity because you cannot get something from nothing"

Then...

"God is. He does not have a beginning or an end"

If Big-Bang...ists...need to prove a beginning to everything, so do you.

Posted by: Andrea | March 26, 2007 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Brutus,

Thanks for the question and for the spirit in which it was ask. If something exists something had to exist for eternity because you cannot get something from nothing. God is. He does not have a beginning or an end. He is the source of reason, morality, and all creatures. His creative genius is seen in what He has made. His love is seen in all that He has provided. His justice is seen in that all things that sin die.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 4:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Brutus,

I'll be sitting on my couch waiting for your explanation of that "big bang"...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 4:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Wow Pablo........still haven't answered the question, at least with a good answer anyways. That answer you gave is a cop out and everyone knows it. Give me your best shot Pablo. I'll be on the couch eatin the popcorn waitin for your riveting response and insightful thoughts.

Posted by: Brutus | March 26, 2007 4:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend, Does the qoute below mean you believe that the big bang and scientific laws think, design, and create?

"Athiest think scientific laws, which have always been, rule the behavior of the universe, and not much is known before the Big Bang, ...only theories"

Did thinking come from a law? Did morality come from a law? Where did love come from?

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

FRIEND,

God has always been, is now, and will always be. God does not have a beginning. All things are dependant upon Him.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 4:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend posted:

"Thiests say God was created out of nothing and just happened, became omnipotent, and then created the universe"

I would really like to know where that quote came from Friend, because it sounds very different from what my church has taught me...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Thiests say God was created out of nothing and just happened, became omnipotent, and then created the universe"

"Athiest think scientific laws, which have always been, rule the behavior of the universe, and not much is known before the Big Bang, ...only theories"

Posted by: FRIEND | March 26, 2007 3:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry,

I see a lot of merit in your statement. Both sides "know" (based on their respective belief-systems) what happend to humanity past a certain point. But no one can explain, on either side, what happened before that point.

Posted by: Andrea | March 26, 2007 3:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Basically, there is less difference between the "God" position and the "just happened" position than most people realize. Nobody ever came up with a definition of god (please forget the scriptures for a moment, they are written by men). On the contrary, some religionists honestly describe him as the "undescribable".

If you don't have the slightest notion of your creator, except for the name, you are lost with the old and wholly refuted example of the "watchmaker", but not as a definition of god, only as a definition of the watch. And that is what scientists try to do also all the time.

Posted by: Gerry | March 26, 2007 3:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon,

No kidding! You can't say anything, one way or the other, or you'll get slammed by someone. I, too, try to stay level-headed in this, but with the subject matter hitting so close to home, it's so easy to lash back.

Posted by: technicolordreamboat | March 26, 2007 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ok, how about arrogant?

From Believer on Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's discussion:

"One day, dear Pablo, all of the people on this thread who deny Jesus' very existence will bend their knees and bow their heads at the very mention of His name; and they will rue the arrogance and anger that kept them from seeing the light of grace, which is so astonishingly clear, and freely given."

Posted by: technicolordreamboat | March 26, 2007 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Technicolordreamboat,

Sorry 'bout that - this place has put me on the defensive.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon,

If you truly need examples, I'd suggest looking in past questions, though, this has been the most heated debate in some time, at least that I've participated in. And I'm not just speaking of name-calling. The distain is coming from both sides. My response was not an attack on you, I was actually glad you posted that. It was you who jumped on the defensive.

Posted by: technicolordreamboat | March 26, 2007 2:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Technicolordreamboat,

Hmmmm, I'm not seeing it.... Quite a few, huh?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Christians/NonChristians, Religious/NonReligious alike need to follow the purpose of the forum's creators. I've seen quite a few of the Christians here sling some "morons" or "fools" etc. our way, too.

Posted by: technicolordreamboat | March 26, 2007 2:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Enlighten me, ape-friend...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

For those who feel the need to continually denegrate the Christians in this forum with accusations of ignorance, delusion, superstition and lunacy; perhaps you need to re-visit the purpose of this forum, as written by its creators:

"About On Faith

Religion is the most pervasive yet least understood topic in global life. From the caves of the Afghan-Pakistan border to the cul-de-sacs of the American Sunbelt, faith shapes and suffuses the way billions of people-Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and nonbelievers-think and act, vote and fight, love and, tragically, hate. It is the most ancient of forces. As Homer said, "All men need the gods." Even the most ferocious atheists find themselves doing intellectual battle on a field defined by forces of the faithful.

And so, in a time of extremism -- for extremism is to the 21st century what totalitarianism was to the 20th -- how can people engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat? At The Washington Post and Newsweek, we believe the first step is conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world. The point of our new online religion feature is to provide a forum for such sane and spirited talk, drawing on a remarkable panel of distinguished figures from the academy, the faith traditions, and journalism. Members of the group will weigh in on a question posed at least once a week, perhaps sometimes more often, depending on the flow of the news. We encourage readers to join the conversation by commenting on what our panelists have to say, offering their own opinions and suggesting topics for future discussions.

From the nature of evil to religious reformation, from the morality of fetal stem-cell research to the history of scripture, from how to raise kids in multi-faith households to the place of gays in traditional churches -- of the asking of questions, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, there shall be no end. We think that the online world, with its limitless space, offers us a unique opportunity to carry on a fruitful, intriguing, and above all constructive conversation about the things that matter most."

So, if you're here to constantly tell people that you're right and they're wrong, and you insist on name-calling and denegration, go find a chat room somewhere. We are supposed to be here to have "conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat." The attacks on Christians here in no way fulfill the purpose or goals of this forum.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 2:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"The problem is that you believe god created the universe and you think we believe it just happened.", said the pseudo-intellectual ape.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 26, 2007 1:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry,

The difference is that I believe God did the creating, and you believe that it just "happened".

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Editor:

Ms. Jacoby, or someone else who does not espouse a brand of superstition, should take part in every one of these debates.

Posted by: DaveB | March 26, 2007 11:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,
judgment day? I am not looking for and don't believe in an afterlife anyway. It would simply be too boring, be it heaven or hell. Life is good enough for me. Very rewarding being a part of life!!

In any case, good for you that you will not stand before or even near me, lol! (since according to your Christian love I will be roasting in hell.)

And anonymous:
God, similar to what science believes, created the universe - from nothing, just as you seem to believe. So what's the difference? As I said: Take god as a symbol and you don't have to substitute faith for ignorance.

Posted by: Gerry | March 26, 2007 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To those posting here who do not believe that humans evolved from some non-human life form:

Trying to argue the point here is useless. "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART..."

Evolutionists believe in the theory of evolution based on certain scientific facts. Evolutionists will tell you that evolution is a fact, although by all accounts "In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts." Furthermore, "In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation." As you can see, in the world of science, there are a few different definitions for the same thing. Scientists are apparently free to pick which definition fits their scenario best.

So, while evolutionists use science to try to prove that from nothing there was a "big bang", and that resulted in the creation of the planet, and water, and air, and flora, and fauna, and every other living and non-living thing; those who believe in Creation use science to see the wonders that God created.

Arguing is not what we are here for. Belief in God cannot be compared to belief in a scientific theory; it is a matter of faith. People have this faith for many different reasons, and it doesn't have to be justified to others. Just thank God for it.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 11:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Got a question for ya Pablo........maybe you can answer it, maybe not, or heck, mayeb other people can answer it.

If everything and everyone came from God, then where did God come from?

Please, discuss amongst yourselves.

Posted by: Brutus | March 26, 2007 10:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gerry,

I will not argue with you because I guess you are the measure of who is more enlightened and who is not. In fact, I should get ready to stand before you on judgment day and not Jesus.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 26, 2007 10:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

God is a symbol for the awe a sensitive human brings toward nature. In this sense Pasteur is right, and I can easily agree. It does not mean a "literal" creator, or all the rest of the biblical rapturous fairy tales.

The more enlightened Christians plead for a symbolic understanding of all the strange stories in the bible anyway, OT or NT. So why not declare the whole god principle a symbol for our human limits? Here we might even find "common ground".

Posted by: Gerry | March 26, 2007 8:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

Again, just where and when are you talking to God?

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 25, 2007 11:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Maurie,
Your assertion that people of faith are "kooks" is just an ad hominem attack and proves nothing.

Pablo

Louis Pasteur [1822-1895]
Father of Microbiology, developed "pasteurization"
"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."

"Science brings men nearer to God."

Posted by: Pablo | March 25, 2007 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

Given that the light colored variant appears to carry with in it at least some of the genes that produce the dark colored variant and vice versa, it is unlikely that either will ever disappear unless both do. In fact genetically it is for all practicall puposes the same species of moth. Sort of like the fact that whether your hair is blonde or brunette you are still a member of the species homo sapiens.

Posted by: Garyd | March 25, 2007 10:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous & Gerry,

I have never denied change within kinds of organisms. God did make most organisms in distinct "kinds." These distinct kinds have plenty of variation while still retaining their identity. For example the cat kind, there is much variation within the cat kind but they are still cats. Evolutionists want to take the leap of faith and assert that kinds changed into other kinds. For example, apes became humans. This has never been observed. Not one scientist has seen one kind transition into another kind but yet they put pictures of this happening in texts books and you believe it. Stop raising the straw man that I said there were no changes within a kind of organism. Change within an organism does not even come close to proving evolution. Evolution is not science it is a philosophy rooted in materialism (naturalism).

Pablo

From a Materialist Zealot:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University]

Posted by: Pablo | March 25, 2007 10:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Susan Jacoby

Nothing personal in my previous post. Just read the thread here and was reminded of Oppenheimer saying, after he saw the successful atomic bomb test in the desert allegedly saying, "I am become death". From the Bhagavad Gita I think.

I really should focus on my tasks at hand in a different time zone and mental time zone I'm at now:)

Posted by: Jihadist | March 25, 2007 7:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My eyes are bleary, and my mind is stumped. Can't be just a different time zone but mental zone as well.

All very well to laud science and technology and the logical, systematic mind that pursue the sciences. No quarrel there for scientists and technologists truly made my life better with planes, automobiles, multimedia system, the Internet, all those kitchen gadgets, genetically engineered food, handphones etc. And scientists to create medicines, Viagra, and opened up the wonders of the universe for me from the Big Bang, expanding/collapsing universe to nature itself from pygmy sharks to the lemmings.

All the same, it makes my hair stand and go into personal distress that Muslim terrorists from 9/11 to Bali bombings, were planned and executed by former science students or in such fields as accounting, business, medicine etc. Must be their precise, systematic, minds to cooly calculate the impact and effect of what they had wrought. Scientific knowledge is not only a means to discover and prove, but can be a weapon to create and destroy. Religious fundies can never wreak human mass havoc and destruction on a scale made capable of by scientists. And everyone wonder why they tried to get their hands on biochemical, chemical weapons and such creative means of deaths scientists and technologists came up with.

Like religion, science and technology can be manipulated. Scientists don't have to build nuclear bombs. Scientists don't have to pursue cloning. Scientists and technologists can say no to governments asking them to built and make such. Scientist have the skill to chose what they want to pursue with their knowledge. Scientists have the power to make life better. But why chose methods of destruction (nuclear holocaust) that can equal the impact of natural calamities (nuclear holocaust) for the end of the world?

Perhaps we should question scientists and technologists who pursue those as desired by governments - to ask their ethical and professional reasons for doing so. As many pointed out here and there in these On Faith threads, a high percentage of scientists are atheists. With such logical, rational non-delusional minds, I wonder whom among them are crazy enough to build better weapons of mass destruction toward man-made end of the world. Come Judgement Day, the day we all have to faced for having failed to resort to our better judgement, it will be the scientists who may be in the worst place of personal hell.

Ms. Susan Jacoby has written that, in line with the US Constitution, she "'respect' people's right to belief that the earth is flat; it does not require us to respect the belief itself."

I had wished that people not only respect the rights of people to belief, but do not force us to "accept" their beliefs, including science is is truly a borne to and benefit for man. Like all beliefs, scientific beliefs and convictions has its flaws in thoughts and applications.

Posted by: Jihadist | March 25, 2007 6:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

Let me give you a simple example of an evolution process even you can undesrtand. In the bible we are told that all the peolpe you see today come from one pair: Adam and Eve. If we assume that is the case then how do you account for all the different races we have today. How did the first pair look like? Were they hairy like the monkeys we see today. Were they black, green, tall, short? How did they develop their voice boxes and discover language to communicate with each other. The story in the Genesis about how the different langauges came to be is ludicrous to say the least. It's a fable your grandomther might tell you as a bedtime story and not to be taken seriously:

Genesis 11:1At first everyone spoke the same language, 2but after some of them moved from the east and settled in Babylonia, 3-4they said: Let's build a city with a tower that reaches to the sky! We'll use hard bricks and tar instead of stone and mortar. We'll become famous, and we won't be scattered all over the world. 5But when the LORD came down[where was he before that?] to look at the city and the tower, 6he said: These people are working together because they all speak the same language. This is just the beginning. Soon they will be able to do anything they want[naughty humans]. 7Come on! Let's go down and confuse them by making them speak different languages--then they won't be able to understand each other. 8-9So the people had to stop building the city, because the LORD confused their language and scattered them all over the earth. That's how the city of Babel got its name.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 25, 2007 6:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

you never seem to have noticed that EVERYTHING constantly "changes into something else", even the color of your hair and the weight of your body? Didn't it ever occur to you that a dog race changes by simply mixing it with another brand? Change is the only constant in nature. Wake up, and come down from your misconcept of what you think science is.

You obviously are far from being a scientist, since you would have had to develop a minimal sense of logic, an indispensable quality for pursuing science. (Unnecessary, of course, if not even a hindrance for being a religionist).

Posted by: Gerry | March 25, 2007 5:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Maurie,

You have failed to address questions I gave you weeks ago. Evolution is not science but a philosophy cloaked in scientific nomenclature. I do not care what degree you hold if you believe that the Theory of Evolution is science then you should not be a scientist. All this talk of imagining things changing into something else is not science. It is all speculation and nothing more.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 25, 2007 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Obviously, no scientist needs a god to prop up his findings. (The small believing part, of which certainly Einstein is not a member, strictly separates science from religion).

Scientific facts themselves, uncertain and preliminary as their explanation may be, never need an additional divine supplement in order to be plausible and convincing. The religious crowd, by contrast, unfortunately for them had to accept (even Pope John Paul) large parts of science, even with much hesitation (Galilei). They use their computers, the products of huge scientific findings, in order to spread their anti-scientific "mission" - what an absurdity. There still are some who believe the earth is flat and the Grand Canyon is a relict of Noahs Great Flood.

Both science and religion arrive at the insoluble question of "nothingness", with the single difference that religionists place a joker called god to this border of ignorance, while the scientists honestly admit their - for the time being - ignorance.

The human brain doesn't seem to be equipped, "wired", to tolerate a vacuum, neither in explanations nor in the physical sense in the universe. Therefore man here always has substituted personifications for unexplained phenomena (the "watchmaker" idea!), fairy tales, legends, miracles, colorful imaginations, illusions, dreams, be it to explain thunder and lightning or the course of the sun.

The inability to "suffer" ignorance about our world can be regarded as an inherent fact in our brain. (Maybe this inability has created the "religion neurons", as some scientists suggest.) Hence, the above-mentioned substitution always MUST appear as truth, even eternal truth. Why, then, not go one step further and call our ignorance ETERNAL TRUTH? It is both the motive of science (LEARNING) and the only plausible object of faith! And - it is the motive for human evolution.

Therefore, the endeavor of man to reduce this ignorance (his "spirit") can be regarded as eternal truth. He must, alas, first admit his ignorance in order to try to reduce it (Socrates), instead of substituting it with faith. Faith certainly excludes scientific learning - "Truth" is already eternal! Learning develops, i.e. changes propositions - "eternal truth" never changes.

Otherwise, my only hope rests on further evolution, reading some of the rapture nonsense on these pages.

Posted by: Gerry | March 25, 2007 12:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Chris,
Thanks for your post. Christians have a long history of scientific exploration. The primary impetus behind this investigation of the natural world appears to have been an attempt at understanding god's creation. Obviously there were times when scientists (e.g. Galileo) ran into problems with the church hierarchy, but in general, traditional Christian churches eventually accepted scientific consensus. It was for this reason that Darwin's theory of Modification through descent received little overall opposition when On the Origin of Species was first published. It was only later, especially in the United States, when Literalists mandated the inerrancy of biblical scripture, that problems arose. For the most part, literalists were dismissed as kooks, and no one paid them any mind, until recently.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 25, 2007 4:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

When I read the claim that "God is perfect," I think about a theory suggested by Isaac Asimov, a science fiction writer who was also a top-flight writer of science fact. Asimov wrote that since light from the heavens (the Sun, the Moon, the stars) appeared to be eternal but light from earthly sources was temporary, early humans assumed that the heavens were perfect and Earth was imperfect. Aristotle incorrectly concluded from this that the Earth and the heavens operated under different natural laws.

Posted by: Tonio | March 24, 2007 11:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Admission: I am a life long Christian who loves and respects science. I use my brain and ask questions. This being the case, I have never understood the core-purpose of these evolution arguments.

Who is to say there is not a supreme being, a clockmaker...."God" for lack of a better name, and lets say this God make things (people, animals, plants, planets, etc...) that come and go and change over great expanses of time?

I think that there is a God and it made this universe and all of it's creatures to change over the course of time.

Who is to say that God did not create the Big Bang?

Who is to say that God did make this wonderful world/universe for us to explore and figure out?

I am all for scientists trying to figure things out. In the world of applied science in medicine alone these people have alliviated innumerable bouts with pain and suffering. Scientists through there hard work have also saved and prolonged innumerable lives, especially over the past 50 years. All of the medicines (yes even holistic and "ancient" ones) are based on science. I don't know about you but modern medicine has done my family and I a world of good. And scientists, I thank you!

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

We truly live in a scientific golden age!

God, thank you for making this wonderful world and scientists.

Why are the two almost always viewed as incompatible?

Unless you are a Biblical literalist, but then you just may be delusional (I had no trouble picking apart the Noah's Ark story when I was 6. The Sunday School teacher was not amused by my questions), if not mildly insane.

I love the lord and believe in the teachings of Jesus, the Golden Rule, being kind and reasonable, etc. But I would be a liar if I said that I believed in the creation stroy. It makes little sense and frankly I always thought it was demeaning to an OMNIPOTENT God. IMO, it makes him seem cheap and unorganized.

I have to admit I am a searcher, it is one of the reasons that I read these threads. It is interesting (sometimes) to hear what other think about this wonderful universe we inhabit and who put us here.

Thanks,

Chris

BTW, the I believe the world will end next October. I will probably be windy.

(A lame question, WP/Newsweek)

Posted by: Chris | March 24, 2007 10:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If there was nothing, how could something {matter and space} expand into it?

Posted by: Bill L | March 24, 2007 7:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie Hoyt, “I find all of this counterintuitive and mind-boggling, but I think that's how it was. Perhaps one of the scientific folk who populate these threads with their posts can enlighten us further.”

I’m neither a theoretical physicist nor cosmologist, but my understanding is the same. Before the big bang there was nothing, neither space nor time. It is a very hard concept for humans to properly conceive. Theoretical physicists have modeled the early universe (10−33 seconds after the big bang). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang for a more complete picture. There were other models proposed for the origin and explanation of the universe. However, at this time the ΛCDM model has the most support.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 24, 2007 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea, "I understand the moths observation, it had just been since 8th grade that I studied it. Could the fact that both color variants coexisted explain why humans developed into humans and apes stayed apes? If Britain continued to heat with coal, would the lighter moth have gone extinct?"

Andrea, apes did not just stay apes. They too have evolved from the common ancestor shared by the chimpanzees and the human lineage, which split ~6 million years ago (mya). For example, the chimpanzee lineage split about 1 mya into the common chimpanzee and the bonobo. Besides morphological differences between chimps and bonobos, they have significantly different social structures and mating systems.

As far as the peppered moth, the polymorphism (i.e. the light-colored and melanic morphs) is controlled by a single gene with 2 variant forms, one for each type. Prior to industrialization in England, the light morph was far more common, but there were always a few dark morphs maintained in the population, either through new mutation, or using different substrates besides just light-barked trees. If there had been only light substrates to use as rest sites, then it is conceivable that the dark morph would have gone extinct, except for periodic mutations. Similarly, it would have been possible for the light morph to have gone extinct if all substrates were covered in soot. However, it is more likely that the polymorphism would have been maintained, because rest-sites are heterogeneous. Areas around cities would have been dominated by the dark morph, whereas more rural areas would have suffered less pollution, which would have favored the light morph.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 24, 2007 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend,

Prove that the Quotes are out of context. Just saying they are proves nothing. It might make you feel better but lets have some proof.

Pablo,

opps, I meant to say I like your posts.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 24, 2007 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend,

Prove that the Quotes are out of context. Just saying they are proves nothing. It might make you feel better but lets have some proof.

Pablo

Posted by: Veritas vos Liberabit | March 24, 2007 1:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous,

I think we need to get to the root of the issue. That is our presuppositions. We both have them and look at the world through the lenses of our perspective worldviews. The question in reality is which worldview best matches the world in which we live. There is the worldview that presupposes the naturalistic evolutionary worldview as the source of design, purpose, morality, logic, etc. and the worldview that presupposes that the life-giving omnipotent, omniscient, everywhere present God is the source of design, purpose, morality, logic, etc.

Again I ask do you believe that all knowledge is limited to the empirical method? Why should we expect anything to act with any predictability if everything finds its source in chaos? Until you address these issues I cannot take you seriously.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 24, 2007 1:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill L.,

My understanding is that before the Big Bang there was absolutely nothing: no space, no time, no nothing.

Starting from the "singularity" of the Big Bang at the moment of its ignition, space and time were created and expanded (became larger). They didn't expand into anything. Outside of the expanding universe there was nothing to expand into: no space, no empty vacuum, no nothing!

"...what was there to get pushed out by empty space?" Answer: nothing.

It's impossible, I think, for us humans to envisage absolute nothingness. Our minds instinctively try to fill in that unimaginable nothingness with empty space, vacuum, etc. but none of those those things existed outside of the expanding universe.

I find all of this counterintuitive and mind-boggling, but I think that's how it was. Perhaps one of the scientific folk who populate these threads with their posts can enlighten us further.

Regards.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 24, 2007 12:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie, I thought that matter is what resulted from the big bang. I'm talking about empty space that the galaxys expanded into. If space itself was created by the big bang, what was there to get pushed out by empty space?

Posted by: Bill L | March 24, 2007 12:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill L,

Didn't space (space-time) result from the Big Bang and the subsequent expansion (evolution) of our universe?

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 24, 2007 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

I ask again, where and when are you talking to God?

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 24, 2007 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

I realy wanted to know your honest answer so we know who we are dealing with here: an open mind or a closed and lost to evangelism mind. Are you a young earth believer or not? It's really simple.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 24, 2007 8:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Some out of context quotes and a play on words.

An appeal to the authority of these out of context quotes.

Everyone see the proof of my arguement.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 24, 2007 8:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Garyd,

I understand the moths obervation, it had just been since 8th grade that I studied it. Could the fact that both color variants coexisted explain why humans developed into humans and apes stayed apes? If Britain continued to heat with coal, would the lighter moth have gone extinct?

Posted by: Andrea | March 24, 2007 7:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea, it took less than a hundred years the agent for the change both too and from was the fact that London heated with coal and then with natural gas.

The soot from the coal darkened the trees and made the lighter colored variant stick out like a sore thumb and hence it was easily spotted and eaten by the Birds. When gas came into ready use the trees returned to their normal coloration and the lighter variant dominated because now the dark variant was the more easily spotted.

It should be noted further, though it is seldom mentioned, that both color variants coexisted at all times. Showing that natural selection seldom exterminates whole speies or even subspecies unless there are other things in play.

Posted by: Garyd | March 24, 2007 5:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

And precisely Mr. Beck what do you think she meant by this comment.

Posted by: Garyd | March 24, 2007 4:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo wrote:
"Anonymous,

"I notice you did not address any of the issues I have raised. It sounds like you are really indoctrinated by theory of evolution and that you are towing the party line. Good job on drinking the Kool Aid."

This from a religionist who has absolutely no evidence to support the "facts" behind his religious beliefs. Amazing.

BTW - it's "toeing" the party line, not "towing."

"Do you believe that all knowledge is limited to the empirical method?"

I don't know what you're talking about, but it certainly isn't the scientific method. Empirical evidence is only part of the scientific method. Do you not know that?

"Why should we expect anything to act with any predictability if everything finds its source in chaos?"

Are you saying that evolution is based entirely in chaos? If so, you have made an incredibly ignorant statement. Do you not realize that the term "natural selection" contains the word "selection?" Selection is not a random or chaotic process.

"You believe evolution by faith."

Evolution is a proven fact through application of the scientific method which employs empirical evidence, predictability and falsification. If you do not know this, then you need a remedial course in high school science. Why smear evolution with the cheap and sorry label of being faith based? It is ignorant and untrue. Your doing so betrays your lack of even a basic knowledge of the subject.

I would caution you about pulling quotes and ideas from the easily discredited creationists and their pseudo science. Their ridiculous opinions are not even hypotheses, and they have not been subjected to the scientific method or peer review. They are garbage and intellectual pauperdom. By quoting them you betray your own ignorance of science and of the overwhelming proof of evolution (evidence that these pseudo scientists willfully ignore when they posit their fairy friendly idiocies).

I don't understand why you continue to wade into the evolution waters as you get your lunch eaten by the science-knowledgable posters every single time. You don't understand the scientific method, you don't understand natural selection or what constitutes scientific proof, yet you continue to post your opinions as if they are on par with science. They aren't. You are outclassed and out-debated on the facts and yet you persist. Your "issues" don't even enjoy a modicum of depth - they're the same easily destroyed pap that On Faith posters have been batting down in their sleep since Day One.

Posting the same simplistic and erroneous ideas over and over again doesn't give them added gravitas, so why do it?

Posted by: Mr Mark | March 24, 2007 1:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”. … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect” (Sir Isaac Newton)

Posted by: Veritas vos Liberabit | March 24, 2007 12:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

PHaedrus

as always your posts are smart and on point.

However: Pable is never going be be amenable to intelligent discourse that includes such mundane elements as evidence and reason,

so I would advise you to stop tilting at this particular windmill.

best,

Posted by: james | March 24, 2007 12:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous,

I notice you did not address any of the issues I have raised. It sounds like you are really indoctrinated by theory of evolution and that you are towing the party line. Good job on drinking the Kool Aid.

Do you believe that all knowledge is limited to the empirical method? Why should we expect anything to act with any predictability if everything finds its source in chaos? Until you address these issues I cannot take you seriously. You believe evolution by faith.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 24, 2007 12:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Any one who says living things do not go through evolution proecesses is really inisde a box of self dellusion. These same people also believe in a young earth notion despite all the scientific evidence proving the earth to be about four billion years old. They cling to these non sense beliefs because their religion is anti-science and says the earth is six thousand years old. If they accept the scientific evidence in front of them they would have to in effect go against what they have read in the bible. That's why you see them fighting evolution every where and in any way possible.

Pablo, I bet you are a young earth believer and you belong to the camp of those who say the grand canyons were made by Noah's flood.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 24, 2007 12:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

Just where are you meeting and talking to God??

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 23, 2007 11:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Bill L,

Science is not possible without God. The fathers of science knew this truth. Why should we expect anything to act with any predictability if everything finds its source in chaos? Remember that evolution is based in naturalism. Naturalism says we cannot know anything outside this closed system. The naturalists also tend to be empiricists and many empiricists restrict all knowing to the senses. That discounts God because He cannot be observed or measured in scientific experiments. Do not be bullied by evolution. It is a philosophy raised up against the knowledge of God. Scripture says to demolish these kinds of speculations. We do not need science to prove God. He is so completely evident. People choose not to believe in Him because they want to live by their own rules. They do not want to be accountable to God.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 23, 2007 10:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

Poke away. I am secure enough in the object of my faith. If it could not stand scrutiny it is not worth believing in.

What I am saying is based on God's Word. We are not the measure of what is right and wrong. God tells us what is right and wrong. We are not autonomous. That is the problem we think that we are and I am afraid that we humans make a sorry excuse for God.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 23, 2007 9:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Phaedrus,

You erect a straw man argument that what I believe is not based on evidence. Is everything we can know restricted to the empirical method? Is all evidence restricted to empiricism? I think not, you cannot put me into that box. If you wish to stay inside that box and thus blind yourself to all things outside of that box that is your choice but do not assert that I have no evidence. God's creative genius is clearly seen in what He has made. You are evidence that God exists unless you want to assert that your intelligence came from non-intelligence. Your conscience is a witness that God exists as it tells you that you are accountable for your actions.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 23, 2007 9:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Phaedrus, I am not a creationists! Nor do I believe in strcict Darwinian evolution. Personally I don't care if evolution is true or not because God makes things the way he does. It would have no bearing on the fact that God loves us with an all consuming love and wants to share what he has with us. He made science with the rules it has whether we understand it or not! One day science will prove God! According to mathematicians, it is impossible for life to begin from nothing, yet here we are!

One thing I've never heard from evolutionists that I am interested in is where did space itself come from?

Posted by: Bill L | March 23, 2007 9:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

So, in effect, what you are telling me is that I am wrong and you are right? I don't appreciate it, and that is why I don't do that to you. I merely ask. If by asking questions, you believe I am poking holes in your beliefs, your faith in God isn't as strong as you think it is.

Posted by: Andrea | March 23, 2007 9:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous

wanted a repeatable example of evolution.

Try this site:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1112_031112_flowermutation.html

Really, these things aren't hard to find if you look for them.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 23, 2007 9:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Maurie Beck:

"A malevolent, capricious, sadistic, lunatic god is much more entertaining; don't you think?"

Karl Edward Wagner certainly thought so, with his "Kane" (Cain) stories.

Personally... too much tsouris; give me love.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 23, 2007 9:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo:

Thanks for a forthright answer. What you indicate is that there is no type or amount of actual information that will cause you to abandon the supernatural explanantion to which you hold. Thus, it is a waste of time to present evidence, pro and con.

Posted by: phaedrus | March 23, 2007 9:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Veritas:

And who was it that exposed these frauds? By what method were they exposed? That's right, the self-correcting aspect of the scientific method strikes again.

It most assuredly was not a theologian that set the record straight, nor is it ever.

And by the way, if you are interested in exploring the actual nature of early hominid development, I suggest "Origins Rediscovered" by Richard Leakey. I will allay your suspense by letting you know that early hominid fossil remains support evolution.

Posted by: Phaedrus | March 23, 2007 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

phaedrus,

The source of the world cannot be observed or measured in a repeatable experiment. Therefore, anything said about it belongs in the realm of faith. That is no problem for me because I do not constrict all knowing to the empirical method. For you, however, it is a big problem. You see faith is only as good as the object of faith. My faith is in the God who created the universe. It makes sense to trust the one who was there and created this magnificently designed universe. He has given a revelation of what happened in His word, He spoke. Your faith however, is in the speculations of feeble finite human beings and their futile musings.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 23, 2007 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Here is Proof of Evolution

Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull

Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth

Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage
After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that "half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant "friend". He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as "the closest transitional link to man". Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo's evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide.

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga... These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution" myth, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this story.

Posted by: Veritas vos Liberabit | March 23, 2007 8:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo, Anon, Bill L et al:

Let's cut to the chase (so to speak)

When a Bristish scientist was asked if there was any fact that, if verified, would result in his abandoning his belief in natural selection, he replied: "Yes, fossilized rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." With this succinct statement he clearly conveyed that "truth" was the master over whatever cherished notions he might embrace. Such is the power of the principle of "falsifiablility," one of the foundational principles of the scientific method. The data determine credibility, as opposed to warm and fuzzy feelings. This is not the case for most creationists, who cling to increasingly absurd positions about the world because of the way that they "feel" about their belief system.

I would like to know if any of the creationists on this thread would be willing to state any "discovery," any new and verified "fact", that would result in their abandoning their support for creationism? What, if anything, would change your mind?

Posted by: phaedrus | March 23, 2007 8:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Posted by: Scientist | March 23, 2007 8:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

Time has no power to change anything. That is the mechanism used to get you to believe the theory. In other words they have no empirical proof so they hide behind time. That is not science. The theory of evolution is a philosophy cloaked with scientific language. The religious zealots like Dawkins will grasp onto anything except the plain truth that God created all things and that all things retain their identity of what they were created to be in the first place. All things are doing what the Bible says they would be doing 10 times in the first three chapters of the Bible. They are reproducing after their "kinds." Nothing is doing what the Theory of Evolution says they should be doing.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 23, 2007 8:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Heraclitus,

My favorite quote, from Lear:
"as flies to wanton boys,
are we to the Gods.
They kill us for their sport."

Thanks for reminding me of that quote. Perhaps that is why I care for such gods - they remind me of the mischievous boy I once was and still am.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 23, 2007 6:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Maurie Writes
" A malevolent, capricious, sadistic, lunatic god is much more entertaining; don't you think?"

Not ONLY more entertaining,
but much more in line with the evidence.

My favorite quote, from Lear:
"as flies to wanton boys,
are we to the Gods.
They kill us for their sport."

Not that Shakespeare was a greater philosopher than I.

Posted by: Heraclitus | March 23, 2007 6:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Evolution and Theory

"Evolution is Just a Theory" the Know-Nothings say.

Part of me wants to echo Richard Dawkins' admonition to such folks: "Read a Book."

I applaud the patience of your like Maurie who try to lay it out here.

An interesting book that goes behind "we can neither prove nor disprove" that God exists

is the new one by Richard Stengel
How Science Proves that God Doesn't Exist
i think is the title.

Among other things
it contains a thorough demolishing of the "Intelligent Design" movement.

Posted by: James | March 23, 2007 5:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John Conolley, "From my point of view: if you're going to create a god, why not a god of love?"

Hi John,

I haven't seen any of your posts for awhile.

On one level, you are probably right; a god of love is a lot more pleasant. However, from a practical point of view, someone who goes around saying we should all just love each other is both boring and incredibly annoying. A malevolent, capricious, sadistic, lunatic god is much more entertaining; don't you think?

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 23, 2007 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous, "And regardless of how many times people mention it, mutating bacteria does not prove that humans evolved from ape-like creatures."

As your reasoning suggests, many people, such as yourself, appear to have not evolved very far, if at all, from ape-like common ancestors. This discussion is futile.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 23, 2007 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous, "Macro evolution (the hypothesis that homo sapiens evolved from a single cell or even from inorganic compounds) is not obvious and much more debatable."

Mr. Helwig was in no position to make such a claim about micro or especially macroevolution. There is no other "theory" that can adequately account for what we see in the fossil record (including isotopic dating techniques), the genetic studies that provide very precise relationships among living and some extinct organisms, and embyological and developmental studies, all of which are concordant.

From a philosophy of science perspective, you are correct about science and uncertainty. However, scientific "facts", though always "uncertain", have such a small degree of uncertainty, that you can take them to the bank. In fact, scientific facts are far more reliable and "certaub" than the way the public views facts.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 23, 2007 5:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous wrote:

"Also, according to all of the scientific papers that I have read, both laws and theories are subject to change. If that is true, then they aren't facts, are they?"

Good to see that you've changed your tune. You are the one who implied that scientific theories are open to change while scientific laws are not.

Again, if you understood the scientific method you would understand that change and revision is VITAL to GOOD science. You don't understand that because you want science to engage in the cheap absolutism of religion. You want facts to be things that are eternally unchanging, even as the "facts" that you cite as absolutes come from the mythology of religion.

Facts are not absolutes. Facts change based on discovery and new realities. It can be a fact that a team is winning a football game with a minute to go and it can be a fact 60 seconds later that they lost the game. The second fact doesn't invalidate the truth of the first fact because at the time it was operative. Had the game been called with 60 seconds to go, they would have won.

Ever hear the phrase "these are the facts as we know them" used in everyday life?

You seem to view facts as being absolutes that operate within a very narrow and constricted definition and sphere of existence. You miss the beauty of fact in the scientific method by seeing facts only through the narrow lens of absolutism.

I have no doubt that you read the long article I posted, but you have not COMPREHENDED its content.

"Funny how you tell me first that I don't know scientific definitions, then when I cite scientific definitions you tell me that mine is wrong and that I just need to look in Webster's, which is not a scientific dictionary.

"I did use a scientific definition of "law", straight from a scientific source. If you don't like it, talk to the scientists."

You cite ONE scientific book's shorthand definition of theory & law. I could cite others that are more expansive. The dictionary defintion is a good generalized baseline definition that no scientist would quibble with. You're attempting to control the debate and put it on your terms by limiting the definition. I don't have a problem with the definition you offered, but I doubt that the author is asserting that such a narrow definition is the ONLY definition to be considered in circles scientific. YOU, however, are suggesting just that. Why?

You've answered your own question when you point out that you cited a definition from "a" scientific source. Notice, you didn't cite "numerous" or "diverse" sources (or even baseline sources like a dictionary), you cited "a" source. You then try to pull a fait accompli by implying that ALL scientists agree with the SINGLE source and the narrow definition you have cited. What is this? Third grade debate class? Surely, you can do better than arguing by omission, obfustication and jumping to conclusions.

Gotta go.

Posted by: Mr Mark | March 23, 2007 5:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark,

Funny how you tell me first that I don't know scientific definitions, then when I cite scientific definitions you tell me that mine is wrong and that I just need to look in Webster's, which is not a scientific dictionary.

I did use a scientific definition of "law", straight from a scientific source. If you don't like it, talk to the scientists.

Also, according to all of the scientific papers that I have read, both laws and theories are subject to change. If that is true, then they aren't facts, are they?

I suggest you read the following; it really is quite good:

Scientific Facts and Christian Faith:
How Are They Compatible?
by Otto J. Helweg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Otto J. Helweg is Dean of the College of Engineering and Architecture, North Dakota State University.

This article first appeared in USA Today, March 1997, pages 84-86.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION
One would think the unnecessary battle between science and Christianity had long ago been resolved; however, recent statements by both scientists and theologians belie that thought. For example, Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist biologist wrote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." On the theological side, some Christian organizations continue to publish anti-evolutionary material that is not acceptable to mainstream science. Interestingly enough, as flawed as some of the scientific statements of Christian organizations have been, they seem to be more informed in science than the anti-Christian scientists have been in theology.

The causes of the science versus Christianity battle may be traced to three errors. First, the proponents on both sides often fail to define the term, "evolution." Second, both sides have failed to see science as a product of a Christian world view. And, finally, both sides confuse the realms (limits) of science and theology.

WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
The American Scientific Affiliation has published an excellent book, Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, for high school science teachers. In it they list five definitions of "evolution." Micro evolution (breeding programs which have produced hybrids and species adapting to changing environments in minor ways) obviously occurs. Macro evolution (the hypothesis that homo sapiens evolved from a single cell or even from inorganic compounds) is not obvious and much more debatable. Finally "evolution" is sometimes used as a religiously value-laden tenet of naturalistic faith that "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process..." Few, if any, would disagree that we see minor changes over time in the plant and animal kingdoms. Conversely, few would agree that homo sapiens (along with the rest of the universe) is only a product of chance or random events.

When some biologists refer to the macro evolutionary hypothesis as a "fact," they distort the evidence and cloud the issue. There is considerable debate among biologists and paleontologists about the mechanism and possibility of macro evolution. Consequently, overstating the case for macro-evolution raises a large target for some Christian fundamentalists. This results in attacks on evolutionary biology which distracts biologists from a critical study of their own hypotheses and causes them to band together against a common enemy.

As will be discussed later, extending scientific hypotheses into a theological (metaphysical) world view under the guise of being scientific is completely unwarranted. What ever hypotheses evolutionary biologists espouse (as long as they are limited to biology) say nothing about Who started and sustains the process. Likewise, theologians who read the Bible as a scientific text engage in faulty hermeneutics. It has been convincingly argued that a correct interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative says nothing about the scientific mechanism God used to create the universe.

THE ORIGIN OF MODERN SCIENCE
It surprises many to discover that modern science is basically a product of a Christian world view. The well known Cambridge historian, Herbert Butterfield in his book, The Origins of Modern Science, convincingly argues that what happened in the 16th century and following was not so much a result of new data, but of changed minds. While other cultures have given great discoveries to the human race, such as the introduction of zero from the Hindus and algebra from the Muslims, the Christian West had the unique set of assumptions required by science.

Three main assumptions of modern science are:

the universe (world) is orderly;
this orderly universe can be known; and
there is a motive to discover the order.
The Greek and Roman cultures had none of these assumptions. The gods were fickle and unpredictable; who could know their intentions? Math and philosophy were ends in themselves and not means to discover a rational universe. The traditional Hindu culture saw the universe as cyclical, again with the gods being capricious. Who could know the mind of Kali or Shiva? There was no incentive to show that they ruled over an orderly system. Islam would adapt the Judeo-Christian concept of a creator God and, therefore, conceive of an orderly universe, but Allah is so transcendent that he could not be known in the Christian sense, nor could his universe. There was, then, little incentive to argue for the order of his universe. Classical atheism must hold to strict metaphysical naturalism in which everything occurs by chance or random events. To many, such a world view takes more "faith" than belief in a Creator. At any rate, such a view in the 16th Century would hardly bespeak an orderly universe. If the world is illogical, how can one understand it? If all is a result of chance, what incentive would there be to discover order? Of course, we know that understanding science and technology greatly improves our quality of life, but this is insight after the fact and really borrows from the presuppositions of a Christian culture.

Only a Christian world view seems to fit the three criteria. The created universe is logical as can be seen from numerous Biblical references such as Jeremiah 31:35, "...the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night..." This universe can be known because the Creator can be known as Paul in Romans 1:19-20 declares, "For what can be known about God is plain ...his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." Finally, the incentive exists in the direct command in Genesis where God says to "...fill the earth and subdue it..." Thus mankind is to be not only a steward but to master God’s creation.

What surprises some is that many of the founders of modern science were not only Christians, but they were scientists in order to demonstrate that we lived in an orderly universe. They believed that such a demonstration would be powerful evidence that such a universe was created by an orderly God who could be known.

For example Copernicus (1463-1543), one of the first to question Aristotlean cosmology and the geo-centric solar system, was a devout Christian and tolerant toward the reformation. Bacon (1561-1626), another outspoken Christian, formulated the "scientific method" and brought a more quantitative approach to science.

The conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo (1564-1642) has been used to support the anti-scientific bias of Christianity towards science, but for one who knows the history (see Hummel’s book, The Galileo Connection), Galileo had many high ranking Catholics on his side, among whom was Cardinal Baronius who wrote "[The Bible teaches] how one goes to Heaven, not how the heavens go." Galileo, no paragon of tact, delighted in alienating his fellow professors, who were Aristotelians and believed in a geo-centric solar system. It was mainly they who caused the Pope to condemn Galileo’s teachings, but Galileo’s other Catholic supporters helped broker the final plea bargain. Unfortunately, professors have a history of irrational actions which continues to the present. Kepler (1571-1630) upon whose discoveries our space program rests, wanted to be a minister of the Gospel, but was persuaded to pursue his talents in math and astronomy. In his writings, he frequently quotes psalms and explicitly relates the order of his discoveries to God’s rational creation. Pascal (1625-1662) is certainly one of the greatest minds in this line of founders. He is credited with being the father of probability theory, hydrostatics, mass transit, modern French prose, computers, and Christian Apologetics. His Pensees (notes defending the Christian faith) is a classic work.

Newton (1642-1662) considered his theological writings more important than this scientific. Harvey (1578-1657), Boyle (1627-1691), Faraday (1791-1867), and Maxwell (1831-1879) to name a few, were all devout Christians. Boyle, the first to show the difference between compounds and elements, was a lay preacher. Faraday, the discover of electro-magnetic induction, once only read from the Bible for a sermon saying his words could add nothing to God’s. Maxwell, who discovered magnetic flux, wrote:

Lord, it belongs not to my care
whether I die or live
To love and serve Thee is my share
and that Thy guard must give.

It is an interesting historical question as to why, science, conceived in a Christian culture by many Christians, was turned against Christianity and why Christians allowed this to happen. I give the Huxleys, starting with Thomas (1825-1895), considerable credit along with others who saw science, and especially biology, as answers to questions that had previously been attributed directly to God. Christians, instead of realizing that their own creation was being used against them, "threw the baby out with the bath water" and considered science the problem rather than the misuse of science. There has (and continues to be) a confusion between primary causes and secondary causes. The study of natural science deals with secondary causes while theology studies primary causes. For example, we may explain rain by saying that moisture in the air is cooled below the dew point causing water molecules to condense around dust particles thereby generating precipitation. This is a secondary cause. The primary cause is simply, "God made it rain." In other words, God, who created the physical system, is the cause behind the observable cause.

Some people attempt to explain unknown causes in nature by God’s direct intervention. This has been called, "the God of the gaps." While God could certainly intervene in the natural process (called a miracle), to make God responsible for common natural phenomena means that as each scientific discovery finds a natural explanation of what was previously attributed to God, the direct intervention of God becomes unnecessary. That is, as the gaps in knowledge become smaller, the God of these gaps becomes correspondingly smaller. People with this mentality see science as a threat to their faith. Obviously, were such a view held by the founders of modern science, there would have been no incentive to find answers to the natural phenomena. Understanding these natural phenomena as secondary causes, places God above them where increased ability to explain how they occur not only does not "decrease" God, but adds wonder to His creation.

Scientists may study this mechanistic universe and be impressed by it, but in order to understand anything about the Creator, they have to go outside of the four dimensional time-space continuum which limits their studies. Theologians may study the Creator who made this order, but they are bound by His revelations (the Bible) and cannot extrapolate these to make scientific pronouncements.

The order of the universe is all the more amazing when we understand that order contains information and, according to the more general Second Law of Thermodynamics, nature destroys order (information). That is, just as water runs downhill, the energy in the universe is "running down" and, baring some intervention, the sun and all the stars will burn out and all that will be left is low level radiation.

Robert Gange, in his book, Origins and Destiny, points out that the amount of information in the simplest bacterium is 7 million bits (not the computer bit, but information bits). Think of this number as an exponent. The question then becomes, if the information (order) in the universe is being destroyed, where did the original information come from? Moreover, the universe seems to have been designed to support life. The laws of the universe are so finely tuned to this end, that some scientists have called this order "The Anthropic Principle." For example, if the difference in expansion rate of the universe were different by 10-14 [1.0E-14], the universe would either collapse or no stars could form. It seems that more theoretical physicists than biologists are impressed with this order. The book by physicist Paul Davies’, The Mind of God give compelling evidence for a Creator.

CONCLUSIONS
Two quotations on the limits of science are instructive.

"Science proves nothing absolutely. On the most vital questions, it does not even produce evidence."

Vannevar Bush, past Chairman of the Board of MIT
"It has become increasingly evident our century that science is uncertain in its very nature.... Indeed one thing of which scientists can be quite certain is that they will not achieve a complete solution of any worthwhile problem."

George Gaylord Simpson, Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Harvard
Two quotations on the limits of theology comes from an unlikely source. It was St. Augustine, who wrote in the 5th Century:

"We must be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far-fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to ridicule of unbelievers."
He also wrote:

"The Spirit of God who spoke through them [authors of the Bible] did not choose to teach about the heavens to men, as it was of no use for salvation."
Notice that it was scientists who understood the limitations of their field and it was a theologian who understood the limits of theology. The final word is for both scientists and theologians to understand and use the "two book" model that goes back at least to Cardinal Baronius of Galileo’s time which says that the Bible reveals God’s words while nature reveals God’s works. In other words: The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Science and theology are meant to be complements, not combatants. Science gives theology perspective while theology gives science meaning. It is time for a truce.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2007 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon,

My husb-to-be is United Methodist and I'm Lutheran. Neither of us currently practicing, nor have the desire to return. It is unfortunate that there are so many denominations with so many different rules, then so many different rules within the denominations. What I really like and appreciate with the Unitarian Universalists is that they accept you for who you are, not who they want you to be.

Your church sounds great, and it is sad that there aren't many like that out there. You don't really understand how great it is to have a support group (that most churches offer) until you leave it.

When I was taking classes to be confirmed, I arrived early to one session and had the chance to have a one-on-one Q/A session with my then pastor (he has since moved on to work with the NW OH Synod) . I had so many questions, but I didn't ask any. I could kick myself now, but I was too shy. I was too scared that the questions I had would not be welcomed. Looking back, the questions I would have raised then seem insignificant, but the fear was there, even then.

Posted by: Andrea | March 23, 2007 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous wrote:

"a Theory is "1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof." (Steen, E. B. 1971. Dictionary of Biology.)"

One needent go to the scientific textbooks to learn the meaning of the word "theory" when used in a scientific context. Merriam-Websters has this:

"the analysis of a set of FACTS in their relation to one another; the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art ; a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena "

The article I provided explains what it takes for a scientific hypothesis to be considered a scientific theory. In short, it's that the hypothesis has been proven.

Your comparison of scientific theory to scientific law is incorrect. It assumes a non-scientific definition of the word "law". Scientific "laws" are often definitions, like Newton's Second Law of Mechanics which is a mathematical definition. You imply that scientific theories are subject to change and revision while scientific laws are not. One need look no further than to examine the "law of gravity" from the perspectives of Newton and Einstein to see that scientific law is also subject to modification and ourtright change.

Again, you don't understand the terminology.

Posted by: Mr Mark | March 23, 2007 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea wrote:

"I guess I'm a questioner. And questions don't fly with this new breed of religion."

It is true that there are many religions that want you to blindly accept their faith. It is unfortunate that the Christian religion has over the years been split into so many different denominations with so many different rules and beliefs, yet people so often speak of all of Christianity being of one mind.

The church that I go to loves, encourages and seeks to answer all questions. That's why I joined. It is a bible-based church that constantly welcomes dialogues and classes on many topics, and includes lectures from scholars in different subjects, including history, theology, ancient languages and literature. I wish more churches were like mine.

I do know about trouble with weddings. When I was getting married, my husband-to-be was Christian and I was Jewish! Talk about discrimination! We were also living together at the time. We had a lot of trouble finding both a rabbi and a minister to perform the ceremony, but we finally did. By the way, the minister was from a United Methodist church.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2007 3:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark,

Nice, but not completely necessary, class on the scientific method. However, distinction must be made between a "law" and a "theory".

The problem with this particular school's class is that it confuses the two as being the same thing. It goes on with a quote about the "theory of gravity", which we all know is actually referred to as the "law of gravity". There is a reason for this distinction. A LAW is "a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule." (Lincoln, R. J., G. A. Boxshall, and P. F. Clark. 1990. A dictionary of ecology, evolution and systematics.). On the other hand, a Theory is "1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof." (Steen, E. B. 1971. Dictionary of Biology.)

It is for precisely this reason that the theory of evolution is not called the law of evolution.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2007 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie,

Thank you. I don't understand either. I'm better for it now. I don't have anything to learn from people like them.

Anon,

I didn't mention this earlier, I'm not an athiest. I'm not anything right now. I guess I'm a questioner. And questions don't fly with this new breed of religion.

Posted by: Andrea | March 23, 2007 2:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

I'm very sorry for your experience. I just don't understand people like that.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 23, 2007 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon,

I'm from Ohio. The intolerance I've experienced actually came from my church. When I graduated from college, my church held a breakfast for myself, and the graduates from the high school in my town. I sat next to my former Sunday School teacher/former employer. He asked if I had moved back in with my parents, and I answered no, I actually moved down by Columbus, etc etc. He asked if I had an apartment. And when I answered no, in fact, I have a house with my fiance, he turned to the person next to him, without another word, and I was ignored for the rest of that horrid honor breakfast. Keep in mind, this is a man who I had been close to for some years and who I worked for during high school. And I'm also not allowed to get married in that church, that my family has been a member of since 1994. So, I am getting married in a Unitarian Universalist church this fall because that's as close as I'll come to a church at this point. It's been a world of difference speaking to the pastor there compared to my family's pastor.

Posted by: Andrea | March 23, 2007 2:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

Where in the midwest are you from? I lived in the midwest for 20 years - north of chicago. Just couldn't stand the weather anymore!

I am really, truly interested to know what type of intolerance you have experienced. My friends who were/are atheists have never told me of any instances of discrimination they might have faced. Was it things like people choosing not to speak to you, or leaving you out of things, or hateful words?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2007 2:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous:
Mr. Mark,

"...if you can't tell me what's wrong with the scientific definition I use above. It's not something I made up, and it says that scientific theories are interpretations of facts."

Here ya go:

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c > 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI. Conclusion

The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below.

VII. References

1. Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research (McGraw-Hill, 1952).

2. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962).

3. Barrow, John. Theories of Everything (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991).

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Posted by: Mr Mark | March 23, 2007 1:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jan,

I was shocked at your statement "For example, as a non-Christian, I have been told (more than once) that I should not have been allowed access to the US." I have never heard of this type of discrimination before - telling a person they had no right to be let into the country because they were not Christian. I do hope you know that that type of behavior is not typical of true Christians. It is unfortunate that there are people who are bad representatives for the human race, religious and non-religious alike. I can only hope that your good experiences out-weigh the bad.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2007 1:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie,

Tell me about it. I'm a Midwestern Gal...not too tolerant in these here parts.

Posted by: Andrea | March 23, 2007 1:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jan,

I'm sorry for the intolerance you experienced.

Do you live in the South or the Midwest?

If the religious carpers really bother you, you might consider living in northern New England.

The folks there have the lowest rate of church attendance and of religious self-identification in the U.S.

Best wishes.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 23, 2007 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark,

First of all, just saying that you think I haven't a clue about science doesn't amount ot a hill of beans if you can't tell me what's wrong with the scientific definition I use above. It's not something I made up, and it says that scientific theories are interpretations of facts. Do you deny that different people can have different interpretations of the same facts?

Secondly, the website you posted above, by its own account, is comprised of articles by authors who "accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient, that there was no global flood, and that evolution is responsible for the earth's present biodiversity." So, what am I supposed to be finding there other than a bunch of people who believe in evolution telling me that they interpret fossil findings to be proof of evolution? Gee, I never would have guessed that's what I'd find there.

Your inability to explain what is wrong with my argument above, and your insistance on making inflammatory remarks, (like "where do religionists - who haven't a single shred of empirical evidence for their claims of a supernatural being - get off talking about what is an isn't a fact?": as I said, my definition of fact came from a scientific dictionary, not a religious one), clearly displays your ignorance, which must be quite embarrassing for you.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2007 1:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous sez:
"Evolution has not been proven as fact."

Yes it has.

The remainder of your post confirms that you haven't a clue about science, the scientific method or what constitutes a fact.

Take a look here: http://www.talkorigins.org and then get back to me.

Or, wallow in your ignorance and continue to embarrass yourself in public.

BTW - where do religionists - who haven't a single shred of empirical evidence for their claims of a supernatural being - get off talking about what is an isn't a fact? Sort of silly, isn't it?

Posted by: Mr Mark | March 23, 2007 12:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo wrote:
"I am not terrified of judgment day because Jesus took the wrath I deserve on the cross."

You didn't deserve any wrath. Why should you be held accountable for the fact that the god of the Bible is an imbecile?

Posted by: Mr Mark | March 23, 2007 12:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Susan,

As an immigrant from Holland I have had a wonderful experience living in the US for the past 10 years. However, I have had some trouble with the religious sentiments of those around me. For example, as a non-Christian, I have been told (more than once) that I should not have been allowed access to the US. In my experience, opinions like those are not uncommon, and for a country with a history of 230 years of freedom, I find that perplexing. I have sought the company of those who think like me, freethinkers, humanists, and agnostics, and that is why I enjoy reading your articles.

Like you, I am astonished by Christians who claim that they endure hostility and discrimination. It is true, however, that there is much polarization in this area. And that is why I think that the tone of your article is not helpful. If we are going to throw words like “lunacy”, “deranged”, and “psychological disorders” at the other side, then we will not convince them of anything and we will certainly not gain any respect.

Posted by: Jan | March 23, 2007 11:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Norrie, I do not rule out the possibility of an afterlife. My issue is people make claims about an afterlife in order to change others, either their behavior or their beliefs. The first one troubles me because it implies that all people are incapable of hurting others without the promise of heaven or the threat of hell. But the second one is much more offensive because it is an inherent invasion of personal boundaries.

Posted by: Tonio | March 23, 2007 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mine was a comment to those who wish to discredit the theory of evolution based on unreproduceable laboratory experiements. I am in now way trying to PROVE anything. Who's going to be able to reproduce a specie's evolution when we don't know how long it takes (billions of years?)? My "wouldn't you think" was along the lines of "wouldn't you think it is possible for this to happen based on small scale observations/possible evidence found (note: I said "possible) when given such a large timeframe?"

I liken the find of the coelicanth to the possible remains of the Ark that were found. Based on a person's own beliefs, they constitue the missing links for either way of thinking.

Quit trying to pick a fight with me.

Posted by: Andrea | March 23, 2007 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Maurie wrote:

"Anon, "SO, evolution is a theory, not a fact. And the theory of evolution is an interpretation of observed facts. Theory and fact are not the same."

You are still mixing up common usage of theory as conjecture, speculation, and opinion, in contrast with the scientific definition, which Phaedrus posted above."

I am not mixing up anything. The scientific definition for theory which I obtained from a reliable scientific dictionary states that "A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts)." This clearly states that theories are not facts, but are interpretations of facts.

I would also go so far as to say that your beliefs can very likely affect your "interpretation" of facts; this goes for religious and non-religious alike.

And regardless of how many times people mention it, mutating bacteria does not prove that humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2007 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio,

You wrote: " I was referring to the doctrine of a literal hell. My understanding is that many Christian theologians say that hell is not a literal location in the afterlife, but instead a metaphor for the emotional and psychological misery faced by people who have not accepted Jesus."

Emmanuel Swedenborg, the 16th century mystic (he was also a hard-headed mining engineer and inspector), whose writings form the basis of the Swedenborgian Church, claimed to have visited the heavens and hells of the afterlife.

He concluded that, after death, people arrive at the location which their own psyche feels is most compatible.

Believe it or not, some people, perhaps violent types, may feel more at home in a hellish place, where they can actively participate in the mutual abuse of others, than in a heaven.

Are these heavens and hells "real"? Nothing's more real for a person than his perception of where he is and what's going on.

This is analagous to Buddhism's six realms, including the hell realm. Ultimately these realms are illusional, but they are very real to those who find themselves there. It's like the holodeck, or whatever it was called, in Star Trek.

Lest you think that Swedenborg was simply "nuts", consider the following:

(1) He accurately predicted the exact hour of his death some time before it happened. This is attested to by reliable witnesses.

(2) This is attested to by many reliable witnesses:

In the midst of a gathering in Stockholm, he had a detailed vision of a disastrous fire in Copenhagen while it was actually occurring.

Copenhagen was hundreds of miles away from Swedenborg, and this happened hundreds of years before even the telegraph made its appearance.

Yes, there are more things in the heavens and hells (and on earth) than we usually dream of.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 23, 2007 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes the speckled moths still belong to the moth kind. This is not proof of theorytale of evolution.

Posted by: Veritas vos Liberabit | March 23, 2007 9:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

God designed organisms with the potential to change to adapt to changing environments. The soot of the Industrial Revolution caused the black moths to survive thus the gene pool for speckled months was more dominated by the darker moths. After the Industrial Revolution the gene pool equaled out more again as the lighter color moths could survive more easily again. The big truth here is that the Speckled Moths are still just that...Speckled Moths. This is not proof of evolution but instead proof that organisms can adapt to changing environments while still retaining their identity. To assert that they changed into something else is based on pure speculation and belongs in the realm of belief not science. Your statement "wouldn't you think" demonstrates that you believe this but there is no empirical evidence.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 23, 2007 9:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I am a fan of the peppered moths observation. That was the first instance that made it all click for me. True, it is within the same species, but look at the time period. It only took, what, a hundred years or so for that to happen? If you look at the billions of years old the earth is, wouldn't you think a species would have had more time to change, perhaps a fish sprouting appendages such as the coelacanth? And later, a primate walking upright?

Posted by: Andrea | March 23, 2007 8:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Country Squire,

I meant your comment about letting the gods be for the night and getting some sleep.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 23, 2007 7:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Country Squire,

Yours is probably the wisest comment on these threads.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 23, 2007 7:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Natural selection does not constitute proof of evolution. The black and white moths of England is an interesting case study but since it is the same species of moth it can not be said to demostrate evolution from one species to another.

To date natural selection, outside genetic manipulation within the confines of a laboratory has never produced an entirely new species. And these supposed evidences within the laboratory prove only that speciation requires intelligent manipulation.

Posted by: Garyd | March 23, 2007 4:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

James,

Please tell us all the whereabouts of the missing link. Please tell us about how one scientist has observed or measured in a repeatable experiment one kind of kind of thing changing into another. It is all speculation. It is all believed by faith.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 22, 2007 11:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I think we should let the god and gods be for the night and just go to bed...alone or with others is fine.

Posted by: country squire | March 22, 2007 10:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

D.:

"That is because too many of them have chosen to reduce God to simply a God of love, and ignore his other attributes of justice, truth and omnipotence."

Too many of them, including Marcion (ca. 110-160 CE), who created a tradition of Christianity that lasted hundreds of years. He felt that the God of Love (Father of Christ) and the God of the OT were two different Gods, and that the God of Love sent his Son as a sacrifice to buy off the old god and free the Jews from his control. This belief was huge, and the orthodox Christians hated it.

From my point of view: if you're going to create a god, why not a god of love?

Posted by: John Conolley | March 22, 2007 9:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill L,

I have seen probes land on asteroids. I have been zapped a few times with electricity. Had a few things fall on my foot/head. And I have seen stars and galaxies and all their wonders of colors, expansions, supernovas and nebulas via our wonderful Hubble and analogous space telescopes. And I have Faith in what I have seen and experienced. And yes Armstrong et al did walk on the Moon.

Astronomy Magazine is one of my favorite. I highly recommend their Cosmic Vista graph which updates the location of all heavenly bodies from the Earth's surface to the end of the universe.

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 22, 2007 8:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

CONCERNED, you give a list of 5 things we know! Have you personally seen these asteroids daily? How about the nuclear missles? Have you personally talked to these new testament experts to poll them? Do you know about the sun because you time traveled to see it happen?

HUH! You must be taking someones word on faith! You know about electricity and gravity, but can you totally grasp and explain it? I've read scientists saying {Stephen Hawking for one} that we still can't fully explain gravity.

The truth is we can't know all things we believe, so therefore we must take things on faith. We must put trust in someones words! You ask me to trust you over the bible and the Church Jesus started? The proof is in the pudding! There has been much good and evil through history, but the great good done through time has been by people of faith because they love a GOd who teaches them to love.

Posted by: Bill L | March 22, 2007 8:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Despite the fact that you have gotten 126 responses to your essay,Susan, which is pretty good, I'll bet you join me in a big, big yawn.

We love you and love your great book, and that's about all there really is to say...except will you come to Oregon?

Posted by: Country squire | March 22, 2007 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon, "SO, evolution is a theory, not a fact. And the theory of evolution is an interpretation of observed facts. Theory and fact are not the same."

You are still mixing up common usage of theory as conjecture, speculation, and opinion, in contrast with the scientific definition, which Phaedrus posted above. The theory of gravity, as first proposed by Newton and subsequently modified by Einstein is a scientific theory and a fact, which has just as much support as the scientific theory of evolution.

You may not like such definitions and arguments, and I realize you are not going to let such things get in the way of your worldview of absolute certainty, but in terms of science and truth about natural phenomena, this is how it stands. Evolution has support that in independent of belief (i.e. faith).

I'm surprised your belief in god is so flimsy. If someone gives you absolute evidence that evolution is a fact, would you automatically give up your belief? I doubt it, yet that is what your dogma implies. I know too many people who are believers, and their belief has nothing to do with whether science contradicts biblical literalism. Their faith is far deeper than that. As I wrote in an earlier thread to your compatriot Pablo, “The world and universe that we live in is truly wondrous, yet you do it the greatest injustice in your description of it. The universe created and described in the bible is like a stick-figure compared to Michelangelo’s fresco (based on Genesis no less) on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. By denying the universe as it truly is in its beauty and complexity and substituting an incredibly poor approximation written down by a pre-scientific society, you are doing nothing more than insulting god.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 22, 2007 6:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Phew, glad it wasn't just me. Anon, you are still confusing general fact vs. scientific fact.

Posted by: TECHNICOLORDREAMBOAT | March 22, 2007 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon:
By the definition you cite, you undermine your own position.

"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts."

Fact: Bacterial mutation continues to enhance these organisms' abilities to resist existing antibiotics. This is occurring at a rate that threatens to outstrip attempts to create new and efficacious medications for which bacteria have not "evolved" such defenses.

"A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts."

Theory: All available evidence supports natural selection as the means by which this evolution occurs.

What you are trying to posit is akin to stating that, because you disagree with current gravitational theory, gravity itself does not exist.

Posted by: Phaedrus | March 22, 2007 5:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Follow the evolution of homosapiens at:

As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 22, 2007 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pheadrus wrote:

"Name your source, please."

The Hammond Barnhart Dictionary of Science

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 5:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon:

Name your source, please.

Posted by: Pheadrus | March 22, 2007 5:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts."

SO, evolution is a theory, not a fact. And the theory of evolution is an interpretation of observed facts. Theory and fact are not the same.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon:

Right. And the world still sits unmoving in the center of a 7 planet solar system with nine celestial spheres surrounding it with ether between the outer 7. The sun, which is merely composed of fire, rotates around the earth (after all, if it did not move how could Joshua have commanded it to stop moving?) Each and every animal was created whole and distinct from nothing and named by Adam about 4000 years ago. The dinosaurs roamed the earth only 3000 years ago, at the same time as human beings, who were also created whole and distinct from nothing. If you want to find evidence for this, you can simply view the dino bones in the Liberty University museum, who's "scientists" claim that they are only 3000 years old. By the way, Hell can be found at the center of the earth, with all of its nine rings and satan himself at the exactcenter. God exists beyond the ninth sphere, but all of the other spheres are motivated by heavenly beings assigned to that specific task. And this will all come to an end at some point in the future, sooner rather than later I am sure, when crazy combo-creatures with lion heads and locust bodies start swarming all around.

And you find this plausible, while attempting to refute a phenomemon that you see evidence of everytime your Dr has to give you another antibiotic because the old one does not work for you anymore.

As I said, right.

Posted by: Phaedrus | March 22, 2007 5:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It is a fact that the characteristics of living things change over time. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection expains this.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 22, 2007 5:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Phaedrus,

I just want to second what you said and add to it.

Scientists often use circumstantial evidence, but they don’t just accept it, like any other evidence, at face value. In fact, science actively tries to blow up theories and hypotheses. Many explanations are plausible, but that does not mean they are correct. Science actively tests plausible explanations (i.e. hypotheses) by submitting them to the rigors of disproof using the scientific method. Even if one researcher apparently demonstrates support for one hypothesis over another, this is certainly not the end of the process, but only the beginning. I guarantee you there are other researchers who will pore over the person’s paper looking for problems, either in his/her logic or method. And the original researcher who came to a conclusion, whether true or erroneous, will welcome the criticism, because in its foundation, science tries to determine what the hell is going on. Not what might be going on, or what one hopes is going on, but what is really happening.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 22, 2007 5:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Evolution has not been proven as fact. It has not been proven beyond a doubt as true. It is not capable of being tested by experiment. A logical explanation is not the same as a verified hypothesis.

How very convenient for scientists that they are able to state as truth something that has not been proven, simply by having a different definition of truth.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 5:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

gary d ames wrote, "Susan, why do you believe it lunacy to predict that bad things will happen on this planet?"

She made no such statement. She just said looking to scripture for a specific millennial prediction is lunacy, especially if you base your life on it.
Do most people live their lives based on an imminent return of Christ. Some may, but most people do not. If people really did, they would join together with other Christians, get rid of all their possessions, and wait.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 22, 2007 5:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon:

Your analogy is quite faulty. To compare a hypothetical "case" composed of a handful of variables of the type you select, with the tens of thousands of studies that confirm evolution creates a specious analogy. That's all.

As Friend tried to point out to you, "Theory" in science is NOT the same as in common parlance. From Wikipedia:

"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."

I hope that this sets to right the misconception that "evolution" itself is a theory. Evolution is a fact. The fact that we continue to battle new strains of bacterias that are resistant to current antibiotics is direct evidence of their continual evolution. A previous poster mentioned the "peppered moth" in England as another example. The "theory" of natural selection relates to HOW evolution occurs, not "whether or not" it occurs.

Folks, even the Intelligent Design backers acknowledge the fact that evolution occurs. They simply supplement it with small (mostly cellular level) examples of "irreducibly complex" structures, which they assert constitute evidence of a cosmic designer. Of course the PA courts saw through this ruse, and rejected ID as merely creationism in scientific clothing.

So, if anyone wants to believe in creationism, fair enough. But don't make fallacious claims about evolution in the process. And, at least, stop misapplying the lay definition of theory to science, where it has no place.

Posted by: Phaedrus | March 22, 2007 4:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm a sucker for jury duty. O.J. Simpson? He's not in jail. For every one wrongly-convicted sap, there's many others who've had their cases thrown out. How does this even relate?

Posted by: TECHNICOLORDREAMBOAT | March 22, 2007 4:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Truths of evolution=little bits of truth that lend the theory credibility. Keep in mind that the words "truth" "fact" and "theory" have different meanings in the scientific community, lest they claim something is, literally """fact""", before it's entirely proven.

Posted by: TECHNICOLORDREAMBOAT | March 22, 2007 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

When was the last time you were in a court, Technicolordreamboat? They certainly do not throw out evidence like that stated above. Oh, we like to think that they would, but it simply doesn't happen. How many times lately have you read about some poor guy who has been let out of jail after 20 years because they finally found something that proved he was innocent? It happens all the time. Those people went to jail on circumstantial evidence.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Truths of evolution implies that evolution is true, and therefore exhibits certain truths; otherwise, it would just be a truth, not a truth of evolution.

Wordplay does little to advance an idea...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 4:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Did you know, Judges throw out circumstantial evidence?

Crazy story, Anonymous...did that happen to someone you know?

Posted by: TECHNICOLORDREAMBOAT | March 22, 2007 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Circumstantial evidence as truth:

Jack and Ed were roommates. After 4 years, Jack came to hate Ed. Ed did lots of things that annoyed Jack. They argued a lot. Jack even told his friends how much he couldn't stand Ed. One day Jack comes home from a long walk and finds Ed dead. Police find that Ed had been hit over the head with Jack's baseball bat. Jack has no alibi for where he was that evening. Jack goes on trial for Ed's murder. Jack's friends admit that Jack had told them on numerous occasions how much he hated Ed. There was no forced entry into the apartment. Jack's fingerprints were all over the bat. Jack's neighbors say they heard Jack and Ed arguing all the time. Investigators also found a tape that Ed had secretly made during one of their arguments. Does Jack end up going to jail for Ed's murder? Most likely.

So, a man is wrongly convicted because of assumptions made based on circumstantial evidence. What the jury didn't know is that Ed owed someone a bunch of money from gambling; he was embarassed about it and hadn't told any of his friends. He knew the guy who came to kill him that night, and let him in the door himself. The man was wearing gloves. No one heard or saw a thing. So, there were some facts that no one knew about that point to the truth.

That is how people can get themselves into trouble by insisting that theories are truth.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"the truths of evolution," which is the actual quote, not "the truth of evolution." Such an insignificant little 's'...

Posted by: TECHNICOLORDREAMBOAT | March 22, 2007 4:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Technicolordreamboat,

Saying "the truth of evolution" is specifically saying that evolution is truth. I don't know how you can interpret that differently.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 4:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

That's right. And that's why without proof, it all boils down to what assumptions people want to believe.

Why do people feel the need to ridicule others' beliefs? What purpose does that ridicule serve, other than the fostering of intolerance? Civilised people should be able to have intelligent, educational discussions on these topics without hatemongers resorting to name-calling and other childish behavior.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I find it strange that evolution keeps coming up in these debates, since I've read that most Christian denominations and their members do not read the creation stories in Genesis literally.

In any case, even if the evolution hypothesis was proven incorrect, it wouldn't prove the accuracy of any religion's creation story. Why would Genesis be more valid than the stories from other religions?

Posted by: Tonio | March 22, 2007 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Notice James did not mention anywhere in his post that evolution is truth. Just that there is overwhelming evidence in support of it. Peppered Moths, anyone?

Posted by: TECHNICOLORDREAMBOAT | March 22, 2007 3:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A theory in science is not the same as the common vernacular definition for theory in which we think the theory may be true and will eventually be a fact once proven.

A theory in science never becomes a fact. We can only gain more and more confidence in it as newly discovered facts support the theory.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 22, 2007 3:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon,

Yup, just like every other theory out there.

Posted by: Andrea | March 22, 2007 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

James,

Without proof, the evidence for evolution is circumstantial; it relies on inferences and assumptions to accept the theory as truth.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 3:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea's Evolution

We know an ENORMOUS amount about the process of evolution.

Hundreds of thousands of facts have been researched, and all respectable scientist agree tht there is overwhelming verification for believing that evolution is a real process.

None of us know for sure that the myths of Creation and Apocalyse are a bunch of Hogwash. We also don't know for sure that there is no tooth fairy anywhere.

But there is NO facual evidence for the myths of the Bible,
and loads of factual evidence for the truths of evolution.

Posted by: James | March 22, 2007 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon:

What you say is true. I got lost in the heat of the moment. I just wish we all could agree that none of us know how we got here, none of us know what happens when we leave here, and none of us know how the world will end. Why are we supposed to know? I think a world-wide refocusing is in order. We look only to the future when we should be looking down to see who/what we're trampling on to get there.

Posted by: Andrea | March 22, 2007 1:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

I must disagree with you. I think the community that holds evolution to be "fact" are the ones who forget that it is a theory. Christians know that they don't have indisputable fact at their disposal to prove their belief in creation. They have faith that their belief will one day be proven to the world as truth. Those who believe in evolution believe that their theory has already been proven.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 1:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Disciple,

Congratulations on showing us just how much religion frowns on education.

How do you think we got here? Spit and dirt? Keep in mind that's only theory. One of many. They are all theories.

I apologize if that sounds rude. It's just frustrating that scientific theory is so often downgraded to "guesses" by the religious community, who holds that creationism is fact.

Posted by: Andrea | March 22, 2007 1:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Friend:

Thanks for saving me the time of posting Einstein's most definitive statement regarding his lack of belief. Amazing how often that falsehood gets trotted out.

Disciple: You state:

"Only in your mind do these people know the most about how nature works. If scientist knew so much of how nature works we wouldn't so much of this mess that is going in this world. Scientist mostly tamper with things to get something to work the way they want to which is usually founded by someone trying to sell a product."

First of all, please note that you are writing your anti-scientist sentiments on one of the fruits of their collective labor.

Secondly, if you have in mind another group of people who actually know more about the workings of nature than those who study it every day, I would like to know who they are so that I may seek out their writings. After all, and this is the point that I think you and Bill L are missing, it is not the "scientist" that I am lauding, it is "science" itself, which history has clearly shown to be the most reliable "truth-detector" ever devised. Not a perfect one admittedly, but one without any serious competition for the title.

Part of this "truth-detector" reliability is that this statement:

"Scientist mostly tamper with things to get something to work the way they want..."

is quite absurd. Science determines the manner in which the world "works" in and of itself, and their desires or preferences regarding those "workings" are irrelevant on the whole. That is the primary basis for the reliability of scientifically-derived information, it is what it is, independent of anyone's feelings about it.

As for this statement:

"In scientific terms me and you shouldn't even exist. This is improbable - factoring in all the forces that should keep us from existing."

I suggest that you look up the "anthropic principle."

And finally, as to your assertion that I bestow divine status on scientists, I do no such thing, because there is no "divinity" with which to credit them, or anyone, or anything else.

ps: you may want to look up the differences between "pure" science, and "applied" science, as your post suggests you have a misconception there as well.

Posted by: Phaedrus | March 22, 2007 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

We must drop our ethnic, religious, and/or national fanatism that says we have absolute knowledge of the universe.

A global crisis much greater than the previous wars and epidemics awaits us unless we open our minds.

Posted by: FRIEND | March 22, 2007 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio wrote:

"My understanding is that many Christian theologians say that hell is not a literal location in the afterlife, but instead a metaphor for the emotional and psychological misery faced by people who have not accepted Jesus."

That is because too many of them have chosen to reduce God to simply a God of love, and ignore his other attributes of justice, truth and omnipotence. These theologians have made the mistake of re-interpreting the Bible to make it fit within today's "make me feel good" mentality. That is the problem with churches teaching strictly from the New Testament; they leave out everything to be learned about God from the Bible's roots.

Posted by: D. | March 22, 2007 12:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. "

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."

Einstein

Posted by: FRIEND | March 22, 2007 11:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Phaedrus writes:
"who know the most about how nature"

Only in your mind do these people know the most about how nature works. If scientist knew so much of how nature works we wouldn't so much of this mess that is going in this world. Scientist mostly tamper with things to get something to work the way they want to which is usually founded by someone trying to sell a product.

It sounds like you worship scientist's and don't do enough thinking for yourself. In scientific terms me and you shouldn't even exist. This is improbable - factoring in all the forces that should keep us from existing.

Why do you lift up men and women so high as to even allude to the idea that they have some kind of control over nature by their knowledge.

The people purporting this such as yourself are the ones that use the great inventions but do not have an inkling as to how they came to be or how they function. You think yourself modern because you were born into a modern society. But just because you are born into a modern society it doesn't automatically ascribe to you wisdom, judgement, logic, reason, and faith in God that got us here.

So you abscribe some kind of mystical knowledge to these poor scientists as if they were gods. Unfortunetly they are only gods to you. Not even scientis themselves claim to know more than anyone else, only you and your mystical claim to their divinity.

The scientists, that all our modern scientist stand on the shoulders of - beleived in God. Read Einstein.

Posted by: Disciple | March 22, 2007 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"People who practice these things and call themselves Christians misrepresent the faith and are not Christians in their hearts."

Thanks for emphasizing that, Anonymous. I was referring to the doctrine of a literal hell. My understanding is that many Christian theologians say that hell is not a literal location in the afterlife, but instead a metaphor for the emotional and psychological misery faced by people who have not accepted Jesus.

Posted by: Tonio | March 22, 2007 11:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio,

Christian doctrine does not define non-members as evil. Christianity does not promote hatred of others, attacking others with different beliefs, or ridicule. People who practice these things and call themselves Christians misrepresent the faith and are not Christians in their hearts.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 11:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Many of the posts here, beginning with Ms. Jacoby's, have turned from answering this question to attacking Christians' view of 'the end'."

D, I attack any religious doctrine that attempts to define non-members as evil and deserving of death and/or hell. Any such doctrine amounts to hate. Fundamentalism's reading of Revelation is part of that hate, because according to the reading, unbelievers will get what is coming to them in Armageddon. I don't intend to single out Christianity. I've heard that religions such as Islam have similar teachings regarding the end of the world, but I don't know if that is accurate.

Posted by: Tonio | March 22, 2007 10:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pablo,

A different view as per Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist:

"(from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

With respect to the end of the world, I reiterate:

What we know:

1. The Sun will burn out in 3-4 billion years so we have a time frame.

2. Asteroids continue to whiz by us daily.

3. One large hit and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.

Bottom line: the world will end sometime between now and 3-4 billion CE.

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 22, 2007 10:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dawkins believes in the religion of Evolution.

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 22, 2007 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Andrea,

There are those of us who are able to have friendly debates, and then there are those who must resort to name-calling and debasement. Those who practice the latter do not promote debate or critical thinking, but rather intolerance and animosity.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2007 10:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Friends,

I am not terrified of judgment day because Jesus took the wrath I deserve on the cross and then He conquered death by resurrecting from the dead. That is what makes Christianity different then all the other religions. Jesus paid the debt and defeated death on our behalf. Jesus became a man to die on behalf of humankind and arose from the dead so that all who would believe would be saved. That is why Satan creates false religions that deny the Sonship of Jesus and His death burial and resurrection. Satan knows that if he gets people to depend on their own righteousness that they will never measure up before God. That is why Satan appeals to the pride of humankind. People have a propensity to want to justify themselves in their own self-righteousness. But this will never work because, ". . . All our righteousness are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).

I know that I will be glorifying God with all His Holy people. Not because I measure up but because Jesus died for me paying the debt I owe. Then He arose from the dead paving the way for me into the presence of God the Father. It is all about Him.

Pablo

“But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6).

Posted by: Pablo | March 22, 2007 10:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm guessing that was Ms. Jacoby's intent-to create the need for debate. Isn't that what they all do? Instigators, all of them. We all need more critical thinking in our lives, and this is a good place to start.

Posted by: Andrea | March 22, 2007 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Who's right, who's wrong; none of that matters in this forum. The question was "Do you believe the world will come to an end? If so, where, when and what will it look like?"

Many of the posts here, beginning with Ms. Jacoby's, have turned from answering this question to attacking Christians' view of "the end". Why can't Ms. Jacoby simply answer the question, or any question posed on this website, without attacking Christian views? If you don't agree with this assessment, just take a look at how much of her answer deals with an attack on Christian beliefs and how much actually deals with answering the question. Remember, the question was "do YOU believe", not "what other beliefs about the end of the world do you think are stupid."

Ms. Jacoby has, as always in these forums, turned her answer into an attack. Her anti-Christian rants incite and advocate hatred and intolerance. She simply doesn't seem to be able to formulate an answer of her own unless it is based on how stupid she thinks Christian views are.

So, what does Ms. Jacoby think about the end of the world? Well, we don't know. Her answer tells us what the "deranged", "lunatic" Christians believe, not what she believes. Her post was not meant to answer the question, but rather to spit out more venomous attacks.

Posted by: D. | March 22, 2007 10:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Call me pessimistic, but religion has lost that bright, shiny outer coating of love and acceptance. It's like one of those gag canisters of gumballs where you think "Ooh! Gumballs!" But after you lift the lid, the spring-loaded gag snake of eternal damnation grazes your eyeball.

So, it's okay to just hold the canister and admire it and have faith that if you ever do decide to question it and delve deeper into it, you won't get a faceful of snakes. (Canister=Religion)

Most Evangelicals just hold the canister. And if they do open it, they face it away from themselves and point it at others.

Posted by: Andrea | March 22, 2007 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

She seems to think this is all new, but in fact there were many people who believed that the end would come at the Millennium -- and that was 1,007 years ago.

Most historians believe the Revelation of John was all metaphor and allegory which was needed to communicate ideas that would otherwise be censored.

Posted by: Ralph | March 22, 2007 8:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Maurie, I have read Dawkins' "The God Delusion and I agree with him in principle about addressing God's existence as a scientific question.

My admittedly small point of disagreement with Dawkins is this - I think the scientific question of the existence of God has relevance only if God is defined as interacting with the natural world in any way. In my view, when different religions define God that way, that amounts to the religions violating Gould's NOMA principle. I don't know enough about non-Western religions to know if any of them define God as completely separate from the natural world, as something other than a creator or a supreme being.

"As for ethical values and spiritual meaning, I don’t think religion or a belief in god has that domain all to itself. "

Absolutely. What if religions did not even presuppose the existence of a supernatural or an afterlife? What if humanity could address its most deepest yearnings without hateful notions like hell and damnation?

Posted by: Tonio | March 22, 2007 8:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

You'd think that after 2000 years Christians would get the idea: the end of the world with the return of Jesus ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: candide | March 22, 2007 8:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan,

Why do you believe it lunacy to predict that bad things will happen on this planet? Based on 8,000 years of recorded history it isn't lunacy it is a lead pipe cinch.

NOw the seven year time frame the people pushing the rapture that is only mentioned once in the Bible and that is as the state of existance with God in heaven, is off a bit. The plague for one already happened remember the Bubonic Plague? Began in the Orient and ended in England and very likely did kill of a large chunk of the human population.

Wars and rumors of wars until the end of time? Very obvious one doesn't have to be a prophet to figure that as a likelyhood one merely has to be a historian. I was told some years back that in all of recorded human history there have been only about fifty years when warfare wasn't being carried on somewhere and that may be because we don't have complete records for a lot of place.

Posted by: gary d ames | March 22, 2007 4:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

susan asks- who is afraid of the end of the world?

i am terrified of judgement day-

i believe it will occur-

my whole life is a preparation and conscious awareness that any thing i think or do will be accountable-

Allahuallum- only the god knows how and when it will happen

deep in my heart- i feel this

my small complacencies and lapses of connection to god cause me anxiety-

my connection to god dispels this anxiety
but it returns in moments of facing eternity-
facing loss of consciusnss and being-

also it dosnt make me unintelligent or insensitive

so i dont apologize for it or try to minimize it for public approval

peace all

Posted by: victoria | March 22, 2007 3:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Here's the problem for some Xians:

They explain the Genesis story by saying that each "day" in Genesis was actually equal to billions of years, ergo the Biblical account of the creation squares with evolution which says the Earth is 4-6 billion years old.

However, when they start discussing "the last days," they conveniently forget their Genesis equation.

Sorry all you Rapture-philes, but the end days are actually billions of years from now, at least if we use your Genesis "day" as the model. Hey...come to think of it, that squares with science as well!

Posted by: Mr Mark | March 22, 2007 2:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

the mentality of chrsitianity and the mentality of evolution .

christianity procalaming to mankind ,that the biological son of god exist,and his biological blood was spared all over the place for the biological sin of mankind.

evolution on the other side ,proclaming to man kind that species are on the evolution and still going higher in biology.

the mentality of christianity and the mentality of evolution are the same ,chrsitianity glorify the biological son and his biological blood ,
while evolution glorify the biological evolution of the species,survival of the species according to christianity is in the biological son.,while survival of the species according to evolution is in the evolution scientification and infinte logication that doesnot take you anywhere.

befor you blame s.jacoby for her scientific god blame the idolism and myth of christianity.

people, there is creator for this universe,he all glory goes to him is free from biology.

Posted by: mo | March 22, 2007 2:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The first person (so far as I know) to set a date for the return of Christ and the end of the world was Hippolytus, who set it at 202 AD. It didn't happen, so they moved it back to 500. They've been moving it back ever since.

As for the Revelation of John: while it was written by someone named John, nowhere does he claim to be John son of Zebedee, Apostle of Christ. It was actually written some time later than the rest of the gospels, and even Eusebius, as early as the 4th century, regarded it as totally spurious.

For more information, see Metzger, B.M., _The Canon of the New Testament_, Oxford University Press, 1987, or Metzger and Ehrman, _The Text of the New Testament_, Oxford University Press, 2005.

Posted by: John Conolley | March 22, 2007 12:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous, “Fundamentalist Christians take a hard line on setting dates for the second advent of Christ.”

Actually, the idea of the end days or creating a world for the return of Christ goes back all the way to the early Christians. Many thought that Christ’s return was imminent and there was no reason for material possessions. Down through the ages, the same sort of eschatological belief has been common. In mid-seventeenth century London, “The Fifth Monarchists or Fifth Monarchy Men were active from 1649 to 1661 during the Interregnum, following the English Civil Wars of the 17th century. They took their name from a belief in a world ruling kingdom to be established by a returning Jesus in which the year 1666 and its numerical relationship to a passage in the Biblical Book of Revelation indicating the end of earthly rule by carnal human beings. They were one of a number of nonconformist dissenting groups that emerged around this time (Wikipedia).” In 1661, some of the Fifth Monarchists tried to overthrow the government of Charles II, following the restoration of the monarchy. They were crushed and their leaders were hung, drawn, and quartered. For a real time description go to the Samuel Pepys diary website: http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1661/01/07/, www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1661/01/19, and www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1661/01/21/.

Of course, many other religions beside Christianity also have apocalyptic scenarios.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 21, 2007 10:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pheadrus: “While the common definition of "delusion" is a "non-sensical, or otherwise obviously false belief," and some use this to label religiosity a "delusion," this is not at all the same as delusions arising from a true disease process.”

Actually, quite a number of people equate religion as a parasitic idea (meme) that infects minds in much the same way as parasites infect host organisms. As to your assertion that true delusions arise from some underlying organic cause, this is probably correct. Interestingly though, many mentally ill people harbor religious delusions. Also, group delusion is not at all unknown; it is often described as hysteria. The Salem Witch Trial was one very-well documented example of a whole community being swept away by some primordial fear.

Whether there are underlying physical causes for religious supernatural beliefs, there is more and more evidence from neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and genetics that some people are more prone to religious beliefs than others and that the strength of this belief probably has a physical basis. Perhaps one day there will be a “cure” for “religious delusion” in the same way some Christian Fundamentalists have adopted the recent research on organic causes of homosexuality to justify potentially curing homosexuality with hormones. God forbid we were to live in any such world.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 21, 2007 10:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

James: “Does Apocalyptic Belief = Mental Illness?”

According to Sam Harris it does. He says a single person with a god delusion would be put on antipsychotic medication, whereas a large number of people with the same delusion would be considered normal and rationale. I guess that is why psychology and psychiatry has always gotten the rap that they are not a real science. Of course, that seems to be changing these days, though I don’t think psychiatry will be redefining half the U.S. population as psychotic any time soon.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 21, 2007 10:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio, I tend to agree with Stephen Jay Gould - religion should concern itself with the search for ethical values and spiritual meaning, and leave the empirical constitution of the universe to science.

There is much debate over Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”. Some, like Richard Dawkins, have argued that the existence of god, or lack thereof, can be addressed like any other scientific question. Science is built on the idea of evidence and uncertainty and Dawkins has even come up with a probability scale of 1-7 (there is absolutely no god=1, there is absolutely god=7). Dawkins considers himself in category 2 and he even suggests that if Gould were around, he would place himself there, as well. I won’t go into Dawkins rationale, though you can find it in his latest book.

As for ethical values and spiritual meaning, I don’t think religion or a belief in god has that domain all to itself. I know too many atheists, agnostics, and Burning Man festival goers who are very ethical and moral creatures, and they might even hazard that they have a spiritual dimension, especially when it comes to the wonders of the natural universe in which we live.

I think Gould understood those feelings very well. As he wrote in the Postscript to Magisteria, “I dedicate this essay to his memory. Carl also shared my personal suspicion about the nonexistence of souls—but I cannot think of a better reason for hoping we are wrong than the prospect of spending eternity roaming the cosmos in friendship and conversation with this wonderful soul.” His essay was more an admonition and a hope to both sides that they should not ignore or dismiss the yearnings of human beings.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 21, 2007 10:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ambassador for Christ, ‘With all due respect, that is a very "intolerant"……..’

I suspect Ms. Jacoby wouldn’t disagree with you. She is rightly intolerant of stupid and dangerous ideas, which invite ridicule. She is tolerant of peoples’ right to believe anything they want, but not to the specific lunacy they may espouse. For example, there are some fundamentalist Christians who are part of the Dominionist movement that seeks to establish a Fundamentalist Christian government based on biblical law, some even going so far as to advocate ethnic discrimination and return to slavery. Obviously, most fundamentalists (along with everybody else in this country) are intolerant of these outrageous ideas and vehemently reject them. I suspect even you reject them.

AFC, “If you confess and repent of your sins (turn away from them) and put your trust in Jesus Christ, you will be saved and will not have to face the judgment described in Revelation.”

I feel better already. I’ll just run down to the river and get saved through baptism. I do have one other question for you; what happens to a murdering, pillaging, raping, thug who repents and gets saved, compared to a person who actually lives by the “golden rule” but doesn’t accept Christ into his/her heart? I know this is one of those hypothetical “if” questions, but there certainly are examples of the former on death row who subsequently found Christ after they were sentenced, and the many people of the latter who may have no belief whatsoever, but live a life generosity and love.

AFC, “You claim that Jesus is mercy-loving in the gospels but Revelation is a vindictive narrative. Let's examine that claim by looking at two quotes from the Bible:……….. I ask, which of these quotes comes from the words of Jesus in the gospels and which comes from the Book of Revelation? Based upon your categorizations, Quote #1 must come from one of the gospels because it is a merciful and loving quote. Quote #2 must come from Revelation because of its "vindictive narrative" nature. However, Quote #1 comes from Revelation 21:4 and Quote #2 is a quote from Jesus in Matthew 13:41-42 (the same gospel that includes the Sermon on the Mount only a few chapters earlier). Therefore, we cannot adhere to your proposed "tremendous philosophical gap" between the Jesus described in the gospels and the Book of Revelation.”

All the more reason to reject biblical literalism and inerrancy, whether in the Old Testament, the gospels in the New Testament, or Revelations.

Posted by: Maurie Beck | March 21, 2007 10:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan Jacoby is just plain wonderful. Listen to her, and don't pay much attention to the Bible stories unless you like reading fiction. Sorry, all you fundies out there in Internetland, to burst your little bubble, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Posted by: Country Squire | March 21, 2007 10:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

IDIOTS.........ALL!

Posted by: abd | March 21, 2007 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Scott: I found a couple of interesting websites relating to Jefferson's interesting, evolving religious beliefs and lack therof. As he once said, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

I was wondering something about your post. If another anonymous ghost posted a message on this site stating that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man", would you find that statement deserving of only ridicule?

Jefferson's take on religion: http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html

Spurious Jefferson Quotes:
http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html

Posted by: Ghostbuster | March 21, 2007 9:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why is IT that Moses, Jesus, Mohammad et al DO NOT KNOW the names of both ABRAHAMs MOTHER and NOAHs MOTHER?????? Any prophets around! Well, I;m waiting for another Good Philosophy if there is such a HUMATE who has atleast something plausible for a CORRECTION OF SIN and the clue to the RIDDLE OF THE DEVIL as I am about to expose and reveal what the HOLY MANNA or HEAVENLY BREAD truly is! :-)' Those who believe in Moses, Jesus, Mohammad. krishna, buddah et al are: "Psychotic" and do not know what they do! SHOLOM HUMATES. Peace, Love, Rock n Roll. Eeee Haaaa. What a beautiful life without those PRE-Apocalyptic dillusiuonal misguidence of a life, NOT TO MENTION un-HOLY AND HIPOCRATIC behaviors (((((((PEACE))))))):-)'

Posted by: Jozevs | March 21, 2007 8:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Fundamentalist Christians take a hard line on setting dates for the second advent of Christ. Failed date-setters are labeled as “false prophets.” What are the implications of these accusations? Are the fundamentalist Christians consistent in their position?
Martin Luther predicted Jesus would return in 300 years from his time. This would have placed the return of Christ between 1830 and 1850. Like many of his contemporaries in the latter 1700s, John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist denomination, predicted 1836 for the date of the second advent. Certainly, few would consider Luther or Wesley false prophets.
The 1800s witnessed an epidemic of “Millennial Fever” and a rash of date setting for Christ’s return. Joseph Wolff, the world renowned missionary, preached 1847 as the date of “the coming glory and personal reign of Jesus Christ . . .” In 1836 Wolff was invited to present his second advent message before the United States Congress and the legislatures of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland. No born again Christian would dare call Wolff, a highly esteemed fundamentalist, a false prophet. In fact many other fundamentalist ministers were setting dates for the end of the world.
In the early 1800s one man, William Miller, was singled out for ridicule for setting a date (1844) which failed to be the time of the Lord’s return. Why was this so, especially when he appeared on the scene when many others had used the same prophetic reasoning to pinpoint dates which failed to be the beginning of the second advent? Miller was an evangelist who, unfortunately, used 1844 as the date for the end of the world to scare thousands to convert or else be damned eternally. It’s not that Joseph Wolff and others didn’t try the same strategy. What then was the difference? Miller was a farmer who became a preacher. The others were ordained ministers with impeccable fundamentalist credentials. Like Miller, their dates failed, but only farmer Miller was labeled a false prophet.
Twenty Century Fundamentalists
Fundamentalists of the 20th century look with disdain at the prophetic struggles of their 19th century brethren. Yet hasn’t the 20th century been just as full of failed prophetic predictions? What has been the record of those who teach the seven years of tribulation to bring the end of the world? Basic to their concept is the “imminent coming” of Jesus. They claim that ever since Jesus’ ascension, no prophetic event had to happen before his return—for centuries Jesus could have returned on any day. In the words of John F. Walvoord, President of Dallas Theological seminary – “the Lord could come at any moment and there are no necessary intervening events.” The obvious inconsistency is the seven years of tribulation which they teach must precede Jesus’ return. They cover their inconsistency here by claiming Jesus will secretly return for a moment to rapture his saints. This they believe will be followed by seven years of tribulation, then “every eye shall see him” at his visible return.
Still this is a false prediction. Actually, back in the mid 1800s, John Darby sold the seven year tribulation concept to some fundamentalists. During the balance of the 1800s up until 1948 many fundamentalists preached that Jesus could return any day. On May 14, 1948, a prophetic miracle happened – the rebirth of the State of Israel. This proved that a prophetic event did occur before their concept of the second advent. Hal Lindsey, the student of Walvoord, unwittingly destroyed the “imminent coming” theory when he admitted – “The one event which many Bible students in the past overlooked was this paramount prophetic sign: Israel had to be a nation again in the land of its forefathers.”
If they believed their “imminent coming, no prophetic sign had to occur” theory was true, then these fundamentalists were wrong all the years from 1830 to 1948 in saying Jesus could return any day. Israel restored proved their “imminent coming” theory was a failed prediction.
Literally tens of thousands of fundamentalist clergy and laity before 1948 declared from the pulpit or in one-on-one witnessing that Jesus could return any day. According to their flawed “imminent coming” theory, it was not possible that any prophetic occurrence would precede the second coming. However, this theory was proved to be untrue when Israel was reborn as a nation. By their own definition, these fundamentalists unwittingly fell into the category of false prophets.
After 1948, Hal Lindsey and many fundamentalists, on the basis of Israel and the generation of Luke 21:29-31, predicted that Jesus would return within 40 years of 1948. Well, 1988 came and passed without the secret return of Jesus to rapture the church—no large groups of Christians were reported as missing then or since, another failed prediction of the seven-year tribulationists.
Excited over the new state of Israel, Billy Graham in 1950 told a rally in Los Angeles, ”Two years and its all going to be over.” What evangelical will call Billy Graham a false prophet?
Many others set the date of 1988 for reasons different than the 40-year generation. When their prediction failed, the date of 1989 was put forward for the return of Jesus. This, too failed. Yet none of their seven-year tribulationist brethren accused them of being false prophets.
For several years before 1994, Harold Camping of Family Radio fame vigorously predicted on radio and by printed page the return of Jesus in 1994. This was another failed date among the seven-year tribulationists, and, of course, fundamentalists would not call Camping a false prophet. Even CHRISTIANITY TODAY, the brain child of Billy Graham and the voice of evangelicals, found the need to exonerate Camping.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Most of you christians are missing one the main points. We only have to respect your "right" to believe in the biblical apocolypse. We DO NOT have to respect the belief itself.

The beliefs of biblical literalists do not deserve any respect, only ridicule.

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

Posted by: Scott | March 21, 2007 7:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"sok7:

The Revelation of John is the description of two visions John had while on the isle of Patmos. The second vision (beginning in chapter 4) describes what John believed to be the end of the world. What Christians today cannot agree on is which parts of John’s revelation may have already occurred. John was under the impression that everything he saw was imminent. Revelation 1:3 ends with, “because the time is near”."

Maybe all those biblical visionaries should have laid off the sause or whatever else they where on. Then we wouldn't have this inane discussion.

Posted by: Gaby | March 21, 2007 6:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Disciple writes:

"What you are implying is an opinion poll with scientist as it's base to declare whether God exists, this is absurd!"

Disciple, a poll's purpose is to determine what people think, feel, or do. It cannot answer any question other than that which people are willing to say about those things. Nobody is implying that a poll of scientists purports to determine whether or not god exists.

What the poll shows is that people who know the most about how nature actually works, overwhelmingly reject the idea of a supreme being. It is up to the individual how much weight to accord that information.

Robert B: You question whether a certain amount of the 20.8% who are classed as agnostic or doubting could be deists. I do not know the answer, though I find it quite likely that within that 20.8% are some "agnostics on principle, (who hold to Gould's non-overlapping magisteria concept), some soft agnostics who admit to finding some reason to suspect that god may exist, but doubt it, and possibly some neo-deists. ( Interesting that in the 18th and 19th centuries, deism was considered closer to atheism, while in our time it is seen as more akin to theism).

But, having speculated thus, the take-home message is still that our best and brightest scientific minds seem to find precious little reason to believe there is a supreme being. And, that these folks are not, by and large, individuals who reject theism because of any inflated sense of self. And THAT was the real issue between Bill L and I that gave rise to this topic.

Posted by: Phaedrus | March 21, 2007 5:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan,

Truth does not depend on belief. Truth is truth whether you believe the truth or not. Who is the Truth? Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life no man comes to the Father except by Me" (John 14:6). So as you can see Jesus says you are wrong. I will take His word over yours.

"Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe" (1 Corinthians 1:20-21).

Pablo

Posted by: Pablo | March 21, 2007 5:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The "references" to rapture in the NT were, as per contemporary NT scholars, added to embellish the sayings and ways of Jesus.

Matthew 24: 38-41 and Luke 17: 34-35
91-. Taken or Left: (1) Gos. Thom. 61:1; (2) 2Q: Luke 17:34-35 = Matt 24:40-41.

See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb091.html and Professor JD Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus.

St. Paul's description/prediction of the imminent second coming, i.e. 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17, was a great way to get Gentiles to convert and give money to the cause but to say the least he was not much of a prophet thankgoodness. Televangelists still use the description/prediction though to get "guilt-trip" donations.

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 21, 2007 5:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Technicolordreamboat,

Until those scientists claims are proven, they are simply theories that they choose to believe.

For example: A "world-renowned" scientist is digging in some ancient ruins. He comes across an oblong, hand-sized rock. The scientist says "it is obvious this was a tool used by this ancient civilization to crush grain." I say "it is obvious this scientist just found a rock!"

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Disciple: yeah, who cares what those scientists believe? They base their claims on fact. Who believes fact anymore?

Posted by: technicolordreamboat | March 21, 2007 4:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ahhh yes, Eclatarianism. The religion that was started by a man in prison so he and his friends could get special privileges...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Brother and Sisters in CYBERSPACE and beyond: REVELATION is same as APOCALYPSE. The TRANSFINITY (Reality of constantly moving from place to place) of the UNIVERSE (our real Constitution and the Laws of Nature are ITs clauses) is a R.E.V.E.L.A.T.I.O.N. of ITSELF a/k/a SOURCE ONE. The crater, destroyer and the Recreator. ECLAT is the name and WE NEVER DIE! Just be good in this world folks and you will know when IT IS TIME. Note: Eclat TIME is not like Humate time. Time is and that is what we are involved with or what we are all about: Temperature. The balance of Absolute Heat and Absolute Cold. Eclat (G-d, lord, Father, mother etccc.) made us et al because IT did not want to be lonely. Hence LIFE IS A MIRACLE AND ZERO SIN. G-d is about ETERNITY-AVOIDING-LONLINESS. Yes? No? Anyone goes here?! :-)' Nothing like a goog philosophy based on reality.

Posted by: Jacob Jozevs a/k/ ONE-LESS ancient believer | March 21, 2007 3:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Robert B.,

The term "Rapture" is not found in the Bible. The event that the term describes is there.

Jesus describes the event in Matthew 24:38-41: "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left."

Luke 17:34-35: "I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left."

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17: "For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord."

Posted by: Ambassador for Christ | March 21, 2007 3:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Phaedrus,

I really don't want to play "dueling polls". The point I was trying to make is that people should not blindly support the findings of some arbitrary poll of "eminent" scientists or "noted" scholars without knowing if the poll was done properly or with a large enough or diverse enough base to be considered representative of a population as a whole. Too many times poll results are thrown about as some sort of proof, and their results have been found to be misleading.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A question for the group:

Is the Rapture in the Bible? If so, where are the texts that describe it?

Posted by: Robert B. | March 21, 2007 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Revelation of John is the description of two visions John had while on the isle of Patmos. The second vision (beginning in chapter 4) describes what John believed to be the end of the world. What Christians today cannot agree on is which parts of John’s revelation may have already occurred. John was under the impression that everything he saw was imminent. Revelation 1:3 ends with, “because the time is near”.

So what parts may have already happened?
The Number of the Beast is generally believed to refer to Caesar Nero, who began 300-years of Christian persecution, a persecution that began with the executions of Peter and Paul in Rome.

The Destruction of Jerusalem mentioned in Revelations may have occurred in 70AD, when the Roman Army under Titus laid siege to the city and then destroyed it and more importantly, the Jewish Temple. Revelations 9 describes an attack of locusts:

“on their heads they wore something like crowns of gold” – helmets maybe?

“Their faces resembled human faces” – maybe they were humans who were called locusts because of their numbers or the way they ravaged the land?

“They had breastplates like breastplates of iron” – Roman soldiers had metal breastplates.”

“they had the power to torment people for five months” – the Siege of Jerusalem began in mid to late March and ended September 7th – approximately 5 months.

In this context, the term Last Days refers to God’s judgment of Israel, of which the destruction of Jerusalem was a part. As such, the Last Days would refer to the last days of the Mosaic Covenant, not to any end of the world as we would define it today. The Last Days in this context would be God’s retribution against those in Israel who rejected him.

The 144,000 “saved” in chapter 7 are not necessarily Christians, but Revelation says they belong to the “tribes of Israel”. I know some denominations believe that 144,000 represents the total number of people who will be admitted to heaven over all time, but an equal argument could be made that this number represents only the total number of Jews that went to heaven on this one “day” in 70AD.

Of course many Christians believe that none of the things in Revelations has occurred yet. They may be right. There are many things in Revelations that do not fall in line with what we know about the Siege of Jerusalem in 70AD.

But I believe the fantastic descriptions that John uses in Revelations are an argument for Revelation’s plausibility, not the other way around. How would someone living in the first century describe a helicopter or a guided missile? Perhaps he would describe them as a “locust” or perhaps a “star falling from the sky”. And what if John was trying to describe something that hasn’t even been invented yet?

Revelations is not more specific because I do not think that God would want for all of mankind to know, or be able to derive with any certainty, the date he intends to end the world. Such knowledge would not serve His purpose. The last days could get pretty decadent if everyone knew they were The Last and too many things might be put-off until tomorrow if we knew we had a lot more time.

The Revelation of John was written down because God had something He wanted to say. The problem with the Revelation of John is that its purpose is somewhat vague and the answers it provides do not belong to the questions we (as voyeurs) are most interested in.

And Susan, as for your contention that we should all be more worried about ending the world through our own “self-destructive behavior” than we should by God ending it. Revelations seems to indicate that we will have a role to play in the end of the world. A question for all you non-believers – will man want to take all the credit for it?

Posted by: sok7 | March 21, 2007 3:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My previous comment was for: Pheadrus

Posted by: Disciple | March 21, 2007 3:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Who cares what scientist beleive! That is irrelevant. Just because someone can observe something and catalogue it doesn't give them the authority to declare if God does or doesn't exist. What you are implying is an opinion poll with scientist as it's base to declare whether God exists, this is absurd! You are placing your faith and belief in people (scientist) who like you are finite and error prone. If you want to find God out pray and fast. It is that simple. If you are sincere you will Know for yourself.

Posted by: Disciple | March 21, 2007 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I checked out the "raptureready.com" site Susan mentioned. I'm glad I did. There's really no reason to sweat all this religion stuff. In case of rapture, they have left a few helpful messages there for all us godless sinners. There is a section called "Oops, I guess I wasn't ready," a "Post Rapture Survival Guide," and opportunites for a "Second Chance for Salvation" even after the rapture.

Total lunacy.

Posted by: blane | March 21, 2007 3:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon:

Read more closely. I said the nation's most imminent scientists, not all of them. That is why I included the info on BS level individuals. That is why I also made reference to a like survey, yielding quite similar results, of the Royal Society. If you wish to dispute the findings, fair enough. I would be interested in reviewing contrary data and comparing the representative quality of the samples involved, overall methodology, statistical analyses, and interpretation of results.

Posted by: Pheadrus | March 21, 2007 2:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Speed123,

Was Susan directly attacking you? How Godly of you to jump to her attack. I'm sure that's the image you wanted to project of, what I am guessing, is your faith. Kudos.

We shouldn't take it upon ourselves to determine when/where/how the end of the world is going to take place, neither scientifically nor religiously. How do we know, who are we to decide? Worrying about impending doom takes our focus away from everything that's going wrong today. Maybe if we take care of the planet/each other today, it won't self-destruct/Jesus won't snatch up all the good folks and take them to heaven and let everyone else suffer?

Posted by: Andrea | March 21, 2007 2:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Phaedrus --

A small quibble over your statistics:

Your original post stated: "only 7% of this country's eminent scientists believe in a god."

Ypur follow-up post to my inquiry stated: "A 1998 survey[6] by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief"."

Now this may seem like hair-splitting, but there is quite a difference between belief in a "personal God" (which I take to mean a God that is actively involved in the universe) and believe in a god (which is absolute atheism). Could it be that these scientists are more like their deistic counterparts of the Enlightenment?

Posted by: Robert B. | March 21, 2007 2:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Phaedrus wrote:

"A 1998 survey[6] by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief".

Sorry, but I hardly think that 517 scientists can represent the world body of scientists, much less the 50% of them who actually bothered to answer the survey. The scientists who are members of this "academy" are elected for membership by the academy itself, and are then voted on. This, of course, ensures that they aren't letting just "anybody" in who might disagree with them on important matters, like, say, evolution...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Concerned,

You say that these are things that we know. How do we "know" #1?

Also, #5 is a pretty broad and general statement. I definitely don't recognize this as a "common knowledge" shared by all.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 2:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What we know:

1. The Sun will burn out in 3-4 billion years so we have a time frame.

2. Asteroids continue to whiz by us daily.

3. One large hit and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.

Bottom line: the world will end sometime between now and 3-4 billion CE.

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | March 21, 2007 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan

Without these grim eschatological musings fundamentalists would have to use less effective stories to scare their children and to demonize the "outsiders".

Posted by: Ba'al | March 21, 2007 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

People who suffer from a psychotic illness (schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, some severe depressions) suffer from neurochemical imbalances. Their delusions are only part of the symptomology they experience. While the common definition of "delusion" is a "non-sensical, or otherwise obviously false belief," and some use this to label religiosity a "delusion," this is not at all the same as delusions arising from a true disease process.

I think that we should try to keep this distinction in mind.

Posted by: Pheadrus | March 21, 2007 2:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey Susan - who pissed in your Cheerios this morning?

Posted by: Brambleton | March 21, 2007 2:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Does Apocalyptic Belief = Mental Illness?

If it does
1/2 of the US Population is Mentally ill.

I do agree that apocalyptic belief is psychotic. Is it more psychotic than believing in a God who answers your prayers?

That is what stumps me. We generally consider people who believe in God to be mainstream, and the 1/2 of the US population who believe Jesus will return in the next fifty years we consider Wackos.

Is there really such a big difference?

Posted by: James | March 21, 2007 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Who cares about what christians think. These are the people who as a group talk one way and live another.I used to consider myself a christian but i left it . Why? christians drove me away from it but i forgive because it is the smartest decision i ever made and i am so much happier for having made that decision. You have to be pretty arrogant to think you have something everyone else should want, or else. I could always count on my christian uncles to try and steal a little pinch of my 6 y/o but at funerals and family reunions and the one i thought was the greatest nearly wrecked his car trying to slide his hands doen my blouse at age 16.I don't judge one by all however, because i see some christians who are loving and who try and carry a loving message buit i have yet to meet anyone who makes me want to trade what i have for what they have and yes i have lots of exposure.

Posted by: clarice Crews | March 21, 2007 1:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One source is:

"Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion," (by Edward Larson) which was awarded the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for History.

More on Larson's research from Wikipedia: "A 1998 survey[6] by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief". This was a follow-up to their own earlier 1996 study[7] which itself was a follow-up to a 1916 study by James Leuba[8]. These studies have been criticized by a number of different groups, not necessarily religious[citation needed]. This is because the study was by mail and received a return rate of 50%.

It should be noted that a 50% return rate on a mail-in survey is actually very good.

Similar results are seen in England, with Royal Society members mirroring the beliefs of their American counterparts.

Of those with BS degrees in a scientific field, the figure is 40% belief in a personal god, still less than half of those non-scientifically trained Americans, of whom more than 90% believe in god.

Posted by: Phaedrus | March 21, 2007 1:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

yes

Posted by: clarice crews | March 21, 2007 1:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Armageddon,but not war.

Film of Bruce Willis,a giant global killing asteriod.
Yes,any time in the future,but this time Bruce Willis will not be able to break the asteriod in two...
and collision...

like the one that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Who knows?

Posted by: halozcel | March 21, 2007 1:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby,

Quick question: are all "free thinkers" as vain and arrogant as you?

And, no need to worry about the end of the world as no one is reading your books now.

Posted by: speed123 | March 21, 2007 1:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Phaedrus --

You wrote, "And, only 7% of this country's eminent scientists believe in a god."

I find this figure as difficult to believe as Ms. Jacoby's figure of 60% of Christians believing in the literal truth of the Book of Revelation. Could you please post a link or other source for this figure?

Posted by: Robert B. | March 21, 2007 1:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill L writes to Susan:

"I don't expect you to believe it no matter how it's explained. You would then have to accept something or someone greater than yourself and ego wouldn't allow that!"

I see this a lot. The assertion is that the only reason that a person would not believe in supernatural claims of a transcendant deity is because they are compelled to see themselves as having no superior. Bill, this is silly. I do not believe in such claims because I have learned that the means by which these sorts of beliefs are supported, are not to be trusted. I tend not to believe the claims of most self-help gurus either, but not because I cannot believe that they could ever be superior to me. I want to see their data regarding the efficacy of their systems, and they don't usually share that sort of thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

My experience has been that the best scientists are the most humble individuals, who never cease to marvel at the natural world, of which human beings are only a tiny part. This attitude does not tend to support a view of oneself as "superior." And, only 7% of this country's eminent scientists believe in a god.

Being able to admit to oneself that one is not "significant" enough to exist in the center of a world designed by a super-man who loves one and will ultimately take one back unto himself to live in splendor for eternity, requires a certain fortitude, but certainly no hubris.

Posted by: Pheadrus | March 21, 2007 1:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Those who wrote the apocalyptic books were Jews outraged by the defeat of Jewish hopes by the power of Rome and earlier empires. They sought revenge through contemplation of how god would destroy their enemies and the whole world. Christianity bought into these delusions.

It is clear that Jesus also expected this. God let him down. As he always does.

Posted by: candide | March 21, 2007 12:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ps: I did see that Susan herself defined her terms in her first sentence, I was speaking to the implied intent of the question itself.

Posted by: Pheadrus | March 21, 2007 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Does it strike anyone else as remarkably presumptuous to equate the "end of the world" with the termination of "human existence," in whatever way that may occur?

Unless we actually bring about the destruction of the earth itself, as an object in space, the "world" will still exist even if we wipe ourselves and every other animate object out.

I will have a more in depth response later, but this kind of jumped out at me.

Posted by: Phaedrus | March 21, 2007 12:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ambassador for Christ has Ms Jacoby pinned! God speed Ambassador for Christ!

Posted by: Disciple | March 21, 2007 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

Thank you for your rebuttal. You stated, "The tremendous philosophical gap between the vindictive narrative of Revelation and the narratives of the mercy-loving Jesus of the gospels is only one reason why non-fundamentalist scholars have long doubted the legitimacy of Revelation within Christian tradition."

You claim that Jesus is mercy-loving in the gospels but Revelation is a vindictive narrative. Let's examine that claim by looking at two quotes from the Bible:

Quote #1: "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

Quote #2: "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

I ask, which of these quotes comes from the words of Jesus in the gospels and which comes from the Book of Revelation? Based upon your categorizations, Quote #1 must come from one of the gospels because it is a merciful and loving quote. Quote #2 must come from Revelation because of its "vindictive narrative" nature. However, Quote #1 comes from Revelation 21:4 and Quote #2 is a quote from Jesus in Matthew 13:41-42 (the same gospel that includes the Sermon on the Mount only a few chapters earlier). Therefore, we cannot adhere to your proposed "tremendous philosophical gap" between the Jesus described in the gospels and the Book of Revelation. Therefore, since we have eliminated this as a reason "why non-fundamentalist scholars have long doubted the legitimacy of Revelation within Christian tradition," could you please offer another reason for discussion? Could a possible reason be because of my earlier assessment that they don't like what it says so they therefore must ridicule it and dismiss it?

Thanks again for your comments; I appreciate the discussion.

Posted by: Ambassador for Christ | March 21, 2007 11:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby --

I should like to read up on these scholars who question the legitimacy of the Book or Revelation. Could you perhaps privide us with a short reading list?

Posted by: Robert B. | March 21, 2007 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you, Ambassador for Christ, for your wonderful posts. Susan Jacoby is one of the biggest practitioners of the type of bigotry she accuses others of. I may disagree with her belief that animals over the years have morphed into different creatures because it was somehow necessary for their survival, but I don't go about calling her and others like her deranged lunatics. Her lack of tolerance and respect for people with views different than her own is exactly what she accuses so many Christians of. The woman absolutely reeks of hypocricy.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 11:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

On a more serious note than the confusion between Roseanne Roseannadanna and Emily Litella, those who regard Revelation as a legitimate part of the biblical canon are badly out of step with modern biblical scholarship. By "modern," I mean scholarship since 1860.

The tremendous philosophical gap between the vindictive narrative of Revelation and the narratives of the mercy-loving Jesus of the gospels is only one reason why non-fundamentalist scholars have long doubted the legitimacy of Revelation within Christian tradition.

Unfortunately, modern biblical scholarship is only one of the many rational intellectual movements rejected by Christian fundamentalists. Of course, fundamentalists are no more interested in knowing the real history of how the Bible was written than they are in the natural history of how life on earth evolved.

Posted by: Susan Jacoby | March 21, 2007 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Well, Susan, it just goes to show you, it's always something.

Posted by: wiccan | March 21, 2007 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To Tonio --

You and I tend to disagree on many of the topics presented here, but your post regarding Biblical literalism is spot on. Luckily for me, my own sect (Catholicism) hasn't had a problem with strict literal interpretation of Scripture for quite some time...

Posted by: Robert B. | March 21, 2007 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I apologize to everyone for my erroneous statement that Roseanne Rosannadanna was the "Saturday Night Live" character who was always saying "Oh, never mind...." It was indeed Emily Litella.

May I be forgiven on Judgment Day, and spared the locuts, for the sin of confusing Emily and Roseanne.

Posted by: Susan Jacoby | March 21, 2007 11:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan: That was a fun read. The most entertaining of them all.

But, I don't understand why you paraphrased a quote from a previous Chuck Colson commentary on another subject and used it to make an analogy to "fundamentalist christians who believe in the rapture".

Posted by: Ghostbuster | March 21, 2007 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To build on my concluding paragraph of my previous post in which I stated, "This view sounds much more bearable than what is described in Revelation. Since you don't like what is described, it is much easier to ridicule it and dismiss it." I need to share that this leads into the heart of the gospel. The reason that the judgment described in the book of Revelation is coming is because of the sins of human beings against the holy Creator God. However, for all of those who read this, you do not have to face that judgment. The Jesus that is clearly described in the gospels took the punishment of your sin upon himself. He died for your sins in your place. If you confess and repent of your sins (turn away from them) and put your trust in Jesus Christ, you will be saved and will not have to face the judgment described in Revelation. If you do not repent, the Bible clearly states that you will face that judgment.

You can disagree with me and get upset with me, but I believe in the authority of the Bible and have provided evidence of its validity on other threads on this site in the past. Therefore, I must adhere to what it says, and I must therefore tell others that there is a way to have your sins forgiven and escape the judgments described in the book of Revelation. I pray that you will honestly examine the claims of the Bible.

Posted by: Ambassador for Christ | March 21, 2007 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

My issue with Revelation is partly my issue with scriptural literalism in general. Literalist doctrines make unprovable assertions about the natural world. I tend to agree with Stephen Jay Gould - religion should concern itself with the search for ethical values and spiritual meaning, and leave the empirical constitution of the universe to science.

My other issue is with how Revelation is used to justify hatred of non-Christians. Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye have spun the book as unbelievers getting their just desserts.

Posted by: Tonio | March 21, 2007 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan this is an entertaining article. I don't understand why you decided to pick on Colson and think what you said in regard to him is wrong because he, to my knowledge is not talking about knowing the end of time. It is kind of silly to make claimms to know the date certain for the end of the world. Not that I have any particular fondness for Colson but Jesus encounter both hostility and discrimination because He made statements that were true about murder, adultery, the hypocrisy of the religious leaders, controversial statements about loving your neighbor, and many other statements that people did not want to hear. This is the primary reason that they wanted to kill Jesus; he told the truth. Very few tell the truth today but rather we are most concerned about being politically correct and that people like us. Most of our lies are told in order to avoid confrontation. Folks like Colson feel compelled to be honest and they do pay a price. So it is not absurd for Colson to claim that persecution and discrimination still happens today when a Christian stands up and says something like homosexuality is wrong or that abortion is killing an unborn child. If you want to be popular in your office and get a raise, then you just don't say these sort of things. Those, like Colson, can even be threated with death on a regular basis. John 8:40 says: but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God;

Posted by: Glen | March 21, 2007 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry, the last sentence of the third paragraph should read, "Hence, you agree that Christians who make a truth claim do encounter both hostility and discrimination since you yourself state that the ridicule is justified. It appears that Colson's statement is not so absurd after all."

Again, my apologies!

Posted by: Ambassador for Christ | March 21, 2007 10:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

As always, thank you for offering your comments. Although I most often disagree with you, you continue to give me insights into how others view Christians, and for that, I thank you.

I'll also give you credit in your observation that many folks who claim to be Christian can't even name the four gospels. This is sad, and it is the church's fault that this is the case, and the church must work to correct this problem. (I also enjoyed your conversation with Dr. Albert Mohler on his radio program recently, and I must say that I agreed with many of the assessments you made there as well).

Having said that, I would like to address some of the fallacies of your present argument. Too often, your posts are filled with self-contradicting arguments. For example, you state "In his "On Faith" commentary last week, Charles W. Colson made the absurd statement that Christians encounter both "hostility" and "discrimination" because they "make a truth claim."" By claiming that Colson's statement is absurd, you're claiming that it is "contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish." (definition of absurd in Webster's dictionary). However, you then state, "The opinions of the sort of fundamentalist Christians who believe in "the Rapture" elicit well-justified ridicule and disagreement not only from secularists but from religious believers whose faith makes room for secular knowledge." Hence, you agree that Christians who make a truth claim do encounter both hostility and discrimination sinc you yourself that the ridicule is justified. It appears that Colson's statement is not so absurd after all.

You further make the clear implication that anyone who believes in a Rapture suffers from a "clinical psychological disorder." With all due respect, that is a very "intolerant" and very "offensive" statement, to use a couple of the watchwords of our times. I must say that this is a very prideful and arrogant point of view, much like what you claim to despise so much about fundamental Christianity.

Further, you claim that, "Revelation certainly has nothing to do with the Jesus of the gospels (which were written much earlier than the Armageddon script). Unless I have forgotten my scripture, the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to say about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse." Of course there was nothing about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in the Sermon on the Mount; that is a silly argument because that's a different conversation entirely. That's the same as saying, "well, I suppose my husband is not coming home tonight after work because he didn't say anything about it while we were talking about the new pair of pants I bought him this morning." Those subjects are totally unrelated, and so is the Sermon on the Mount and the Return of Christ. Actually, Revelation has everything to do with the Jesus of the gospels because Jesus, in fact, did say quite a bit about his return and the impending judgment. See Matthew 24:3-31, Mark 13:3-27, Luke 17:22-37. By your comments, you imply that you believe the gospels, but not Revelation. However, if you do not believe in the authority of the gospels, you should not use them as support for your argument. Again, that is self-contradictory.

You also claim that the gospels were written much earlier than Revelation. Matthew was written sometime between 50-70 A.D. Mark was written 50-70 A.D. as well. Luke was written around 60-61 A.D. John was written around 80-90 A.D. The Book of Revelation was written around 94-96 A.D. So, the time difference is at most 46 years apart, and at least, 4 years apart. In the scope of history, this is hardly regarded as "much earlier."

You conclude by saying, "The scientists' black hole certainly sounds less painful than hairy lion-toothed locusts." And that's the heart of your argument. This view sounds much more bearable than what is described in Revelation. Since you don't like what is described, it is much easier to ridicule it and dismiss it. My prayer for you is that you'll realize the truth of it before it is too late.

Posted by: Ambassador for Christ | March 21, 2007 10:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

i don' t understand nothing¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
but yes i believe in jesus and the armagedon

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Wonderfully said - you're terrific!

As for when everything ends: "The Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night."

Actually, I don't believe in the Lord but I like the saying.

And I expect that science will give humanity, if it's still around, plenty of warning.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 21, 2007 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Good post, Susan, but it was Emily Litella that said, "never mind..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella

Posted by: wiccan | March 21, 2007 9:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Our Constitution requires us to respect people's right to belief that the earth is flat; it does not require us to respect the belief itself."

Excellent!

Posted by: Tonio | March 21, 2007 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby --

May I ask what you mean by this statement?

"sane Christians who see Revelation as the work of human lunacy it is rather than as the word of God."

Are you implying that the only sane Christians are those who reject a book of Scripture? I realize that your Catholic upbringing made you despise Christianity, but this instance of your anti-theism goes way too far.

There is a difference between believing in the literal truth of Revelation (which the vast majority of Christians do not, by the way) and simply chucking a book out because atheists like yourself don't like it. It's funny that people who call themselves "freethinkers" would actually advocate such a move...

Posted by: Robert B. | March 21, 2007 9:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan, people love sensationalism! Look at Hoolywood! It sells. The fundalmentalists think only the bad people will suffer and they will be safe, but all will suffer.

Revelation is true, but in the venue that God intended, not literally. It is a overview of history with final triumph of God over all sin.

I don't expect you to believe it no matter how it's explained. You would then have to accept something or someone greater than yourself and ego wouldn't allow that! You are no different than the fundies you mock, and it reminds me of the verse about removing the beam from your own eye before removing the splinter from anothers.

Posted by: Bill L | March 20, 2007 10:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

Susan Jacoby

Posts By Category

Posts By Date

Who's Afraid of the End of the World?

Comments