Where else but at BioLogos? Matthew Blackston, a nuclear physicist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, knows—as a good physicist should—that the Earth is very old. But the Bible implies otherwise, and Blackston is a good Christian. What does he do? In a piece called “God’s use of time,” he observes that:
. . . since time exists, change and development are possible. The sciences have acquired the tools to “look back” in time and explore our universe’s rich history, so we know that the universe and the life in it do indeed evolve. Through these observations in the natural realm, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that God typically prefers to do His work gradually rather than instantaneously.
and
In the cosmos, in the evolution of life, in the redemption of the world, and in the redemption of individuals, God sees fit to use long timescales for accomplishing his purposes. Moreover, with the similarities between what we learn of God from nature and from scripture, Christians needn’t react defensively to what science tells us about the history of the cosmos. Instead, we can indulge in the opportunity to marvel at the ever continuing work of God the Gardener, both in His dynamic creation and His dynamic acts of redemption.
All well and good: the “days” of Genesis are clearly metaphorical. But the weird thing is that Blackston appears to see every other story in the Bible as literally true:
And like what we learn from the sciences about the evolution of the universe, He decided to take his time about it. God began his redeeming work with a promise to use Abraham’s family to be a blessing to the entire world (Gen. 12:1). This was a promise that was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus nearly two millennia later. Now if God had been in a hurry, he might simply have allowed Sarah to conceive by the Holy Spirit and bring forth Jesus directly. But instead, he decided to take the scenic route, working through Abraham’s seed, including Jacob, Moses, David, and others until the time was right for Jesus.
As time went on and God’s people developed into a nation, David rose to the throne and God made another promise — that of perpetual kingship to David’s line (2 Sam 7:13). This was another opportune time for Jesus to be born, take the throne, and fulfill the promise. But again we find God taking his time, allowing the kingdom to be divided and eventually conquered, and God’s people sent into a long exile, until the time was right for Jesus, nearly a millennium after David.
So that’s all real, as were the existence and sayings of Jesus. And so, apparently, were Adam and Eve (a story on which BioLogos refuses to take a position):
After humans made a mess of their intended role in the created order, God desired to restore it and put it right.
So much for cognitive dissonance. Blackston doesn’t give us the criterion for judging why the “days” of Genesis 1 and 2 are metaphorical but Moses, David, Abraham, and Sarah were real people. And although he asserts that “with the similarities between what we learn of God from nature and from scripture, Christians needn’t react defensively to what science tells us about the history of the cosmos,” he doesn’t talk about the lack of similarities, including the fact that dead people don’t come back to life after three days, and nature tells us that no human has ever been born of a virgin female. And since science tell us that Adam and Eve could not have existed, I’d love to know how Blackston thinks that humans “made a mess of their intended role in the created order.”
And so BioLogos increasingly resembles a certain Chicago restaurant, telling Christians in some articles that the Bible is largely a pretty story (note: not a textbook of science!) meant to impart “timeless truths,” and in other articles that the stuff in the Bible is pretty much true. In such a way they hope to keep Christians confused and off balance, hoping that somehow they’ll manage, swimming about this mess, that they’ll grab the life preserver of evolution.
As a nuclear physicist, Me. Blackston should be the perfect person to answer some questions of mine, such as, ‘How does Jesus interact with the world without violating conservation? What particle(s) carry the force of his power? If Jesus does, in fact, violate conservation, how can we act on this knowledge to construct a perpetual motion machine?”
Cheers,
b&
It is all down to the only true scientific advance yet made by theologians prior to scientists:
A new “fundamental” particle:
The Prayon.
It is a feeble vector boson, transmitting the infantile wishes of the woefully ignorant to nowhere.
Of course it has MASS, once a day, more on Easter and Chritmas. The size of the mass fluctates, but seems to be shrinking noticeably in the past decades.
It also has a CHARGE, or several charges: 2×10^23 charges of buggery, 13 colourful charges of crimes against humanity. Theologians have stopped looking for further charges.
Unlike the other ‘scientistic’ bosons It has a SPIN of a little more that 1.204 billion.
The Theologians who discovered it share the prestigious Templeton Prize, and are now being referred to as ‘those who understand how to Prayon’.
They employed the (until now) secret new prayer-accelerator of the LCP (Large Prayer Collider) under Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock, another Templeton-funded project.
Nicely done!
I have yet to mention the decay products of the Prayon, let alone it’s lifetime cross-products.
Dare I say that it doesn’t matter?
The Force that is created by Prayon interactions with brane-free Quacks is a research subject for another magnetic moment.
Yes, well done!
One should also mention the broken symmetry it participates in. If you are godblivious of biology, you can exchange as many Prayons you wish. However if you are an atheist, you don’t have a Prayon!
So, you are positing that atheism is a new “fundamental” degree of freedom, with its own intrinsic quantum field, the disturbance of which produces an atheon?
We desperately need to collaborate on an expensive research project, and waste as much of Templeton’s loot as possible.
I suggest that we commence by analysing the Beer Atom for bioactivity as a first step.
It’s for science as well as theology, you know. Someone has to do it.
And, in a curious twist of fate, Prayons have almost the exact same affect on cognition as prions….
Cheers,
b&
I’d like to think that prions were not on my mind at the time.
I dunno…you’re not that far from either Papua New Guinea or New Zealand…just how much do you know of your diet’s dietary habits?
Cheers,
b&
Funny you should mention that, as in the 1990s, the wife, (of a mate of mine in the small village in which I was living), succumbed to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
Her deterioration was alarmingly rapid.
About the only worse way I can think to go is Alzheimer’s, which does much the same thing but draws it out over years. I’m sure I’d want to check out before the worst of it, but how do you make that call?
I’ve still got at least a couple decades before even early onset Alzheimer’s is on the statistical radar, so I’m selfishly really, really, really hoping for a breakthrough long before then.
vCJD is scary, but it’s rare and not likely to spread much in the future. Alzheimer’s is already an epidemic, with no signs of slowing down short of that breakthrough.
b&
It finally dawned on me as to your multi-level ‘diet’ reference!
WRT: Nipponese Diet (parliament, the diet of Japan), the Nipponese occupation of Papua New Guinea, and their diet of cephalophagous cannibals.
How truly clever! 🙂
Congratters, old chap. I must be getting old…
(Shuffles out to waiting coffin)
Actually, I was just going for the people (you) eating sheep (New Zealand zombie vampire sheep) that eat people (Papua New Guinea natives) who eat people (their dearly departed) infected with kuru.
Of course, if you want to grant me credit for more cleverness than I deserve, far be it for me to dissuade you….
Cheers,
b&
I dunno…
Prayon…
hardon…
too similar.
“That tub-thumping god-botherer over there has a Prayon for me… ewww!”
Oh, stop thinking about sex.
You’re always on about it… morning, noon, and night. ‘Will the girls like this?’ ‘Will the girls like that?’ ‘Is it too big?’ ‘Is it too small?’
well, is it???
all the spam email I get tells me it isn’t.
Yes, your nose is too big.
So perhaps preachers have mad-vow disease…
Bada Bing!
I think that we have a winner!
I’ve just been reading you & Ben for too long…
I resemble that remark!
Ben, you are an amazingly insightful commentator here. That is all.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
Cheers,
b&
As both a fellow Christian and science teacher (high school, not the big leagues) I don’t have a problem with Dr. Blackston’s points. There are clearly some historically accurate writings in the Bible, and some that are allegorical. It’s not all-or-none. The “lack of similarities” mentioned above are where faith and proof diverge. Religious texts are meant for guidance on behavior, not instruction on facts, and I think that’s the argument Dr. Blackston is trying to make.
“There are clearly some historically accurate writings in the Bible”
most of them are not about the Jews, but about the other players: Nabuchodonosor, Cyrrhus, Alexandre, Cesar.
Spider-Man comics have contained stories about Barack Obama, the Saturday Night Live cast, 9/11, and other “historically accurate” people and events.
Ergo, future generations will be justified in believing that radioactive spider bites can confer super powers.
Well can you please enlighten us all as to which parts of the bible are historical fact and which ones are allegorical. Because christians have been using this argument way to long. And I think it’s time for them to step up to the plate and produce the answer to this question.
Well duh!
The bits which have been proven false by science, are clearly the allegorical bits. The bits which can be reconciled with modern science are clearly the literal bits.
I didn’t get the restaurant part. Which is the chicken and which are the waffles?
I think Coyne should answer the truly important questions,such as, is their food any good?
WRT Biologos, those are not mutually exclusive categories.
Mike ~ “God the Gardener” reminds me strongly of the fictional simpleton Chance the Gardener (Chauncey Gardiner), whose “simplistic, serious-sounding utterances, which mostly concern the garden, are interpreted as allegorical statements of deep wisdom and knowledge”
oops Tim ~ cross post
To be filmed as Not Being There?
Says who? I know a LOT of Christians who would completely and strongly disagree with you and, reacting to your ‘guidance’ remark, gladly point out that (for example) it’s the ten commandments, NOT the ten suggestions.
Yes, I agree. Who is to say what religious texts are “meant for?” Is there any consensus among theologians on this, or are these just the words of a religious scientist that knows trying to make scripture say anything meaningful about reality is just a mug’s game?
Take ANY two Christians and they won’t agree on all details. Nor would they think that what they didn’t agree upon were mere details.
Just the other day I overheard a water cooler debate amongst co-workers about which churches they went to, and why, and why the church the other guy went to was so bad … it became a VERY heated debate.
The way I see it (all around me) is, you just cherry pick the things you like, ignore the ones you dislike, reinterpret the things you cannot possibly leave out, all until you feel really warm, fuzzy and cozy about YOUR religion/faith and declare it as THE Christian (or whatever) faith. If you can’t find a church that gets close enough to your views: start your own church.
As for the cherry picking: fortunately the bible helps in that regard by offering COMPLETELY different stories of the same event (Genesis, the Jesus nativity stories and the resurrection story come to mind). Take your pick. It’s ALL there. A vengeful hateful God, a loving caring God, a Paul that says you shouldn’t marry, A Paul that says ONLY married people can become priests, you can’t think up a dichotomy or it’s in the bible.
“Take ANY two Christians and they won’t agree on all details.”
Indeed!
*looks at current number of xian sects*
…over 38,000 of them at this point.
strangely, there is still only ONE scientific method…
What’s the reference for the 38,000? I have seen some data noting 3,000 to 5,000. Thanks in advance.
To be fair, that happens in science (and atheism) too.
It is just that in science there is an agreed upon sets of methods (including the market of ideas) that sooner or later converges on either mutually agreed facts & theories or open questions for most.
As for atheism, the disagreements are more like herding cats. We are not yet supposed to be organized in the first place!
“To be fair, that happens in science (and atheism) too”
science actually has ONE way of elucidating what works and what doesn’t. It’s only when that one way isn’t directly applicable that arguments start, and that has nothing to do with science itself.
likewise, it doesn’t happen with “atheism” that you get arguemnts, you get arguments from atheists.
THAT is comparable to xianity indeed, as there is also no way to independently resolve how one even decides to define the word “atheism” to begin with.
so, to lump science with atheism is not at all accurate.
to lump atheism with any other socially defined term or group works better.
Which, unfortunately, does not stop any number of would-be herders from trying to grab attention/consensus/market share.
Mike, you presumably regard “Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman” as bad moral advice, and “blessed are the peacemakers” as good moral advice. By what principle do you differentiate between the two? Why not just use this principle directly, rather than using it to cherry-pick the Bible?
“Why not just use this principle directly?”
that’s actually a good phrasing of the relevant question.
People aren’t arguing that its impossible to believe that some of the Bible is historical, and some is allegorical. Obviously you can do this, as shown by the fact that you do.
They’re arguing that you guys are making up which is which as you go. They’re arguing that the Christian project is not intellectually honest.
Yes, it struck me as the accommodationist “reply”:
– _I_ can do this. (Hold beliefs conflicting with facts, change beliefs after the fact, make my beliefs take a spin in the play park.) So obviously it is a satisfying resolution of the conflict between science and religion.
And I don’t demean and prostitute my beliefs to any god! (Just my own cuddly Sky Daddy.)
Sigh! Just to be clear, that was a characterization of the reply, not of the commenter’s individual use and person which I don’t know anything about.
It shouldn’t be needed, but since we are in religious land of the religious and accommodationists all rational rules gets thrown out. (And I am fed up with the tip toeing. Can you tell?)
Yes, guidance on behavior. For example, the proper way to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7).
what’s more, when pressed, xians ALWAYS say that their final authority on morality comes from god.
but if god was the influence for that book, then shouldn’t the book be the final authority?
if god ISN’T the primary influence on the bible, then why are we bothering with it again?
and where is this god to sort this mess out, anyway?
So, what are these historical facts in the bible and how do we know they are true? Stories such as those of Caesar and Herod have been definitively disproven by historical records and even any mention of past kings such as Nebuchadnezzar don’t count – after all there really was a Baron Munchhausen, but a person will have to have serious mental problems to believe that the movie “Baron Munchhausen” portrays the real historical person in any way.
As for religious texts being as you put it, “meant for guidance on behavior, not instruction on facts”, why the schizophrenic advice? Don’t murder, murder people as I say, be nice, mistreat women, don’t covet your neighbor’s goods, kill the neighboring tribe rape the women and take all the tribe’s possessions. Surely the bible is no source of morals.
As for the historical veracity and validity of “the babble”, I have gotten the impression that historians think it is on the order of just that.
That is, if I took a tourist trip to the region, and made up stuff about my visit from what I learn while traveling, I could likely get about the same percentage historical v&v by coincidence.
Mike: There’s a real Troy as well…are we to then believe in the stories of Achilles, Ajax, Paris, et al? The Odyssey was written as a history, after all, of the Trojan Wars.
Wow, I make a small post, go away for the day, and come back to quite a misunderstanding of my intent. I suppose that’s what I get for not expressing myself clearly. First, some disclaimers: I’m Roman Catholic, was taught evolution (not “creation science”) by a nun in Catholic high school, am an admirer of the work of Dr. Coyne and Richard Dawkins et al, and take great pleasure in bursting the bubble of evolution-denier students (and their parents) in my high school science classes. I won’t attempt to list the examples of Biblical laws that are clearly anachronistic (selling daughters into slavery was a new one I hadn’t heard, thanks Matt G!). And I also won’t be so arrogant as to attempt to separate the historical from the allegorical, and to instruct others in what/how they should or should not believe/practice their faith. The thrust of my original post was that what I read in Dr. Blackston’s article was that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a prerequisite for Judeo-Christian faith, and that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. There are clearly areas that are the exclusive domain of one or the other, but (again) I won’t attempt to delineate that border. My opinion (and it’s an opinion, not a dogma) is that the purpose of any faith is to provide guidance in living a “good” life (and “good” is, of course, open to interpretation). I also readily acknowledge that following a specific faith is not a necessary prerequisite for living a “good” life. Ultimately, I believe it is each individual’s responsibility to determine what behaviors are acceptable and worthy of emulation, and to engage in those behaviors as often as possible. It is also the responsibility of scientists to continue to search for the laws that govern the the physical universe, and I am glad to consider myself part of the group that disseminates those discoveries and that method of critical thinking to my students.
Actually, they’re polar opposites — and by definition, too.
Science is the recursive intellectual process that builds models of the universe to explain and predict observed phenomena, and it assigns degrees of uncertainty associated with the relative fit of theory to observation.
Faith is the absolute uncritical acceptance of propositions in the face of no evidence or even contradicting evidence.
In science, you have nothing without evidence.
In religion, you have everything without evidence.
Now, certainly, there are plenty of people who are adept at the art of doublethink, but that does nothing to prove the compatibility of the competing and diametrically opposed worldviews.
As to which is superior? Even the religious know the answer, though they dare not admit it. For every scam relies on those two famous words, “trust me.” Yes, there are certainly times when trust is warranted; however, in all cases where trust is warranted, it also is not required. When trust is a requirement, you know you’re being scammed.
Cheers,
b&
Liked that so much I wanted to see it again.
Tanks! I might have to try to remember it, myself….
b&
To Ben Goren re science vs religion – Excellent!
I agree substantially with what you have said above but would only add that
science stands poles apart from all belief systems theistic or atheistic. The question then becomes which is the more coherent in the light of science.
“…ever continuing work of God the Gardener…”
Chauncy Gardener?
I like to watch…
“Being There” should be on everyone’s Movie Bucket List!
Enough Enough! What a dreamer; no, what a nightmare.
Even THAT is up for debate amongst physicists.
Just Google ‘time does not exist’ …
Ultimately time is a concept, and measure of time has always been based on observable natural phenomena (currently absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation by cesium – see articles on the NIST-F1 time and frequency standard). For example, people watched the sun or used a water clock or sand clock – these all provided measures of time. Over thousands of years most of the world has finally moved to a unified standard of civil time which in turn is now carefully regulated by very sophisticated electronic timekeeping tools.
It is enough for his purpose that we can measure it, and everyone agrees on that. (The existence of clocks.)
Other than that, yes, time is among the least understood phenomena.
While ironically at the same time among the best measured. So no gap for religionistas!
Speaking of measurements, the next revision of SI (2015 at the latest) will be eventful.
It looks like they will succeed in making the mass standard independent on an artifact (an actual mass prototype) any time soon.
Then they can reverse the previous order for good, and instead of making observations implicitly define the units having the units explicitly define how to interpret the observations:
“For example, the definition of the metre might be reformulated from the existing
“The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.”
8th edn. of the SI brochure (2006), Section 2.1.1.1
to a completely equivalent but “explicit-constant” form which might be
“The metre, symbol m, is the unit of length; its magnitude is set by fixing the numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum to be equal to exactly 299 792 458 when it is expressed in the SI unit m s–1.”
Draft Resolution A
to make clear that this definition fixes the numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum, c, expressed in metres per second.”
“In the cosmos, in the evolution of life, in the redemption of the world, and in the redemption of individuals, God sees fit to use long timescales for accomplishing his purposes.”
How does he know that “God sees fit” to do this? How COULD anyone know that? Religious virtues from scientific necessities, indeed.
Prof. Coyne, you should consider starting a list of such examples drawn from modern apologetics. No need to dig into the Biologos archives; they’ll pop up frequently enough that you could have dozens by the end of the year.
When I read that, my first thought was “what does the phrase ‘long timescale’ mean such that it could apply to “the cosmos,the evolution of life, and the redemption of individuals?” In terms of timescales, one of these three does not belong.
It does if you include the “afterlife.” :- )
I’ve always wondered why it took Him a full 6 days to create the world!
I mean, you’re omnipotent, or you aren’t.
6 days of hard labor that requires you to take a full 7th day off to rest means you’re NOT omnipotent!
So, I think it’s actually way more difficult to avoid the conclusion that God does not exist.
I just love the way these nutbags like Blackstone know the thoughts and intentions of his gawd. Making shit up is quite easy to do. It doesn’t take a physicist to do it, any fool can do it.
“Making shit up is quite easy to do.”
so is projecting what you make up onto non-existent entities.
Twould be interesting to know whether or not Blackston’s particular xtian group has written statements of membership covenants and beliefs.
If so, and they contain the usual beliefs in their god’s all powerfulness and all knowingness, then he needs to explain why any of his statements are either accurate or true; as a scientist that is.
Obviously he can’t. Ya gotta love the differences between “belief” and “science”.
And I have counted exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 687.
Blackston might find solace in Dance Dynamics
Is that sorta like getting out of the truck every now and then to bang on the side to keep half the canaries in the air so that you don’t exceed the legal weight limit?
I agree that the necessity for Adam and Eve’s existence is a pickle for Christians who see Jesus’ crucifixion as for removing original sin, and the problem over which are the ‘literal’ bits of the little books seems to stump them. However, there’s been a lot of posts about this in the past 2-3 weeks, are they all going somewhere? Are you, Jerry, if you don’t mind me using first names, waiting until you get an answer? Or are you driving the point home to readers who want a strong argument against Christians?
It’s a constant whinge from self-styled sophisticated Christians that atheists are all wrong because they haven’t read theology, know nothing about it and can’t answer its excellent arguments.
Well, here is an atheist who is reading theology and is laying bare the fact that theology’s best arguments are abysmally poor, full of logical fallacies, special pleading and baseless assertions.
If people want to believe that this stuff is their best explanation for why Christianity is true, that’s their call. But they should have kept this belief to themselves, because it is being exposed for what it is: wishful thinking using polysyllabic words.
I know 🙂
I’m just starting to feel the point’s been made and getting a little bored. But that’s my fault.
don’t tell it to Jerry, tell it to all the wankers who daily present the world with “Pascal’s wager” for the Twelveteeth time.
Those theists who actually take the time to study theology in detail, are very likely to discard their ignorant notions about a sky-daddy as infantile self-serving nonsense.
(Even if they still pretend to believe.)
It has been said, and warrants repeating, that if one leaves seminary still believing in a gods, then one has not been paying attention!
I doubt those who didn’t pick it up in seminary will do here, but in trying to spread this knowledge and these criticisms to a wider audience, of course I admire that.
I think the “certain restaurant” the Bible most resembles is Alice’s. You can find whatever you want there.
You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant
Excepting Alice
You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant
Walk right in it’s around the back
Just a half a mile from the railroad track
You can get anything you want, at Alice’s Restaurant
Exceptin’ Alice….
Boy, you all must be old…
Of course, since I get the reference as well, I also am aged.
It makes me sad that an intelligent human being can honestly believe such childish rubbish. No, let’s not underestimate children. I saw through the nonsense when I was ten, and I still feel ashamed when I remember that I sometimes prayed before that. I should have known better. A nuclear physicist should know better.
I was a confirmed atheist at 8, but to be fair, I was raised Unitarian Universalist and never had anything shoved down my throat (thank god…).
“But instead, he decided to take the scenic route, working through Abraham’s seed, including Jacob, Moses, David, and others until the time was right for Jesus.”
Oh that’s priceless — myths and metaphors begetting myths and metaphors.
I don’t know about you but I think the use of the wood ‘seed’ is incredibly arrogant, sexist & old-fashioned. It implies the homunculus Matthew has written about, lies ready in the male sperm – sorry ‘seed’. Absurd!
As a “vessel,” I certainly agree.
“…marvel at the ever continuing work of God the Gardener, both in His dynamic creation and His dynamic acts of redemption”, like his dynamic creation of the guinea worm. I don’t think god’s character is what Blackston thinks it is.
Don’t forget the brain eating ameoba (ok, protist)!
obviously that one was god’s failed attempt at creating a truly empty-headed supplicant.
I mean… imagine the scenario…
*uses wayback machine*
*watches as god tells John the Baptist to immerse people in water to “wash away their sins”*
John: “Why do you want me to take people into the river again lord?”
Lord: “I have something… special… that I put into the waters to help… clarify things for my followers.”
*first baptism results in protist infection*
Lord: “See? an empty mind ready to be filled with my love.”
John: *waves hand in front of baptee’s face* “Uh, Lord, there appears to be no response at all.”
*Baptee falls over, dead, after a massive convulsion*
Lord: “Hmm, might have to re-evaluate this.”
John: “quite. Er… what do I do in the meantime?”
Lord: “Oh, don’t worry about it, I’m sure the critter won’t cause problems for anyone else…”
Christians needn’t react defensively to what science tells us about the history of the cosmos
Whenever Christians attempt reconciliation of the Bible with scientific facts, it’s invariably entertaining to read how Muslims reconcile the Qur’an with the same facts. Here is a creative interpretation of Qur’anic Arabic that shows how the Qur’an got correct the 3:1 age of the universe to the age of the earth. Muslims, whose faith is based on the existence of one god, and who have no need of the fable of a sinful fall and sacrificial redemption by a blasphemous son-of-god, appear to have greater flexibility with metaphorical interpretations of God’s final message to humanity.
<i
It is a bit dated, the best consensus data for the age of the observable universe is now something like 13.75 Ga, or 13.8 Ga for short.
And it wasn’t even making shit up, it was wishful thinking taken to the extreme.
I’m personally fond of stating the time since the Big Bang as “a dozen billion years.” Unless you’re an astrophysicist, it’s plenty accurate enough and isn’t likely to get you drawn into an argument over a few hundred million years one way or the other.
Cheers,
b&
As time went on and God’s people developed into a nation, David rose to the throne and God made another promise — that of perpetual kingship to David’s line (2 Sam 7:13)
We know from contemporary arachaological findings that this is nonsense: “Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs’ acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel.”
I’d add Hector Avalos to Dever and others that were evangelical xians that realized through intensely studying the archeological record that most of the bible’s “historical record” was entirely fictional.
so, for those that prefer to watch it in video…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514
Perhaps, if you will remember, that boundry lines of countries were much different during that time period. In Israel, power fluctuated and fell to other countries, Israel was always heavily conflicted, and parts of its land came under control of its aggressors. Not all evidence is in the holy land, and it is likely cities of David were destroyed by another kings armies.
Blackie, 12, said:
Isn’t it cute when the little ones try to make sense of the Bible? Blackie will hopefully be less confused when he gets to high school and when he’s an adult he will put away these childish things.
Let me get this straight, this almighty, omnipotent being could have brought jesus into the world immediately it saw that things were going awry but decided to let things slide for a thousand years or more before it finally did so. Why?
YHWH was busy.
It takes time to perfect Loa Loa Filariasis!
My, my,my…what a little trickster this god guy is! First he let’s us think the moon, sun & stars go round the earth, like for thousands of millennia, and then we smarties find out that god was just funnin’ with us. And that thunder and lightening thing, too. What a card.
Then tho’ we know that us human beans wuz created just as we are in his image, we find out that he’s been salting the earth with fossils to make us think that that evolution bunk was true. I’m bustin’ at the gut just thinkin’ how dumb those evo-lutionists really are.
And all those big-bangers. They don’t see that the big guy, he just messin’ with that time stuff. He stuck some real stuff in the babble & he stuck some stuff to throw off the un-believers. I love this guy! He’s da boss!
Don’t forget that he madez up atoms for the 4 elements, so we would be confused exactly how cake is “transdressed” into the body & soul of the-big-guy-dressed-up-as-the-small-guy. Why, it is like chemistry is totally wasted on “breath of life” and “holy spirit”.
Da boss is sure funny.
You would think that all those folks that are so sure that the boss is real could at least have a chuckle or two about his fun and games. But no, they get all stiff backed and serious like when somebody asks for some (any) proof that the big guy even exists. Shouldn’t that humor streak have rubbed off if they were created in his image? Just wonderin’.
I have to wonder if Dr. Blackston has actually read Genesis.
Look, it doesn’t matter how long God’s timescales were or how metaphorical his days are; there’s just no way to reconcile the order of what happens in Genesis with what we know about reality. I mean, God apparently made the Earth first, and only then made the sun – which, incidentally, was made after there were already plants on the earth!
The only way to get around that is to assume that the ordering of the events in Genesis is metaphorical too.
Basically, you have to throw out everything in the story except for “the earth exists, plants exist, animals exist and humans exist” in order for it to make any sort of real sense.
How could something cobbled together three thousand years ago by an ignorant priest sitting in a dusty temple in some goat-infested town in the Middle East tell us anything about the origin of the earth, life and the universe?
The sheer idea that it could, even as a metaphor, is of such stupidity that it is mind-boggling.
And theists who will claim that the priest was inspired by God have to explain why Genesis is so hopelessly wrong at every level, both real and metaphorical. If it had been inspired by God, wouldn’t at least the basic facts be right?
You assume that is was inspired by a non-trickster God.
If God wanted to ensure that the priest got it all wrong he wouldn’t have needed to inspire him at all. The result would have been what we now have 🙂
Actually, you can’t reconcile the order of what happens in Genesis with the order of what happens in Genesis.
Genesis contains two conflicting stories:
“Until the latter half of the 19th century, Genesis 1 and 2 were seen as one continuous, uniform story with Genesis 1:1–2:6 outlining the world’s origin, and 2:7–2:25 carefully painting a more detailed picture of the creation of humanity.
Modern scholarship, citing (1) the use of two different names for God, (2) two different emphases (physical vs. moral issues), and (3) a different order of creation (plants before humans vs. plants after humans), believes that these are two distinct scriptures written many years apart by two different sources, chapter 1 by the Priestly source and chapter 2 by the Jahwist, with the bridge the work of a “redactor”, or editor.” [My bold; refs deleted.]
But modern scholarship is too modern or too scholarly for our nuclear physicist.
there’s just no way to reconcile the order of what happens in Genesis with what we know about reality.
Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) has suggested that the key to reconciling the Genesis account with science is frame of reference. The account is as seen by an observer on the earth surface. So….while univserse/stars/sun created early on (day 1 – Hebrew word for day ‘yom’ easily translated as ‘extended period of time’ ie not 24 hours) the early earth atmosphere doesn’t become transparent until day 3 for an earth-borne observer to see the heavenly bodies.
Priceless post Jerry. Even though I’ve been a happy atheist for a long time; through my contact with fiercely secular groups such as yours, I’m aware of an extra lightness about myself – as if some shred of the old Santa-God is still lifting. Beginning with Russell’s ‘Why I am Not a Christian’ in my extreme youth, then through the existentialists, and onto science and philosophy, I’m amazed at how my educated friends still partake in the cultural myths, as truth. I’m just so grateful that I don’t.
Of course, this is a continuation of the theist meme that the reason god is hidden is because he’s busy “gardening”.
Presumably on other worlds. Maybe there are an infinite number of Jesus’s and they’re infinitely busy getting themselves whacked on infinite numbers of planets by the infinite Jews as this very moment!
Feh.
Evidence required, I’m afraid.
What part of “disproving the null hypothesis” has this ‘scientist’ not understood? I’ll bet he reviews papers for scientific journals. What part of his hypothesis would stand up to critical scrutiny?
First, start with the assumption that there is no god and that everything you see around us is all-natural and the product of an all-natural inception. If you find something — anything — in nature that is inconsistent with the null hypothesis, then we can start talking about how to go about exploring what precisely might be the nature of that not-natural thing/event. But to start with an a priori assumption that there is a not-natural within the context of this all-natural place we live in smacks me of childishness, along with wishful and frankly not-too-deep thinking.
If god the gardener was omniscient he/she/it would know the trouble his faithists down on the tiny blue dot were having rationalizing the oh ohs in his/her/its bible and would swing by to give them a hand; if h/s/i were omnipotent, h/s/i would take care of things once and for all, so there wouldn’t be any questions for them to rationalize about; and if h/s/i were omnipresent, h/s/i wouldn’t be out gardening in some other part of the universe and let all those nasty non-theist weeds grow in the garden h/s/i set up. Maybe god isn’t a gardener, rather a baseball player, and as you see h/s/i just went 0 for 3. It’s three strikes and you’re out.
Actually, in the case of gods, the preferred formulation is, “s/h/it.”
Cheers,
b&
Often spelled s/h/ite in the UK.
Chicken and Waffles – LOL
After my husband lost his teaching job at a Christian school due to squabbles over evolution, I threw the expected hissy fits. But I also figured out how to maybe make sense of the creation story in Genesis. My account “An Apple Tree, or Mango,” about our long-ago imbroglio, can be found at shirleykurtz.com (click on Essays).
SK – LMHS perhaps? Don’t think that you mentioned which school. 🙂
Douglas–no. At KMS, Mt. Joy PA.
But I also figured out how to maybe make sense of the creation story in Genesis.
which one?
there are two contradictory accounts.
Ichthyic–how right you are!
that doesn’t answer my question, shirley.
genesis contains TWO accounts of creation, with different orders of creation.
neither one of which actually agree with what we have learned scientifically, btw.
your husband’s mistake was getting a job with a religious school to begin with. A school that would not value what we have actually learned about our world, but what their interpretation of a collection of stories from a bunch of freaking goatherders thousands of years ago.
I’m sorry your husband was ousted; if it was a public school, you could have easily sued to get his job back, or just for damages.
but if it was a private school…
Ichthyic, in my initial comment I should have referred to the Adam-and-Eve story rather than the creation story (okay, stories). Before you get any more bent out of shape, read “An Apple Tree, or Mango.” It deals with that fruit Eve picked.
Dear Ben and Michael,
Though i do find your comments witty and insightful, might I remind you that we all have are own beliefs and customs, and that is what makes us who we are. We should have no discrimination of Catholic, Jew, Buddhist, Unitarian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Wiccan, Satanist, and / or any religion or belief. Might I also remind you that you all are basing your assumptions off of a literal belief of the Bible. To Catholic Church and its Pope, time is different to God and is not interpreted the way we, as humans, use our sun and stars to set up calendar months and years. Also, the miracles described in the Bible were most likely not of magic or a greater power; the Catholic Church also believes God wouldn’t intervene with laws of science. We are talking about what was written down Decades to milenna later after these miracles occurred, and let us not forget that before they were even written down, they were passed down orally and could have been exaggerated by the people who spoke of these miracles. Remember that everything seemed different and bigger to the people of BC and early AD, and everything was a lot more metaphoric and/or understood and/or put into words that the people of that time could fathom. Put yourselves in that time, and do a little research. Your Prayon joke I did not get because I am a young teen and a Catholic. See things through other peoples eyes! I get why you’re confused. Sometimes I even get confused about my own faith and other people’s. That is why I look to science and through the people of that time’s eyes. Science doesn’t entirely discourage any person’s faith.
And for everybody’s information, at my Catholic private school, I was taught and knew about the theory of evolution. It is not discouraged in the church, only discouraged by the literal Bible believers.