tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63886266025864111802024-03-14T02:40:39.521-07:00On Creationism... and why it is just nonsenseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger235125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-86004248840580694572024-03-14T02:39:00.000-07:002024-03-14T02:39:38.727-07:00Why Was Jesus Crucified (Theology)I am not a theist, so none of these make a lot of sense to me, but I wanted to go through them so I have some familiarity. As far as I am concerned, Jesus was crucified because he was hailed as the king of the Jews, and as such was a threat to Roman law.<div><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Penal Substitution</h4><div>I guess this is easiest to understand. You are a horrible sinner who deserves to suffer in hell for eternity, but Jesus takes you punishment on your behalf.</div><div><br /></div><div>Apparently Jesus on the cross for a few hours is the equivalent of billions of people suffering for eternity. And it is okay to punish one person for what another person did. In fairness, even some Christians have realised this makes no sense, and hence the other theories.</div><div><br /></div><div>The idea is that God is perfectly just, and he cannot simply forgive your sins without justice being satisfied. Jesus' death gives God a loophole to show mercy... as long as you love and worship him of course.</div><div><br /></div><div>Exodus 32 has the Israelites build a golden calf, making God angry, and Moses offers himself as a penal substitute for his tribe. Perhaps that is where God got the idea...</div><div><br /></div><div>The idea can also be extracted from Isaiah 53 with some imagination. This is part of the "suffering servent" passage, which is about Israel, and Israel being punished for what Israel did. If, however, you pretend Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, you can see it as saying Jesus suffered for the sins of the people.</div><div><br /></div><div><h4>Governmental</h4><div>This is similar to Penal Substitutiont, but sees the crucifixion as more a demonstration of God's wrath, rather than making up for the deficiency. As such, it acknowledges Jesus death is slight compared to the suffering of billions for eternity,</div><div><br /></div></div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Ransom</h4><div>The ransom theory says Jesus was a ransom paid to Satan, clearing a debt owed Satan for inherited sin.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is not so popular nowadays, and with good reason. Why pay a debt to Satan? God is all powerful, and supposedly already cursed Satan, so why the need to a pay a debt to him?</div><div><br /></div><div>In one version Adam and Eve sold their souls to Satan, and so were destined to be enslaved to Satan at the general resurrection. This is what is being paid off. God negotiated with Satan, saying Satan could have Jesus instead, but God cheated because Jesus cannot die.</div><div><br /></div><div>Nothing in the Bible supports that view, and it does make God and Satan out to be somewhat equivalent in power, and God to be less than honest.</div><div><br /></div><div>This was abandoned by the Catholic church after Cur Deus Homo was published (ca. AD 1097), but is similar to what happened with Aslan in CS Lewis' <i>Chronicles of Narnia</i>, making me wonder if he held to this?</div><div><br /></div><div><h4>Satisfaction</h4><div>While humanity fails to satisfy God's requirements, Jesus goes above and beyond that, and so, on balance, God is happy.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is more about the honour God is given. If we sin we fail to give him the honour he should get; Jesus makes up the balance. It is a development of Ransom Atonement that eliminates Satan, on the very reasonable basis that God should not owe or pay Satan anything.</div><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Christus Victor</h4><div>In this view, Jesus was victorious in liberating humanity from sin. It is in effect similar to paying a ransom, but quite different in its theology.</div><div><br /></div><div>The big problem is that people sin today as much as they ever did. If this was true we would expect people across the world to stop being bad people at the moment Jesus died (or was resurrected?).</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Recapitulation</h4><div>This seems a less popular view. It says Jesus was a "do over" for Adam.</div><div><br /></div><div>It predates the trinity, and does not fit with Jesus being God.</div><div><br /></div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Moral Influence</h4><div>This (and the related Moral example) sees the crucifixion as changing man's <i>perception </i>of God. This avoids Satan altogether and many other theological issues, and is apparently popular with liberal Protestants.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-21083638012913077582024-03-10T10:07:00.000-07:002024-03-13T07:53:02.792-07:00Conflicts between Apostles<h4 style="text-align: left;">Galilee vs Jerusalem</h4><p>There is a tension in the gospels which seems to be between the disciples who went back to Galilee after Jesus died and those who stayed in Jerusalem - or by their respective followers.</p><p>To understand this, you first have to accept that the empty tomb was made up later. What actually happened is the disciples fled Jerusalem when Jesus was arrested, and at some point weeks later Peter saw what he understood to be the risen Jesus in Galilee. I have other posts arguing for that, so I will take it as given here.</p><p>What this means is that the Jerusalem sighting were all made up later. Why? Part of that may have been internal politics.</p><p>This is evidenced in Luke, who dedicates 23 verses to the sighting of Jesus to two unnamed disciples near Jerusalem, on the Road to Emmaus. It is clear Luke does not think this was the first sighting; he acknowledges a previous sighting by Peter:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Luke 24:33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! T<b>he Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.</b>” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.</p><p></p></blockquote><p>But this first sighting to a named disciple, and indeed the disciple Jesus nominated as his successor, gets only an off-hand comment in passing, and it is implied that no one believed him. Why is that? Because Luke was written by followers of those who stayed in Jerusalem, and not followers of Peter and those who had returned to Galilee.</p><p>A bit later we read:</p><blockquote><p>Luke 24:48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”</p></blockquote><p>This is Luke having a dig at the disciples who left Jerusalem and went to Galilee.</p><p>It is just possible the ending of Mark was truncated because it had the appearance of Jesus to Peter in Galilee, and that was not acceptable to the Jerusalem group, but that is just speculation. Was the Gospel of Peter also edited for that reason? Okay, more likely that was just a page lost; we do have just the one manuscript.</p><p>A little more likely is that after a while the tensions subsided, and at that point the appearance to Peter became acceptable to the community, and so got tacked on the end of John. Thus we have this extra chapter at the end which gives us our best indication of what was actually seen.</p><p>Note that this is different to the conflict between Paul and the disciples.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Paul vs the Disciples</h4><p>Many say that Paul promoted modern Christianity, and the above debate was between Paul's correct view of the bodily resurrection and the trinity in opposition to the Jewish Christians who got it wrong.</p><p>The reality is that Paul, in common with the disciples, believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, a man appointed by God.</p><p>The debate between Paul and the disciples revolved around observation of Jewish law, and especially circumcision. Judaism held a big appeal to Romans; it was an ancient religion, and they loved that sort f thing. But circumcision was just a step to far. Christianity offer Judaism Lite. All that mystical history, but you keep your foreskin! Or at least, that was Paul's view.</p><p>The disciples, and especially James, took a more Jewish view. Jesus observed the law, so naturally his followers should too.</p><p>Of course, a struggle to be top-dog may have been no small part of it!</p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-2134056686849656412024-03-07T00:30:00.000-08:002024-03-08T11:04:25.149-08:00Sy Garte<p>Sy Garte is a scientist, but more importantly in this post is that he was an atheist who became a Christian. What motivated him to do that? What evidence did he find so convincing?</p><p>He discusses in an interview that can be found here:</p><p><a href="https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/the-side-b-stories-sy-garte/">https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/the-side-b-stories-sy-garte/</a></p><p><br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>Well, yeah. I mean it started with quantum physics, which I had to learn as a chemistry major. I started as a chemistry major in college. And we learned all these things, but we learned them as, “This is how things work. This is what it is. There’s something called the Uncertainty Principle, which means you can never know the position and the momentum of an electron at the same time.” And I remember thinking, “You can never know? How is that possible?” But I put it out of my mind.</p><p></p></blockquote><p>I also did chemistry at university, and therefore also had to learn about quantum mechanics (QM). Garte asks "<i>How is that possible?</i>" It is possible because that is the nature of the universe. It is no different in that respect to the electromagnetic force. How can it possibly be that negative charges are attracted to positive, but repulsed by other negative charges? That is how the universe is.</p><p>Asking why it should be like that is a good question, and we do not know and perhaps never will. But Garte seems to think there is some mystery here on another level.</p><blockquote><p>But as I grew older and I began reading and I wasn’t just studying this stuff, I began realizing that there’s an awful lot in modern physics that doesn’t fit with determinism or materialism. Almost all of quantum mechanics, which is undeniably true, is not something that makes any sense in terms of our normal, logical, human way of thinking. It just doesn’t. And nobody says that it does. But what we know is that it’s true. It’s why we’re talking to each other. I mean, it’s the basis of modern technology, so it has to be true. And I didn’t get that. And I started wondering about that. And I’m not a physicist, so I couldn’t go into any detail about it, but it just seemed strange to me.</p></blockquote><p>This is where it gets bizarre. The whole point about learning QM as part of a university chemistry course is so you understand how things happening at the quantum scale, where it is all random and uncertain, determine what happens at the macroscopic scale (our scale; the scale we perceive things at), where it is deterministic.</p><p>Arguably the most important law in chemistry is the second law of thermodynamics, which basically say entropy always increases (or stays the same). It is universal; it applies to any system that is changing, whether that is a light bulb shining, your stomach digesting food, a rock falling, whatever - at the macroscopic scale, anyway. It is the ultimate deterministic law, because it say the system has to go in the direction of more entropy, never the direction of less entropy.</p><p>At the quantum scale, however, it is very different. At the quantum scale it is random; there is no second law. Entropy can go down almost as often as it goes up. But here is the point that Garte seems to have missed. It is that randomness at the quantum scale that leads inevitably to the certainty, the determinism at the macroscopic scale.</p><p>When he says "<i>there’s an awful lot in modern physics that doesn’t fit with determinism or materialism</i>" he is absolutely wrong. Far from being at odds with it, determinism is a <i>consequence </i>of QM.</p><p>Skipping ahead, he talks about learning about biochemistry. </p><blockquote><p>And I was a full atheist, but again, I got chills up and down my spine when I learned this material. I looked around at my classmates, and they were just writing everything down, like I was, but somewhere were in my mind, I was saying, “How did this happen? There’s no way this could have happened by spontaneous, random chance.” I never thought, “This is design. This is God.”</p></blockquote><p>So his belief is founded on ignorance. He could not imagine how it could come about by nature, so he assumes it must be God.</p><blockquote><p>And during that time, I became more open to the possibility of God, and I think that openness allowed me to finally be susceptible to the effects of the Holy Spirit, and that’s when I began to have some dreams and some other experiences, which I now know were the direct action of the Holy Spirit in my life.</p></blockquote><p>So in the end his Christianity (as opposed to belief in an unspecified god) was because of some <i>dreams</i>? He believes Jesus was resurrected because of his dreams? Personally, I have a lot of dreams, and I strongly believe none of them are true.</p><p>He discusses a ciuple.</p><p></p><blockquote>And the first dream happened while I was agnostic, just barely agnostic. It was quite a while ago. And I had no idea what to make of it. I thought it was just a crazy thing. And this was the dream where I was … It was a nightmare where I was holding on by my hands at the edge of a cliff, and I’m afraid of heights, so that was a very terrifying dream, and I didn’t know what to do. And then I heard a voice say, “What’s wrong? Just let go,” or maybe just, “Just let go,” and I thought that was crazy. “If I let go, I’ll fall down,” and I said, “No, I can’t let go.” And the voice was insistent. It kept say, “Just let go.” And so eventually, I didn’t know what else to do. I was losing my grip, anyway, so I let go, and as soon as I let go, the world turned 90 degrees, so instead of hanging off the cliff, I was lying on the ground, with my hands clutching a boulder on the ground, and I was perfectly fine. And there was a man there. And then I woke up. And I had no idea what that was all about. And the man who was there had the voice that I heard. And he was standing not far from me, and I didn’t put it out of my mind, but I had no idea what it was all about. And for a long time I didn’t know what it meant to say, “Just let go.” Let go of what? And obviously something was holding me back, and that was later that was realized that that was the first time the Holy Spirit came to me directly and told me what to do.</blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p>And it turned out that letting go was exactly what I had to do, of all the garbage that had entered my mind from childhood on, that was blocking me from making any progress towards understanding reality and truth. And when I let go of that, and that doesn’t mean I let go of science. It doesn’t mean I let go of rationality or anything related to intellectual honesty. It meant I let go of all the mythology that I had learned about, the impossibility of God, the evil of religion, all of that garbage I had to let go of. And eventually I did. It took time, but eventually I did.</p></blockquote><p>Here is another dream.</p><blockquote><p>And that was the one… Where I’m by myself outside of a walled garden, and I know there’s a garden inside. I’m not sure how I know that, but it’s surrounded by this very steep wall which you can’t see over, and I’m circling around it, trying to find the way to climb up, and I can’t climb up, because every time I try, I fall down again. There’s no good handholds or footholds, so I’m getting very frustrated. I’m walking around, and all of a sudden, there’s a man standing there, and he says, “What’s the matter with you? What are you trying to do?” And I said, “I’m trying to get into the garden! There’s a garden there, and I can’t get over the wall.” And he said to me, “Open the door. It’s right there.” So I did. There was a door, I opened it, and I walked in. And by then I knew that that meant something. I knew who the man was, and I knew what the garden was, and at that point, I decided, more or less. I don’t know exactly when, but at that point, I decided it was time to open the book.</p></blockquote><p>Even his dreams say nothing about Jesus coming back from the dead, and yet he is convinced that happened!</p><p>On another site he says:</p><blockquote><p>I believe in the resurrection of Christ because I believe in God, and in Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God on earth, ....</p></blockquote><p>I guess belief in Christianity came first, and from that came belief in the resurrection. But then, why Christianity?</p><p>Seems he converted to Christianity on the basis of:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Misunderstanding the relationship of QM to the world we perceive</li><li>Inability to imagine how biochemistry could evolve</li><li>His dreams</li></ul><p></p><p>Me, I find that rather insubstantial, but I suppose if it is enough for him...</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-86779582947215601152024-02-21T04:59:00.000-08:002024-02-21T04:59:35.704-08:00 Günter Bechly<p>Günter Bechly is a creationist, but he is unusual in having some real science credentials. It could be argued that that means he knows what realise science is and should know better, but religion somehow blinds people to the faults in their own arguments.</p><p>Like all creationists he prefers to use podcasts and videos to promote his nonsense, but here is one paper that got offered to my by a guy on a forum as though it makes a good argument.</p><p><a href="https://www.discovery.org/a/new-fossil-human-species-thwarts-core-darwinian-predictions/">New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions</a></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Science is Tentative</h4><p>The first paragraph is about how human evolutionary history is being re-written as new evidence comes to light. Bechly seems to think this somehow invalidates evolution. It does not. This is how science is done. Right from the start he shows us he prefers the certainty of never-changing dogma to the tentative and changeable world of science.</p><blockquote><p>"I can hardly resist the temptation to say “I told you so,” or to jokingly remark, “Oops, they did it again.” "</p></blockquote><p>I can predict that human evolutionary history will be re-written again. And again and again. That does not make me a prophet or an anti-Darwinism. It just means I understand how science works. I guess Bechly does not.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Apples and Oranges</h4><p></p><blockquote>"They also do not fall into a temporal cline from older primitive to younger derived forms. Some early australopithecines not only exhibit the expected ape-like features but also some very modern human characters, while some late representatives of Homo (e.g., Homo naledi) still have very primitive characters. Thus fossil humans do not form a transitional series like the famous horse series. They are a frustrating mess for evolutionists, and the new species from Luzon makes the situation even worse."</blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><p>Bechly compares the horse series, of which Wiki says: "<i>The evolution of the horse, a mammal of the family Equidae, occurred over a geologic time scale of 50 million years, transforming the small, dog-sized, forest-dwelling Eohippus into the modern horse</i>." In contrast, the evolution of man is over a much shorter timeframe, just 2 million years. A fairer comparison would be human evolution from the basal primate that exists about 66 million years ago. Over that timeframe, we do indeed have a pretty good evolutionary history.</p><p>Conversely, we could look at the evolution of horses in the last 2 million years. How well defined is that? Zebras diverged from horses 4 million years ago. How well is horse evolution after that point established?</p><p>The problem here is that the shorter the time period, the more the noise becomes a problem (in part because breeding between lineages is still possible).</p><p>And the question here is: <i>Does Bechly not realise that? Or does he just ignore it?</i></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Creationism Predicts...</h4><p>So where is Bechly's explanation? How does this fossil fit his hypothesis? He does not say. The title of the article is "<i>New Fossil Human Species Thwarts Core Darwinian Predictions</i>". How do the creationist predictions fit? He does not say. Why not?</p><p>Because this is pseudo-science.</p><p>Like all creationists, his strategy is to rubbish "Darwinism", and imagine his creationism will win by default. Science does not work like that. He has a Ph.D. in science; he should know this. Real science makes predictions.</p><p>Evolution is real science; it makes predictions as Bechly tacitly concedes in the title of the article. Creationism, not so much.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-35260615282172590352024-02-01T03:55:00.000-08:002024-02-01T03:55:17.984-08:00JP Moreland's Modal Argument for Substance Dualism<p>This is an argument presented by JP Moreland here (he credits Alexander
Pruss):</p><p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371750736_The_Modal_Argument_and_a_Rejoinder_to_Contingent_Physicalism">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371750736_The_Modal_Argument_and_a_Rejoinder_to_Contingent_Physicalism</a></p><p><br /></p><p>From the paper, the argument is:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>(1) The Indiscernibility of Identicals & (x=y)→•(x=y).</p><p>(2) POs are essentially, wholly, and intrinsically physical and SSs are
essentially, wholly, and intrinsically immaterial. </p><p>(3) Possibly, I exist, and no POs exist. </p><p>(4) My physical body is a PO.</p><p>(5) Therefore, possibly, I exist without my physical body existing.</p><p>(6) Therefore, it is not the case that I am essentially, wholly, and intrinsically
my body or any PO.</p><p>(7) I am essentially, wholly, and intrinsically either a PO or SS.</p><p>(8) Therefore, I am essentially, wholly, and intrinsically a SS.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>PO stands for "physical object" while "SS stands for spiritual substance".</p><p><br /></p><p>Elsewhere he gives a more simplistic summary:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>I am possibly disembodied (I could survive without my brain or body).</p><p>My brain or body are not possibly disembodied (they could not survive without being physical).</p><p>Therefore, I am not my brain or body, I am a soul.</p><p></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Going through the formal argument step by step...</p><p>(1) The first step is invoking the law of "Indiscernibility of Identicals", which is discussed fully <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/">here</a>, but in essence says that if two things are identical, they have the same properties and so cannot be discerned. It is pretty obvious, but philosopher like to build on trivial truths like this.</p><p>(2) Physical objects are physical, spiritual substances are not. Again, trivial.</p><p>(3) This is saying it is possible the physical world does not exist; that there are no physical objects - including my body - and yet I know that I do (I think therefore I am).</p><p>(4) Obviously my physical body is a physical object.</p><p>(5) Given (3) and (4) it is at least possible I exist or could exist without a body.</p><p>(6) Given (5), it must be the case that I am not the same as my physical body.</p><p>(7) I (the essence that is me) must be either physical or not.</p><p>(8) Given (6) and (7), I (the essence that is me) must not be physical.</p><p><br /></p><p>Where this argument fails, in my view, is between steps (5) and (6). If (5) is <i>possibly </i>true, then he is tacitly admitting it is possibly <i>not </i>true (otherwise he is assuming what he is concluding - a circular argument).</p><p>5a. It is possible I could <i>not </i>exist without my body,</p><p>6a. Therefore it is possible that what I am is essentially my body</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-31676277656341865742024-01-16T05:32:00.000-08:002024-01-16T05:32:46.004-08:00Does Objective Morality Necessarily Imply A God?<p>An important step in the Argument from Morality is that objective morality necessarily implies God. That is to say, it assumes that if there is an objective morality, then there must be a god. Is that a reasonable assumption?</p><p>This is related to a couple of other post:</p><p><a href="https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2022/08/mere-christianity.html">Mere Christianity</a></p><p><a href="https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-argument-from-morality.html">The Argument From Morality</a></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">What is objective morality?</h4><p>The first problem is deciding exactly what objective morality is. <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-objective-morality-5525515">Here</a> is one definition that I think works well.</p><blockquote><p>Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion. It's the concept that some actions and beliefs are imperatively good or inherently bad, and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in.</p></blockquote><p>Is this what Lewis, for example, was thinking about in Mere Christianity? I am note sure, but I think this is a good starting point.</p><p>Using this definition, we can say that murder is wrong not because our culture insists it is, but wrong at a more fundamental level; it is intrinsically wrong, it is wrong by its very nature. Further, we could say that murder was wrong before mankind even existed, before there was a person to commit the murder and a person to be murdered.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Does an objective morality require God?</h4><p>I guess it will come as no surprise that I think it does not!</p><p>Objective morality could be an abstract concept like mathematics.</p><p>The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is about 3.14159265359. That is not something mankind invented, it is something we discovered. And it was 3.14159265359 before there were any actual circles. This is a mathematic truth that exists in the abstract and always has.</p><p>Did God decide the ratio would be 3.14159265359? I have never heard that claim. As far as I am aware, it is generally accepted that it just is.</p><p>I suggest objective morality could be the same. No need for God to decide murder is wrong, it just is.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Does an objective morality from God even make sense?</h4><p>An objective morality is one that exists without anyone's opinion. If morality comes from God, then it is God's opinion that murder is wrong - and that is not an objective morality.</p><p>Is murder wrong because of its own nature - because it deprives another person of their right to live - or is it wrong just because God <i>arbitrarily </i>decided it is wrong?</p><p>Note the word "arbitrarily". If it was not an <i>arbitrary </i>decision by God, then fair enough, you have an objective morality. But you now have no need of God. God chose murder to be wrong because of its nature; God was himself obliged to say murder is wrong because it objectively is, and mankind could have worked that out without God's help.</p><p>If God said murder is wrong because of his nature, then God has no choice. Murder is necessarily wrong.</p><p>The choice here is between morality being intrinsic or being an arbitrary set of rules God just made up.</p><p>I think murder is wrong because of what it is, and not because God arbitrarily decided it is.</p><p>In contrast, I think not working on the Sabbath is <i>arbitrary</i>.</p><p> </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-4062767004139743712024-01-10T07:00:00.000-08:002024-02-29T00:18:17.431-08:00Near-Death Experiences<p> Near-death experiences are often cited as evidence for the soul or even for religion. Here are some random thoughts.</p><p>A good review here:</p><p><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/</a></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">It is like being on drugs</h4><p>A <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/life-death-and-the-self/201903/how-similar-are-near-death-experiences-acid-trips">study</a> indicates that there is a lot of similarity between NDEs and using certain drugs, such as ketamine.</p><p>The fact that different drugs give different experiences across a whole spectrum, with NDEs being at one end of the spectrum, does point to this being a physiological effect.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Vision</h4><p>If a person really does leave their body, and can see what is happening, then that indicates the disembodied soul is interacting with the material world. Photons from all around the room are going to the disembodied soul, and rather than passing through, they are interacting with it. So how come there is not a dark space (or other visual effect) where the soul is? Something like 10% to 20% of near-deaths result in an NDE. we are talking a lot of incidents. but no one has ever seen external evidence of the soul floating around.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Even the blind see!</h4><p>There are reports of blind people seeing during an NDE... Think about that. These people can see while their souls are not in their bodies, but cannot see when they are. What is stopping them from seeing the rest of the time?</p><p><br /></p><p>The implication here is that the soul can see, can perceive the world, without a body just as well as we can see using our eyes. Does that really make sense? Not to me.</p><div><br /></div><div>See also with respect to hearing:</div><div>https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461684/m1/1/</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-55641336038344946732024-01-08T00:32:00.000-08:002024-01-08T00:32:30.295-08:00The Messiah<p></p><blockquote><p>"I'm not the Messiah!"</p><p>"I say you are, Lord, and I should know, I've followed a few!"</p></blockquote><p></p><p>The fact is that the Jews proclaimed numerous men as the messiah. Jesus was far from unique in that regard. Here are seventeen we know about.</p><p><br /></p><p>Judas son of Hezekiah (4 BC)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-1-judas-son-of-hezekiah/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-1-judas-son-of-hezekiah/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Simon of Perea (4 BC)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-2-simon-of-perea/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-2-simon-of-perea/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Athronges (4 BC)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-3-athronges/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-3-athronges/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Judas the Galilean (AD 6)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-4-judas-the-galilean/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-4-judas-the-galilean/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>John the Baptist (AD 28)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-5-john-the-baptist/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-5-john-the-baptist/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>The Samaritan Prophet (AD 36)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-7-the-samaritan-prophet/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-7-the-samaritan-prophet/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>King Herod Agrippa I (possibly) (AD 44)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-8-king-herod-agrippa-i/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-8-king-herod-agrippa-i/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Theudas (AD 45)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-9-theudas/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-9-theudas/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>The Egyptian Prophet (AD 52-58)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-10-the-egyptian-prophet/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-10-the-egyptian-prophet/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>An Anonymous Prophet (AD 59)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-11-an-anonymous-prophet/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-11-an-anonymous-prophet/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Menahem (AD 66)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-12-menahem/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-12-menahem/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>John of Gischala (AD 67-70)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-13-john-of-gischala/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-13-john-of-gischala/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Vespasian (yes, the Roman Emperor responsible for the sack of Jerusalem) (AD 67)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-14-vespasian/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-14-vespasian/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Simon Bar Giora (AD 69-70)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-15-simon-bar-giora/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-15-simon-bar-giora/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Jonathan the Weaver (AD 73)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-16-jonathan-the-weaver/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-16-jonathan-the-weaver/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Lukuas (AD 115)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-17-lukuas/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-17-lukuas/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Simon ben Kosiba (132-135 CE)</p><p><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-18-simon-ben-kosiba/">https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-18-simon-ben-kosiba/</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-86339578845198464702023-12-13T01:45:00.000-08:002023-12-13T01:45:44.697-08:00Chromosome Fusion<p>Chimps have 48 chromosomes, humans only 46. How can they be closely related?</p><p>Despite the difference in chromosomes, chimp DNA is nevertheless closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">One Fusion Event</h4><p>First of we need to realise the chromosomes are paired, so this is a jump from 24 pairs to 23 pairs. </p><p>What we are talking about is two pairs of chromosomes fusing - joining end to end - to produce one pair. It is like having two sections of string, tying the right end of one to the left end of the other, and ending up with one string approximately as long as the two originals combined.</p><p>Imagine three consecutive strings:</p><p>abcdefg + hijklmnop + qrstuvwxyz</p><p>This is analogous to the ancestor with 24 chromosome pairs, but just looking at three of them. Some mutation happens, and joins two string together. Now there are only two consecutive strings:</p><p>abcdef@hijklmnop + qrstuvwxyz</p><p>This is analogous to the ancestor with 23 chromosomepairs, but just looking at two of them.</p><p>If you look carefully you will see the DNA is virtually unchanged. The difference we are talking about here is pretty slight.</p><p>That is the simplified version. What actually happened?</p><blockquote><p>Human chromosome 2 was formed by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. Sequences that once resided near the ends of the ancestral chromosomes are now interstitially located in 2q13–2q14.1. Portions of these sequences had duplicated to other locations prior to the fusion. [B]Here we present analyses of the genomic structure and evolutionary history of >600 kb surrounding the fusion site and closely related sequences on other human chromosomes.[/B] Sequence blocks that closely flank the inverted arrays of degenerate telomere repeats marking the fusion site are duplicated at many, primarily subtelomeric, locations.</p></blockquote><p>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC187548/</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Breeding</h4><p>How does that affect breeding? One parent will donate abcdef@hijklmnop + qrstuvwxyz and the other donates abcdefg + hijklmnop + qrstuvwxyz. Not a problem because the actual DNA is virtually the same.</p><p>To put this in perspective, consider the X and the Y chromosomes in humans. They are part of the chromosome pair in males, but are very mismatched; the Y chromosome is only about a third the size of the X chromosome. Women have two sex chromosomes that are the same length, men have one that is three times the size of the other!</p><p>When comparing chimp and human DNA, chimps have two chromosomes that correspond to just one in humans, but they are nevertheless far more a like that the X and Y chromosomes.</p><p>Also worth noting that while 46 is the normal number of chromosomes in humans, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115545/">some people have fewer and some people have more</a>. This is usually associated with a disease, but nevertheless it shows that the divide between 46 and 48 is not as you might think.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Examples of different numbers of chromosomes</h4><p>Butterflies and moths have wildly different numbers of chromosomes, and, at least in some instances, that is no barrier to reproduction.</p><blockquote><p>The order Lepidoptera, which comprises more than 160 000 described species of butterflies and moths, is one of the most speciose branches of the tree of life. Its remarkable diversity is accompanied by a tremendous variation in chromosome numbers, [B]ranging from 5 to 223 chromosomes[/B] in the haploid karyotype [1,2]. .... Closely related species with different chromosome numbers can often be crossed [8,9] and [B]hybrid fitness may not necessarily be reduced[/B] [10,11].</p></blockquote><p>https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0539</p><p><br /></p><p>Some mammals are similar.</p><blockquote><p>Brocket deer (Mazama) have impressive chromosomal variation, with diploid numbers ranging from 2n = 32 to 2n = 70</p></blockquote><p>https://www.redalyc.org/journal/457/45765132012/html/</p><p>More on them here:</p><p>https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-14-40</p><p>Presumably in the creationist model, all that variation evolved after the flood, right? Otherwise Noah would have had to have a pair of Brocket deer with 32 chromosomes, a pair with 34, a pair with 36, and so on. So it turns out that creationism requires for evolution with changing numbers of chromosomes.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also of note are B chromosomes, which are additional chromosomes some individuals have.</p><blockquote><p>In addition to the normal karyotype, wild populations of many animal, plant, and fungi species contain B chromosomes (also known as supernumerary, accessory, (conditionally-)dispensable, or lineage-specific chromosomes).[1] By definition, these chromosomes are not essential for the life of a species, and are lacking in some (usually most) of the individuals. Thus a population would consist of individuals with 0, 1, 2, 3 (etc.) B chromosomes.[1] B chromosomes are distinct from marker chromosomes or additional copies of normal chromosomes as they occur in trisomies.</p></blockquote><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_chromosome</p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-42646704432023191742023-12-12T05:07:00.000-08:002024-02-21T05:04:55.142-08:00Any day now...<p> Christians have been predicting the apocalypse is any day now pretty much from its start,</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Jesus</h4><p>We only have Jesus' words filtered through the hands of the gospel writers, but I strongly suspect he expected the apocalypse to be just days away.</p><p>Here is Jesus' advise for his followers:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Mat 6:25 “For this reason I say to you, [q]do not be worried about your [r]life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is life not more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the sky, that they do not sow, nor reap, nor gather crops into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more important than they? 27 And which of you by worrying can add a single [s]day to his [t]life’s span? 28 And why are you worried about clothing? Notice how the lilies of the field grow; they do not labor nor do they spin thread for cloth, 29 yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! 31 Do not worry then, saying, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear for clothing?’ 32 For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But [u]seek first [v]His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be [w]provided to you.</p><p>34 “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will [x]worry about itself. [y]Each day has enough trouble of its own.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>This is just plain stupid... Unless the world is about to end. If the world is going to end in days or even weeks, then planning for the future is a waste of time. Dedicate yourself to making peace with God, rather than saving money for the future.</p><p>I would suggest this was Jesus' big message. The apocalypse is coming, sort yourself out so you are ready for it when it comes.</p><p>... Still waiting, Jesus.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Paul</h4><p>Paul expected Jesus to return within his life time, and makes that clear.</p><blockquote><p>1 Cor 15:50 Now I say this, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [u]the perishable inherit [v]the imperishable. 51 Behold, I am telling you a [w]mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [x]imperishable, and we will be changed.</p></blockquote><p>Two groups of people:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The dead, who will be raised ("the dead will be raised [x]imperishable")</li><li>The living, who will be changed ("we will be changed")</li></ul><p></p><p>He considered himself in the second group.</p><p>See also here:</p><blockquote><p>1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we who are alive, who remain, 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. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p>1 Corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brothers, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the present form of this world is passing away.</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>1 Thessalonians 2 19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>2 Thessalonians 1:7. And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>2 Thessalonians 2 1-2. Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.</p></blockquote><h4 style="text-align: left;">Mark</h4><p>The Gospel of Mark was written around AD 70, a tumultuous time, and it must have seemed to some the apocalypse was happening, with the destruction of Jerusalem.</p><p>So we read the prediction that the end of the world will be while at least some disciples are still alive.</p><blockquote><p>Mark 13:28 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: as soon as its branch has become tender and sprouts its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So you too, when you see these things happening, [r]recognize that [s]He is near, right at the [t]door. 30 <b>Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. </b>31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 32 But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.</p></blockquote><p>That said, another interpretation is that the generation that witnessed the destruction mentioned earlier in the chapter will still be alive.</p><p>Earlier we read:</p><blockquote><p>Mark 13:14 “Now when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be—[i]let the [j]reader understand—then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.</p></blockquote><p>It is curious that supposedly Jesus is addressing the <i>reader </i>at this point. In reality, of course, this is the author putting words in Jesus mouth.</p><p>The "abomination of desolation" references Daniel 11-12, where it likely refers to gentiles forcing their own rituals in the temple, and stopping the usual sacrifices. Although presented as a prophecy in Daniel, it references a historical event by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BC, and the book of Daniel (or at least the the second half) was written as a reaction to this event.</p><p>The verse in Mark is likely very similar. It is presented as prophecy, but in fact was written shortly after the event it refers to - some sort of desecration of the temple, during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. And just as in Daniel, so Mark goes on to predict the apocalypse just a couple of years later.</p><p>The second part of the verse may reference the "Flight to Pella", but conversely the "Flight to Pella" could be a myth based on this verse (or they could be unrelated).</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Matthew</h4><blockquote><p>Matthew 10:23 "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."</p></blockquote><p>This could be understood to be Jesus saying he will catch up with them in a mundane manner, just by walking faster! More likely, this is a prophecy that the end times would be before the disciples could visit each of the cities between them. I am not sure what counted as a city, but it cannot be that big a number.</p><blockquote><p>Matthew 16:27–28:For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>Matthew 26: 63, 64 “But Jesus kept silent and the high priest said to Him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."</p></blockquote><p>Jesus told his follows to leave their families and their work; the apocalypse is any day now so focus on that and that alone:</p><p></p><blockquote>Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[a] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.</blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">John</h4><p>By the time John was written, about AD 95, the disciples had all died, so the prophecy was dropped from the narrative.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Other Epistles</h4><div>The authorship of many of the epistles is unknown, but some at least expected the apocalypse any day now.</div><blockquote><p>1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.</p></blockquote><p>On the other hand, others were making excuses because it had failed to arrive.</p><blockquote><p>2 Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”</p></blockquote><h4 style="text-align: left;">Old Testament</h4><p>Prophets and what-have-you have been predicting the imminent end of the world for centuries before Jesus was even born.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the Lord is coming,</p><p>Cruel, with fury and burning anger,</p><p>To make the land a desolation;</p><p>And He will exterminate its sinners from it.</p><p>10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations</p><p>Will not flash their light;</p><p>The sun will be dark when it rises</p><p>And the moon will not shed its light.</p><p>11 So I will punish the world for its evil</p><p>And the wicked for their wrongdoing;</p><p>I will also put an end to the audacity of the proud</p><p>And humiliate the arrogance of the [d]tyrants.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Also here, supposed to happen shortly after Antiochus death in 164 BC (see <a href="https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2018/10/book-of-daniel-content.html">here</a> for more), three years after the book was written:</p><blockquote><p>Daniel 12:1 “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 And [b]those who have insight will shine like the glow of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who [d]lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">More recent</h4><p>Too many to list here, but see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events">Wiki</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-20258730564542614762023-11-15T03:04:00.000-08:002023-11-15T03:08:17.933-08:00Dispensationalism<p>Dispensationalism is an important theology in the US, though seems less common outside there.</p><p>The basic idea is that there are seven (or between three and eight anyway) ages, or dispensations, with these being:</p><p><i>Innocence, or Adamic Law</i>, in the garden of Eden</p><p><i>Conscience</i>, from the Fall to the Flood</p><p><i>Human or civil law, or Noahide law</i>, from the Food to the Tower of Babel</p><p><i>Promise or Patriarchal Rule, or Abrahamic Law</i>, from Adam to Moses</p><p><i>Law or Mosaic Law</i>, from Moses to the crucifixion</p><p><i>Grace</i>, from the crucifixion to the rapture and the wrath of God</p><p><i>Millennial Kingdom</i>, from the rapture until 1000 years have passed</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">History</h4><p>The roots of this are quite interesting. The very earliest concept of the resurrection was that the nation of Israel would be raised again by God, and was not about the righteous coming back to life at all. Isaiah 32 is very much about that:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Isaiah 32:1 Behold, a king will reign righteously,</p><p>And officials will rule justly.</p><p>2 Each will be like a refuge from the wind</p><p>And a shelter from the storm,</p><p>Like [a]streams of water in a dry country,</p><p>Like the shade of a [b]huge rock in an exhausted land.</p><p>3 Then the eyes of those who see will not be [c]blinded,</p><p>And the ears of those who hear will listen.</p><p>4 The [d]mind of the rash will discern the [e]truth,</p><p>And the tongue of the stammerers will hurry to speak clearly.</p><p>5 No longer will the fool be called noble,</p><p>Or the rogue be spoken of as generous.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Over time the Israelites came to believe that the righteous would be resurrected - or at least the Pharisees did, while the Sadducees did not, and obvious Christianity adopted that.</p><p>But then, in the early nineteenth century, a guy called John Nelson Darby was studying Isaiah 32 and realised that actually it refers to the nation of Israel. Rather than follow through how the concept of the resurrection had evolved, he declared that there were two resurrections, one of the people, and another for the nation of Israel. This led to his ideas of ages, which were later called dispensations by a critic.</p><p>Darby was born in London and lived in England and Ireland, but it was America where his idea took off, and where it has had a big impact. US support for Israel is mostly down to the dispensational belief that Israel will rise, and a desire to hasten that event.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Politics</h4><p>Frankly, if you want one single reject why we should strive to combat Christianity, this is it. US support of Israel is, in my view, a bad thing. It helps to destabilise the Middle East, and allows the nation of Israel to do things it should not, confident it will have the backing of a superpower. I do not support Hamas, what they have done is unforgivable, but it is undoubtedly true that they were provoked by Israel, and Israel have exploited the situation for their own ends.</p><p>Dispensationists also tend to feel that climate change is not an issue as the rapture will be here soon ("Jam Tomorrow!"), and that social reform is wasted effort.</p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-45409247644305555992023-11-07T04:31:00.000-08:002023-11-07T04:31:18.466-08:00The (Flawed) Logic of Intelligent Design<p>This is a response to an article on the Discovery Institute website:</p><p><a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fundamentals-friday-the-logic-of-intelligent-design/">https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fundamentals-friday-the-logic-of-intelligent-design/</a></p><p>The point of the article is the claim that ID is not simply a God-of-the-gaps argument. Instead:</p><blockquote>In reality, the logic of ID theory is this:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce the large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.</li><li>Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. </li><li>Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.</li></ul></blockquote>Is that good logic?<div><br /></div><div>I think not. Consider this argument:<p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no non-human causes have been discovered with the power to produce the large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell. </li><li>Premise Two: Humans have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. </li><li>Conclusion: Humans constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.</li></ul><p></p><p>If premise one of the D's argument is true, then premise one of my argument must also be true. The same can be said of premise two; if it is true for the DI, it is true here too, though this is far less controversial!</p><p>And if the logic of the DI argument is good, then it must also be good for my argument, as the logic is identical.</p><p>Therefore if the DI are right, then it must follow that not only a intelligent designer was the origin of he specified information in the cell, but that intelligent designer must have been human!</p><p>Personally, I think the DI's argument is wrong. I think premise one is wrong, and I think the logic is wrong. I reject both arguments.</p><p>Creationists want the DI's argument to be true, but my argument to be false, so have to reject the logic of one, but not the other, despite it being the same!</p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-42976132227456454322023-10-31T06:47:00.007-07:002023-11-04T10:02:54.726-07:00Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism<p>Plantiga's argument can be found here:</p><p><a href="https://www.bethinking.org/atheism/an-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism">https://www.bethinking.org/atheism/an-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism</a></p><p></p><blockquote>Now for the argument that it is irrational to believe N&E: P(R/N&E) is either low or inscrutable; in either case (if you accept N&E) you have a defeater for R, and therefore for any other belief B you might hold; but B might be N&E itself; so one who accepts N&E has a defeater for N&E, a reason to doubt or be agnostic with respect to it. If he has no independent evidence, N&E is self-defeating and hence irrational.</blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><p>It can be summed up (from <a href="https://philarchive.org/archive/HENDTE">here</a>):</p><p></p><blockquote><p>(1) P(R/N&E) is low. </p></blockquote><blockquote><p>(2) Anyone who accepts (believes) N&E and sees that P(R/N&E) is low has a defeater for R.</p><p>(3) Anyone who has a defeater for R has a defeater for any other belief she thinks she has, including N&E itself.</p><p>(4) If one who accepts N&E thereby acquires a defeater for N&E, N&E is selfdefeating and cannot rationally be accepted.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>To explain "P(R/N&E)", that means the probability of R (our cognitive faculties are reliable), if we assume N&E (naturalism and evolution) is true.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Do we have reliable cognitive faculties?</h4><div>My first point is that we have reliable cognitive faculties, and we know that without any regard as to where those cognitive faculties come from.</div><div><br /></div><div>We can trust our faculties <i>because they have a track record of working</i>, not because of their origin.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some of this discussion hangs on what is meant by reliable. If we are right 98% of the time, does that count as reliable? I think Plantinga is tacitly assuming 100% reliable, but he never says that - because he knows we get stuff wrong sometimes.</div><p>If creationism is true, and we were made by a perfect God is his image, we would expect perfectly reliable cognitive faculties. We do not have that.</p><p>I think evolution selects for a brain/mind that is good at creating true beliefs, but evolution produces things that are <i>good enough</i> to give the individual an advantage, not that are perfect. The eye is a great example of something that is good enough but has some serious flaws, such as the blind spot. It is easily damaged and deteriorates with age, but it is good enough to serve us well for long enough for us to raise a family and pass our genes to the next generation.</p><div>Our cognitive faculties are <i>good enough</i> to serve us well, but not perfect.</div><p>Also worth noting that 99% of biologists accept evolution. If their cognitive faculties are reliable then we can be pretty sure evolution is true!</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">If the premise is true</h4><p>Let us suppose his premise, that P(R/N&E) is low, is true. Does the argument follow?</p><p>It does not, and the reason for that is all about the nature of probability. If naturalism and evolution are true, then the outcome was decided long ago. When cognitive faculties first evolved, either they were reliable or they were not, and either way mankind is now stuck with what we have. Such is the way of evolution.</p><p>This is like rolling dice. We can suppose that our cognitive faculties being reliable was like rolling double six a million years ago, while any other rolls would mean our cognitive faculties are NOT reliable.</p><p>Where we are right now, that probability is irrelevant. Right now we have good evidence to suppose we have reliable cognitive faculties. We have good reason to suppose way back then, we rolled double six. Sure, P(R/N&E) is low, <i>but it happened anyway.</i></p><p>Plantinga's argument is that that probability was very low, but so what? Whether the probability was 50/50 or 1 in 36 or even 1 in a million, we got lucky and have reliable cognitive faculties. And whatever that probability was, it does not impact what we believe today.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">And anyway it is not true</h4><div><div><div>Bear in mind that even some bacteria can swim, and they do so in a direction that is beneficial - more food, less danger, whatever. Seems pretty obvious that bacteria that swims towards food and away from danger will survive better than bacteria that swim in a random direction. Even for bacteria a "world view" that is accurate is a survival advantage - though obviously bacteria do not have beliefs.</div><div><br /></div><div>Plantinga holds that evolution selects for behavior, not belief. The behavior of the bacteria gives it an advantage, though it has no beliefs behind it. From this, Plantinga takes a great leap to suppose having erroneous beliefs that lead to advantageous behavior is considerably more likely than having the correct belief lead to advantageous behavior - i.e., P(R/N&E) is low.</div></div><div></div><blockquote><div>Beliefs don't causally produce behavior by themselves; it is beliefs, desires, and other factors that do so together. Then the problem is that clearly there will be any number of different patterns of belief and desire that would issue in the same action; and among those there will be many in which the beliefs are wildly false. Paul is a prehistoric hominid; the exigencies of survival call for him to display tiger avoidance behavior. There will be many behaviors that are appropriate: fleeing, for example, or climbing a steep rock face, or crawling into a hole too small to admit the tiger, or leaping into a handy lake. Pick any such appropriately specific behavior B. Paul engages in B, we think, because, sensible fellow that he is, he has an aversion to being eaten and believes that B is a good means of thwarting the tiger's intentions.</div><div></div><div>But clearly this avoidance behavior could result from a thousand other belief-desire combinations: indefinitely many other belief-desire systems fit B equally well. Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely that the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief. Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it. Or perhaps the confuses running towards it with running away from it, believing of the action that is really running away from it, that it is running towards it; or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a regularly reoccurring illusion, and hoping to keep his weight down, has formed the resolution to run a mile at top speed whenever presented with such an illusion; or perhaps he thinks he is about to take part in a 1600 meter race, wants to win, and believes the appearance of the tiger is the starting signal; or perhaps .... Clearly there are any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behavior.</div></blockquote><div></div><div>There are several flaws here.</div><div><br /></div><div>1. One place this breaks down is that we, the descendants of Paul, know that tigers are dangerous. This ties in with my previous point; even if the probability of that is very low, we know it happened.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>2. I would suggest that Paul has this belief about tigers because he has a more general belief that animals with big teeth and claws are dangerous, and that that belief originates from seeing people mauled by said animals. Whereas it is hard to imagine where he could get the idea that the appearance of a tiger indicates the start of a race.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>That is, it would seem more reasonable to suppose a correlation between belief and reality. We can see how reasoning could get from tiger appearing to danger present, but not from tiger appears to race has started.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>3. I do not dispute that there are "any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit", but to think each is equally likely is just nonsense. Quite why a distinguished philosophy would do that is beyond me.</div><div><div>Of course, I may be misunderstanding him, but it is hard to see how he get rationalise low P(R/N&E) otherwise.</div><div><br /></div></div><div><br /></div><div>4. Plantinga seems to confuse beliefs with instinct. Evolution does not give is beliefs, it gives as the faculties to create true beliefs most of the time. Many prey animals feign death as a strategy to avoid getting eaten - playing possum. This is instinct, something they do automatically without thought, and in hard-wired into their brains. This is the product of evolution.</div><div><br /></div><div>Belief is something different. Evolution has given us the tools to create beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. An individual one sees someone mauled by a beast with claws and teeth and concludes that all beasts with claws and teeth should be evaded is at an advantage, especially compared to the guy who concludes the appearance of a tiger signifies the start of a race.</div><div><br /></div><div>And to me, this seems trivially true. It is so obvious I have difficulty understanding how Plantinga is failing to see this.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The flaws here seem quite clear to me, and I have to wonder about Plantinga. Even if I have misunderstood him, it is bizarre that he does not address any of these issues in his article. Is this another case of a brilliant man blinded by his religion, <a href="https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2018/01/dr-john-lennox-christmas-gift-for.html">like John Lennox</a>?</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-6081653758872415132023-08-15T03:54:00.006-07:002023-08-15T03:54:25.333-07:00The Resurrection: An Overview<p> Most Biblical scholars believe Paul's epistles were written AD 50-60, Mark AD 65-80, Matthew AD 80-100, Luke AD 80-130 and John AD 90-120 (dates from <a href="https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/">here</a>). This is, in my view, very important in understanding what might have happened.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Jesus' crucified?</h4><p>I am not going to dispute the crucifixion; I find it perfectly reasonable. I find it hard to see how Christianity could start without it and no reason for anyone to invent it.</p><p>However, it is important to realise that Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the messiah (or perhaps for being proclaimed the messiah). The messiah was understood to be the new king who would lead the Jews to glory - and from the Roman perspective that meant someone who would lead the entire Jewish people into rebellion against the state.</p><p>Mark tells us clearly what his crime was:</p><blockquote><p>Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.</p></blockquote><p>To be sure, the gospels do also put the blame on the Jews, and there is a definite trend towards shifting blame off the Romans and on to the Jews across the gospels. In Mark, the council meet and find Jesus guilty, but it is Pilate who condemns him to crucifixion. By the time we get to John, poor Pilate is just doing what he is forced to do.</p><blockquote><p>John 19:6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”</p></blockquote><p>But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”</p><p>We can be pretty sure that if Jesus was charged with blasphemy, he would have been executed by the Jews themselves because we read about just that happening to Stephen in Acts 7. The fact that Jesus was crucified makes it certain this was at the instigation of the Romans.</p><p>Indeed, even the meeting of the council in Mark looks like it has been made up and inserted into the narrative; why would they meet in the middle of the night, just before Passover? They had far better things to do, and could have just kept Jesus in prison during the festival. Whoever made it up had to insert it into the narrative between the last supper and the crucifixion where there really was not the time for it.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Joseph of Arimathea</h4><p>Is it believable that the body was taken down? It is plausible; the Jews would have considered leaving it up there to be an affront and there does seem to be historical precedent. It is reasonable to suppose a member of the council would ask for the bodies of the dead to be taken down, especially around a religious festival.</p><p>The Bible claims Joseph of Arimathea was a secret Christian. Is that reasonable? Well, firstly it contradicts what is said elsewhere; Joseph was a member of the council and the whole council condemned Jesus:</p><blockquote><p>Mark 14: 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death.</p></blockquote><p>Mark does say of Joseph:</p><blockquote><p>Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.</p></blockquote><p>However, that reflects the Jewish belief of the time; they were all waiting for the kingdom of God. What this tell us is that Joseph was a pious Jew who took the laws seriously, and hence, as per Jewish law, he was prepared to ask Pilate for the body, which was probably not without its risks.</p><p>The gospels of Matthew and John do state that Joseph was a Christian... but not that he was a member of the council. So we seem to have two possibilities here; the first, according to Mark and Luke, Joseph was a member of the council, but not a Christian, and the second where he was not a member of the council, but was a Christian. Which is most likely to be true?</p><p>I think the first. Mark was written around AD 70, when people would still be alive who were actually there. This means that there was a lot more necessity for the author to get the story straight. If he said Joseph was a council member, and there were people around who know that was not the case, his account would be devalved and would not gain the traction that it did.</p><p>Furthermore, it is more reasonable to suppose that the authors of Matthew and John would pretend that Joseph was a Christian, rather than Mark and Luke pretending he was not. We might suppose Mark was trying to preserve the secret that Joseph was a Christian, but if so he fails pretty miserably if he then names the guy, and has him put the body in a tomb.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Where was Jesus buried?</h4><p>Would the body get placed in a tomb?</p><p>This is highly unlikely. Jewish custom only required that the body get buried, not that it was buried honourably or in any special way. That is, there was a custom to bury the dead in tombs and treat the body a certain way, but there was a far stronger religious law saying that the body had to be buried. No Jew had any compulsion to ensure a stranger was buried in a certain way, only that the body was interred.</p><p>The text is in the Bible; it only says the body has to be buried.</p><blockquote><p>Deuteronomy 21:22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, 23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.</p></blockquote><p>The member of the council had no need to do anything more than have the body tossed in a communal grave, and - if Joseph of Arimathea was not a Christian - no desire to do anything more than that.</p><p>Furthermore, the Romans had good reason <i>not</i> to allow honourable burial. Jesus was a figurehead - someone who dared to stand against Rome. In their eyes they had to not just execute him, but humilate him too to persuade other trouble-makers not to rebel, and to stop him becoming a martyr the Jews could stand behind even in death.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Bible claims the body was put in a tomb because that was expedient. Does that make sense? Why was the communal grave for the crucified not right next to the place where they were crucified?</p><p>Conversely, why was there a brand new tomb located so close to where they were crucified? Across the whole of Jerusalem and surrounding areas, this was the most ritually unclean site imaginable! It is literally the very last place anyone would want their new tomb.</p><p>It is worth noting a couple of points made by Josephus. Referring to the Idumeaens, a group of foreigners that Josephus considers impious and evil:</p><blockquote><p>"They actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews are so careful about burial rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset" (Jewish War, 4.317)</p></blockquote><p>This certainly supports Jesus being buried, but does it imply honourable burial? I think not. But also he says:</p><blockquote><p>"He that blasphemeth God, let him be stoned; and let him hang upon a tree all that day, and then let him be buried in an ignominious and obscure manner." (Antiquities, 4.8.6)</p></blockquote><p>This is very clear that while burial is required for all, honourable burial is to be withheld in some situations. And according to the Gospels, Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">The Earliest Creed</h4><p>The first text we have about the resurrection is a few verses in 1 Cor 15 which is generally understood to be a very early creed - some suggest it was around just a few years after the crucifixion, though it is not clear exactly how many verses are that old.</p><blockquote><p>1 Cor 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that <b>Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.</b> 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.</p></blockquote><p>The first half of verse 3 is clearly Paul's addition, as is verse 8. Whether verses 6 and 7 were original is debatable. But what we do see here is strong evidence that people believed Jesus was resurrected very early, and that the disciples believed they had seen him.</p><p>It says Jesus was buried, but nothing about a tomb. Given its brevity, I do not think we can conclude too much from it, but I do want to emphasise that this early creed fits with Jesus being buried in a communal grave.</p><p>So where did the idea that he was buried in a tomb come from? Quite simply, wishful thinking. Where did the Christians want their saviour to be buried? In a fancy tomb.</p><p>It is notable that the burial becomes steadily more fancy across the gospel accounts. This gets notched up to eleven in John, where Jesus is buried in a garden - right next to where the condemned are crucified apparently - and the body smothers in a king's ransom of spices.</p><blockquote><p>John 19:39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[e] 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. </p></blockquote><p>To me, the claims of a tomb were all later additions, invented because that is what the earliest Christians wanted to believe.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">The Empty Tomb</h4><p>But if the story was circulating that Jesus was buried in a tomb, where is that tomb? Where is the body? The next step in the development of the legend was the empty tomb.</p><p>Go back to that earliest creed.</p><blockquote><p>1 Cor 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. </p></blockquote><p>Nothing about an empty tomb! The burial was important enough to get a mention, but not the empty tomb. Why not? Because it had yet to be invented when Paul was writing.</p><p>But the gospels...</p><p>The gospels all agree that there was an empty tomb - that is four eye witness accounts, right?</p><p>Well, no. The authors of Matthew and Luke clearly copied Mark. Between the three of them, we have just one witness. And the gospel of Mark was not written by an eye witness - Mark was not there at the time (if it was even Mark who wrote the gospel).</p><p>The Gospel of John does not copy Mark as Matthew and Luke do, but is also believed to be based on either Mark, or an earlier source they both drew on, the pre-Markan passion narrative. So we are down to one witness.</p><p>It gets worse, because Mark appears to have excuses built into it. The gospel originally ended at verse 8, and even some modern Bibles make this clear. Thus, the gospel ended:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Mark 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.</p><p>6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”</p><p>8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.</p><p></p></blockquote><p>When Mark was writing there were people alive who might remember what happened back then. They might wonder why no one mentioned the empty tomb back then. Take a look at Acts; we can read about what the disciples were saying, and none of them mentioned the empty tomb. Why not? It had still to be invented.</p><p>Obviously Mark could not say that; he needed another device that neatly explained - there was an empty tomb, but the only people to witness were two women too scared to tell anyone about it!</p><p>Is it really plausible that the authors would just make stuff up? Absolutely! We see the author of Matthew change this very text in Mark completely.</p><blockquote><p>Matthew 28:8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.</p></blockquote><p>Mark tells us the women told no one, Matthew, who copes some 95% of Mark almost word-for-word, has changed that entirely to the women [i]immediately[/i] telling people! The author could do that because by the time he was writing all the people who could say otherwise were dead.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Where Was Jesus Seen?</h4><p>I think it certain that the disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus. What is not obvious is what they saw, where they saw it and when.</p><p>The oldest gospel we have says:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Mark 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.</p><p>6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘<b>He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.</b>’”</p><p>8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.</p><p></p></blockquote><p>It is clear from this that the author believed the risen Jesus was first seen in Galilee, not Jerusalem - and perhaps only seen there. Galilee is about three days travel from Jerusalem so it is not possible for the disciples to have got there on the Easter Sunday - they must have seen Jesus at least three days after that, and possibly many more.</p><p>We have two accounts of Jesus being seen in Galilee, one in Matthew 28, the other in John 21. Generally I would tend to reject John as it was written so late, but two features of John 21 make it interesting. The first is that it makes no sense. </p><blockquote><p>John 21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus[b]), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3 “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.</p></blockquote><p>Why were they fishing, rather than preaching as Jesus commanded them - and as we know they did, given Christianity is here today? I suggest that this is an account of that actual original sighting. The disciples were fishing because after the crucifixion they returned to their old jobs. John 21 describes the moment that they [i]first[/i] saw the risen Jesus, gave up being fisherman (again) and started to preach about it.</p><p>The other feature that makes it interesting is how it ties into the early creed and the non-canonical Gospel of Peter. In all three accounts, Peter is the first to see the risen Jesus, but the Gospel of Peter also has this happening whilst fishing in a boat. Unfortunately we only have a fragment, and the text ends at this vital point:</p><p>But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...</p><p>I think it reasonably certain that the first sightings of the risen Jesus were believd to be in Galilee, and I think it likely this was while some of the disciples were out on a boat fishing.</p><p>This means that the risen Jesus was seen days, possibly months, after that first Easter Sunday. And yet the early creed states quite clearly Jesus was raised on the third day. How can that be reconciled? Very simply, in fact, because the creed tells us it was "according to the Scriptures". The early Christians knew Jesus was raised on the third day not because anyone say him that day, but because that is what the Old Testament said would happen.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Hosea 6:1 “Come, let us return to the Lord.</p><p>He has torn us to pieces</p><p> but he will heal us;</p><p>he has injured us</p><p> but he will bind up our wounds.</p><p>2 After two days he will revive us;</p><p> <b> on the third day he will restore us,</b></p><p> that we may live in his presence.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>What of all those accounts of Jesus walking around Jerusalem? They were made up later. It is clear the author of Mark was not aware of any such stories, and the author of Matthew has only the most brief of encounters in Jerusalem before going to Galilee. It is only the later gospels that indulge in the most fantastic embellishments</p><p>And they do so in part to respond to critics. Matthew invents the guard on the tomb to counter claims the body was stolen; Luke invents Jesus eating fish to counter claims it was just a ghost; John invents Jesus pierced by a spear to count the "swoon" theory, and also has Jesus carefully inspected by Thomas.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">What did they see?</h4><p>So what did the disciples actually see in Galilee? I do not think we have any way of knowing. John 21 might be our best indicator, but who knows how it got distorted between the event and its late inclusion in the gospel? None of the other works give us a clue. It is just possible the endings of Mark and Peter were deliberately removed because they deviated to far from what was later the orthodox view - but that is just speculation.</p><p>That said, there are some points to consider.</p><p>What did Paul see? He saw a bright light and heard a voice on the Road to Damascus. We do not know if this resembled what the disciples saw, but it might. The account in 1 Cor 15 gives no suggestion what he saw was any different to what the disciples saw, though that might be because he was trying to assert his own authority.</p><p>However, the Jews at that time expected the resurrected to appear as bright lights.</p><blockquote><p>Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.</p></blockquote><p>This all fits with what we read in 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul is talking about the resurrected body.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>1 Corinthians 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.</p><p>If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.</p><p></p></blockquote><p>What the Jews expected to see, and what Paul describes, is a spiritual body, a new body that replaced the old. It seems likely, then, that what the disciples saw on the Sea of Galilee, was a bright light that they understood to be Jesus.</p><p>Why reject the claims of a bodily resurrection? Because they appear later, in Luke and John, in the invented sightings in Jerusalem.</p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-68728263760862628112023-05-23T05:20:00.003-07:002023-12-19T02:29:46.126-08:00Can you know atheist, if God does not exist?<p>This is a response to an article by <span style="text-align: -webkit-center;">Jason Dulle.</span></p><p><span style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><a href="https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/knowrequiresgod.htm">You Can't Know Atheism is True Unless God Exists</a></span></p><p><br /></p><p>It tries to make the argument that without God to create us, we could not have the ability to reason. It is an argument CS Lewis also tried, but to my mind it fails badly.</p><blockquote><p>The nature of wholly material entities is that they function according to predictable patterns as determined by natural laws.</p></blockquote><p>This is simply not true. At the quantum level, it is all random. See <a href="https://phys.org/news/2021-01-unpredictable-nature-quantum-mechanics-random.html">here</a> for example, which discusses using the unpredictable nature of quantum mechanics to generate truly random numbers.</p><blockquote><p>For example, consider the boiling of water. ... We might also consider a chain of dominos.</p></blockquote><p>Chaos theory tells us this is not true either. Complex systems can behave in strange and surprising ways. That the author can think of some analogies where the consequences are predictable is hardly proof that that must <i>always </i>be the case.</p><p>This is just shoddy thinking, and all to common among those wanting to shore up their faith, rather than discover truth.</p><blockquote><p>If human beings are wholly material entities, having no immaterial aspect to their being (i.e. a soul), we are affected by the same deterministic cause and effect relationship all other wholly material things are affected by. In the same way water cannot decide to not boil, and dominos cannot decide to not fall, mankind cannot decide to think or do anything other than what physical precursors have determined for us. Every one of our thoughts and acts would be mere reactions to prior events--some invisible domino falling on us if you will. These thoughts and acts would not simply follow the cause, but would necessarily follow. Free will deliberation and independent thought are impossible in a wholly material world.</p></blockquote><p>He is talking here about <i>libertarian </i>free will. On the other hand compatibilism does allow for both free will and determinism.</p><p>The author kind of admits this:</p><blockquote><p>Naturalists will be the first to agree with this assessment. They recognize that free will and philosophic naturalism do not mix. Naturalist thinker, John Searle, wrote, "Our conception of physical reality simply does not allow for radical freedom."2 He admitted that there is no hope of reconciling <b>libertarian </b>freedom with naturalism when he wrote, "In order for us to have radical freedom, it looks as if we would have to postulate that inside each of us was a self that was capable of interfering with the causal order of nature. That is, it looks as if we would have to contain some entity that was capable of making molecules swerve from their paths. I don't know if such a view is even intelligible, but it's certainly not consistent with what we know about how the world works from physics."</p></blockquote><p>However, the fact that he does not make clear the distinction makes me suspect he is conflating the two. He points out <i>libertarian </i>free will does not work with philosophic naturalism, but then concludes no free will is possible at all. Either he is not as well-read on the topic as he might be, or he is deliberately trying to mislead.</p><blockquote><p>Only the existence of an immaterial soul can provide us with the free will necessary to employ reason to arrive at true, justified beliefs about the world. The soul--being immaterial in nature--transcends the physical realm, allowing us to transcend the determinism inherent to physical reality. When faced with prior physical forces acting on our physical stuff, we are not forced to react in a manner determined by those factors. Through the soul we are enabled to step back from the cause and effect cycle to adjudicate, deliberate, and then decide what we will believe or do. We can adjudicate between competing views based on the merits of the views themselves, independent of prior physical forces.</p></blockquote><p>The justification here seems strained to say the least.</p><p>Why do we need free will to employ reason? If we see an apple fall, why should that not lead - inevitably and deterministically, in the right set of conditions - to discovering gravity?</p><p>And how does having a soul help in the process? His argument seems to be that if we have a soul then we are free to conclude the sky is pink! After all, we are not constrained by physical reality, so can think whatever we like! Seems to me this is a hinderance.</p><p>He says with a soul "<i>we are enabled to step back from the cause and effect cycle to adjudicate</i>"; why does consciousness not allow us to do that? Is it because the soul is mystical and unknown and so we can make up any BS about it? I strongly suspect it is. I see no practical difference here between a consciousness that supervenes on the physical brain and a soul that uses the brain as its channel with the physical world.</p><blockquote><p>The soul allows us to be an unmoved, first-mover; "an agent that can act without sufficient causal conditions necessitating that the agent act--the agent is the absolute source of its own actions. … Only first-movers are the sources of action, not instrumental movers that merely receive motion passively and pass that on to the next member in a causal chain."</p></blockquote><p>This is interesting, as the first mover argument for God says only God is an unmoved first mover. Thanks to the author for refuting that!</p><p>As it happens, <a href="https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/physics/atoms-and-radioactivity/random-nature-of-radioactive-decay/">radioactive decay</a> is an example of an atom suddenly, randomly falling apart, which seems to contradict his claim.</p><p>What we see here is a man desperate to support his faith, and so clutching at straws, rather than actually thinking. If he was to start thinking, he might lose his faith.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-83686568033487618052023-05-11T00:25:00.000-07:002024-01-16T04:32:43.481-08:00How Bad Was The Captivity?<h4 style="text-align: left;"> The Background</h4><p>From Wiki:</p><blockquote><p>After the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II besieged Jerusalem, which resulted in tribute being paid by the Judean king Jehoiakim.[1] In the fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign, Jehoiakim refused to pay further tribute, which led to another siege of the city in Nebuchadnezzar II's seventh year (598/597 BCE) that culminated in the death of Jehoiakim and the exile to Babylonia of his successor Jeconiah, his court, and many others; Jeconiah's successor Zedekiah and others were exiled when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year (587 BCE), and a later deportation occurred in Nebuchadnezzar II's 23rd year (582 BCE). </p></blockquote><p>What I want to discuss here is how the Babylonians treated civilians after conquering another nation. I do not doubt women and children were killed during the fighting; the Allies killed women and children in WW2.</p><p>After the fighting, the Babylonians did <i>not</i> slaughter the entire population, they did <i>not </i>enslave them all. Most of the Hebrews were allowed to live on pretty much as normal, with only the most influential, including the rulers and priests, going into exile.</p><p>That is far more advanced than the reports in the Bible of what the Hebrews did. I appreciate those stories are probably not true, but they do reflect the morality of the people nevertheless - that is what the Hebrews would have done, and would consider the right thing to do, if they were in that situation.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Who Was Deported?</h4><p>Only a relatively small number of Hebrews were forced to relocate. The majority were allowed to stay.</p><blockquote><p>Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Chaldeans, only deported the most prominent citizens of Judah: professionals, priests, craftsmen, and the wealthy. The "people of the land" (am-hares ) were allowed to stay.</p></blockquote><p><a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-babylonian-exile">https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-babylonian-exile</a></p><p>Estimates vary, but 10,000 seems a fair ball-park figure.</p><p>This was no classless society. The professionals, priests, craftsmen, and the wealthy were the important people, those left behind were the common folk who did not really count.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">How Were The Deportees Treated?</h4><p>It is not clear exactly how they were treated, but some of them rose to have considerable influence in the royal court, so it was not that bad for many of them.</p><blockquote><p>It is assumed that they had to render labour to the Babylonians, but generally they enjoyed a great deal of freedom (Noth, 1996: 296). Some of the exiles, like Daniel and his three friends rose to positions of power within the Royal Court of Babylon (Dan. 2:48-49) and many others became wealthy (cf. Ezra 1:4, 6; 2:68-69). Later, during the Persian period Jews like Mordecai (Esther 2:19-23), Esther (7:1-10) and Nehemiah (Neh. 2:1-10) all found themselves in key positions in the government and were able to act on behalf of their people because they took Jeremiah's advice.</p></blockquote><p><a href="https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_exile.html">https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_exile.html</a></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>According to Pearce, despite the melancholic tone of Psalm 137, life in Babylon was actually pretty good for many of the Judahite deportees.</p></blockquote><p><a href="https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/how-bad-was-the-babylonian-exile/">https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/how-bad-was-the-babylonian-exile/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Also of note is that the Jewish king was, eventually, released from prison and given considerable honours.</p><blockquote><p>2 Kings 25:27 Now it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he became king, [q]released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison; 28 and he spoke kindly to him and set his throne above the throne of the kings who were with him in Babylon. 29 So [r]Jehoiachin changed his prison clothes, and [s]had his meals in [t]the king’s presence regularly all the days of his life; 30 and as his allowance, a regular allowance was given to him by the king, a portion for each day, all the days of his life.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Compared To...</h4><p>The Babylonians were remarkably good people for there time. Compared to the Hebrews...</p><blockquote><p>Deut 20:16 Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, <b>you shall not leave anything that breathes alive</b>. 17 Instead, you shall [l]utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 so that they will not teach you to do [m]all the same detestable practices of theirs which they have done for their gods, [n]by which you would sin against the Lord your God.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-76551582115001912182023-04-28T00:40:00.008-07:002023-04-28T00:43:30.056-07:00Why Was Jesus Executed?<p>There is a theological reason and a historical reason, and while the theological reason is arguably more important, this is about the historical reason. Was Jesus executed by the Jews or the Romans? And on what charge?</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Blasphemy?</h4><p>The Jews may have convicted him of blasphemy, but Jesus was crucified; it was the Roman's who did the did, therefore he necessarily must have been found guilty of breaking Roman law, and the Romans would not care one jot if he blasphemied against the Jewish religion - Pilate did that himself!</p><p>That is not to say the priests did not find him guilty of blasphemy, and then frame him for sedition; that is a possibility. But even if that is the case, he was not executed for blasphemy, he was executed for sedition.</p><p>Note that the Bible tells us the Jews were allowed to execute blasphemers; if Jesus was accused of blasphemy, they had no need to hand him over to Pilate, they could deal with it on there own, just as they did with Stephen.</p><blockquote><p>Acts 7:59 They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”</p></blockquote><p>He was not executed by the Jews and so we can be sure he was not executed for blasphemy.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Sedition or Treason?</h4><p>This has some nuance, and scholars have debated exactly what the exact charge would have been.</p><p></p><blockquote>"Because Ulpian mentions maiestas as a possible exception to burial of individuals condemned to death, it is necessary to discuss that as a possible charge against Jesus. Although Raymond Brown and others have argued that maiestas was the charge against Jesus, it is more probable that Pilate executed him for sedition or troublemaking, especially because Jesus was a peregrinus (not a Roman citizen). Since Jesus was a peregrinus, it is difficult to see that a formal charge like maiestas (or perduellio [high treason]) would be relevant. I have not found any records of Roman trials in which a peregrinus was explicitly accused of maiestas by a magistrate. A. N. Sherwin-White, a meticulous classical scholar, thinks that Pilate executed Jesus on the charge of sedition. The bibliography is endless, and it is not necessary to rehearse it here". (Cook, J. (2011). 'Crucifixion and Burial'. New Testament Studies, 57(2)</blockquote><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_majestas">Maiestas</a> was the crime of treason, so the above is considering whether Jesus was charged with sedition or treason. What is the difference? Either way Jesus was considered a rebel against Roman rule.</p><p>One difference appears to be how the accused was executed. Those accused of maiestas were generally beheaded, but as the above says this applied to Roman citizens, so would not be the case for Jesus. That said, definitions changed over time, so it cannot be ruled out.</p><p>To me it seems the charge would have been sedition, but either way, Jesus was charged with leading a rebellion against Rome.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Leading a Rebellion?</h4><p>The Jews hailed Jesus as the messiah - the new Jewish king, the man sent by God to deliver them from the Roman oppressors.</p><p>This is what they expected of the messiah:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Micah 5:6 They will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword,</p><p>The land of Nimrod at its entrances;</p><p>And He will rescue us from the Assyrian</p><p>When he invades our land,</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>And when he tramples our territory.</p></blockquote><blockquote><p></p></blockquote><p>So when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, he was hailed as the man who would restore the coming holy nation of our father David, i.e., the kingdom of Judah.</p><blockquote><p>Mark 11:8 Many people put their clothes down on the road. Others cut branches off the trees and put them down on the road. 9 Those who went in front and those who followed spoke with loud voices, “Greatest One! Great and honored is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 <b>Great is the coming holy nation of our father David</b>. It will come in the name of the Lord, Greatest One in the highest heaven.”</p></blockquote><p>The Sadducees supported the Romans, and the high priest had been appointed by Pilate. They were against Jesus because they did not want a rebellion, which would only lead to the destruction of their nation, and indeed in AD 70 just that happened, and the Sadducees pretty much disappeared thereafter. The Sadducees wanted to maintain the status quo. Hence we read:</p><blockquote><p>John 11:47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council meeting, and they were saying, “What are we [o]doing in regard to the fact that this man is performing many [p]signs? 48 If we let Him go on like this, all the people will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take over both our [q]place and our nation.” </p></blockquote><p>If Jesus was generally understood as promoting a message of love and peace why would they be worried? A message of love and peace would calm people down, and reduce civil disturbances.</p><p>The Sadducees were worried because they knew the people were hailing Jesus as the messiah, and hence potentially sparking a revolt.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some other verses where Jesus was hailed as the new king, and hence a theeat to Roman rule:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>John 1:49 Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel!”</p></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote><p>John 6:15 So Jesus, aware that they intended to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself, alone.</p></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote><p>John 12:13 they took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, indeed, the King of Israel!”</p></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote><p>John 12:15 “Do not fear, daughter of Zion; behold, your King is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.”</p></blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><p>Clearly the disciples expected Jesus to deliver them from the Roman oppressors too.</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Luke 24:21 But we [i]were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel....</p><p>Acts 1:6 So, when they had come together, they began asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”</p><p></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Whether Jesus ever said he was going to overthrow Roman rule is unclear, but kind of beside the point if everyone was expecting him to do just that. As far as the Roman's were concerned, a man who spread a message of love and peace, but was wrongly understood by the populous as the messiah who would lead the rebellion was a threat to Roman rule who had to go.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">But Jesus told people to pay taxes to Caeser!</h4><p>Here is the verse:</p><blockquote><p>Mark 12:17 And Jesus said to them, “Pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at Him.</p></blockquote><p>Taken out of context it surely looks like Jesus is telling his fewllow Jews to pay taxes to their Roman oppressors. But when we look at the context, it is quite different. Jesus is showing his distain both for money and for all things Roman. The verse is not Jesus telling people to pay taxes, the verse is Jesus sticking two fingers up at Roman authority. Jesus divides the world in to things that matter - "to God the things that are God’s" - and things that do not matter, the profane - "Pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s".</p><p>Look at the question is the greater context of verses 13 to 27. The first half is the Pharisees asking a question that they hope will ensnare him, in the second half the Sadducees do the same. In both cases Jesus is asked a yes/no question, and yet he will be sunk if he answers either way.</p><p>So he does neither; instead he changes the framing. The woman who married seven times will be married to no one in the afterlife because marriage is irrelevant. Paying Roman taxes is irrelevant, it is spiritual riches you should worry about.</p><p>How can we be sure? Well the Bible tells us:</p><blockquote><p>Luke 23:1 Then the entire assembly of them set out and brought Him before Pilate. 2 And they began to bring charges against Him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and f<b>orbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar</b>, and saying that He Himself is [a]Christ, a King.”</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">What did Pilate believe?</h4><p>Was Pilate aware that the Jews were hailing Jesus as their new king? That is exactly what the gospels tell us.</p><blockquote><p>Mark 15:2 Pilate questioned Him: “So You are the King of the Jews?” And He answered him, “It is as you say.”</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>Mark 15:9 Pilate answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?”</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>Matthew 2:2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>John 18:33 Therefore Pilate entered the Praetorium again, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “You are the King of the Jews?”</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>John 19:1 So Pilate then took Jesus and [a]had Him flogged. 2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and placed it on His head, and put a purple [b]cloak on Him; 3 and they repeatedly came up to Him and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and slapped Him in the face again and again. </p><p>...</p><p>12 As a result of this, Pilate [g]made efforts to release Him; but the Jews shouted, saying, “If you release this Man, you are not a friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king [h]opposes Caesar!”</p><p>13 Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called [i]The Pavement—but in [j]Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the [k]sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Look, your King!” 15 So they shouted, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate *said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king except Caesar.”</p><p>...</p><p>19 Now Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written: “JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 20 Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in [n]Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek.</p></blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><p>No Christian was there to witness what Pilate actually said; all the above was invented - words put in Pilate's mouth. But whoever made it up was clearly convinced that Pilate knew Jesus was hailed as the king of the Jews, as the man they believed had been sent by God to overthrow Roman rule.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Furthermore</h4><p>I think there can be little doubt Jesus was executed by the Romans as a threat to Roman authority, as a rebel leader.</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>Craig Evans agrees with that. Virtually everyone agrees with that. Jesus was killed on a political charge. By calling himself king – in Roman eyes, whether this is what he personally meant or not, he was making a political claim, that he was going to replace the Roman governance of Judea with a kingdom in which he himself would be king. This could happen (in Roman eyes) only if there was a rebellion.</p></blockquote><p><a href="https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/">https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/</a></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>Jesus was tried and executed by a Roman official (Pontius Pilate) likely for sedition against the state of Rome. This was a political crime, not a religious one, and Jesus received the punishment specifically reserved for such a crime under Roman law --crucifixion. This was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one.</p></blockquote><p><a href="https://www.drabruzzi.com/crucifixion_of_jesus.htm">https://www.drabruzzi.com/crucifixion_of_jesus.htm</a></p><p><br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>The evidence points to the conclusion that Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition—rebellion against the government.</p><p>First, he was crucified as “king of the Jews.” As noted in the last unit, the titulus on the cross announcing this is almost certainly historical.</p></blockquote><p></p><p><a href="https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-killed-jesus-the-historical-context-of-jesus-crucifixion">https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-killed-jesus-the-historical-context-of-jesus-crucifixion</a></p><p><br /></p><p>This article goes further, making the argument that Jesus really was intent on overthrowing the Romans.</p><blockquote><p>Another crucial point which is apparent from the cluster is that it interrogates the widespread assumption that Jesus was a man solely of love, mercy, and peace, lying outside the web of violence: there are several converging passages (Lk. 22:38; Lk. 22:49; Mark 14:47 and par.) indicating that – at least in the final phase of Jesus’ ministry – Jesus’ disciples were armed and ready to use the weapons they carried, and according to Lk. 22:36 Jesus himself encouraged his followers to arm themselves with swords. Moreover, Jesus and his disciples are remembered as saying and doing some other things which are not to be reconciled with a kind of pacifism or nonviolence avant la lettre.12 The widespread attempt to downplay or suppress the violent aspects in Jesus’ words and deeds is only possible through a conceptual lifting which is very helpful for pastoral purposes, but is untenable as a result of critical scholarship.</p></blockquote><p><a href="https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2013/ber378008">https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2013/ber378008</a></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-31121513213000244922023-04-26T23:54:00.006-07:002023-04-27T00:03:51.730-07:00On Pontius Pilate<p> Pilate was an extremely powerful man. He answered to the Legate of Syria, who in turn answered to Emperor Tiberius, so was far, far up the chain of command. He was in charge of a region that encompassed, butwas larger than, the Jewish kingdom of Judah. He even <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procuratorial_coinage_of_Roman_Judaea">issued his own coins</a>.</p><p>He was a long way from being merely a petty Roman official.</p><p>But what was he like?</p><p><br /></p><p>Josephus mentions him in both Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War. He recounts the same events in both works, and we read of a man who did not care about Jewish sensibilities and had no qualms about killing Jews who stood against him.</p><p></p><blockquote>1. But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem: to take their winter quarters there; in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Cesar’s effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city: whereas our law forbids us the very making of images.6 On which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there. Which was done without the knowledge of the people; because it was done in the night time. But as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days, that he would remove the images. And when he would not grant their requests, because this would tend to the injury of Cesar; while yet they persevered in their request; on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately; while he came and sat upon his judgment seat. Which seat was so prepared, in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them. And when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them round; and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed. Upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable: and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.</blockquote><p></p><p></p><blockquote>2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem; and did it with the sacred money: and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (7) were not pleased with what had been done about this water: and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamour against him; and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man; as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit; who carried daggers under their garments; and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away. But they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on. Who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them; and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not. Nor did they spare them in the least. And since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, they were a great number of them slain by this means: and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.</blockquote><p></p><p>- <a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html">Antiquities of the Jews</a> (18.3)</p><p><br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>2. Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Cæsar that are called ensigns, into Jerusalem. This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country. These came zealously to Pilate to Cesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to preserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate’s denial of their request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground, and continued immoveable in that posture for five days, and as many nights.</p><p>3. On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight: Pilate also said to them, that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Cæsar’s images, and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem.</p><p>4. After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban (10) upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamour at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armour with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamour. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>- <a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-2.html">The Jewish War</a> (2.9)</p><p><br /></p><p>Josephus was writing about when the gospels were written; War of the Jews ca. 75, and Antiquities about 20 years later.</p><p><br /></p><p>Philo of Alexandria also describes Pilate, possibly the same events, writing as early as AD 41.</p><blockquote><p>XXXVIII. (299) "Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part, though I suffered an infinite number of evils when he was alive; but nevertheless the truth is considered dear, and much to be honoured by you. Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. (300) But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. (301) "But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.' (302) "But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. (303) Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; (305) for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.</p></blockquote><p>- <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book40.html">On the Embassy to Gaius</a></p><p><br /></p><p>The gospels, however, paint quite a different picture of Pilate. They portray him as a man forced by the Jewish people to do their bidding. Why the discrepencies between these two versions of the same man?</p><p>The simple answer is that the early Christians wanted to sell their religion to the Romans, and it was expediate to play down Pilate's role in the execution.</p><p>That said, there are still verses that tell us what Pilate was really like. For example:</p><p></p><blockquote>Luke 13:1 At this time some people came to Jesus. They told Him that Pilate had killed some people from the country of Galilee. It was while they were giving gifts of animals on the altar in worship to God. 2 <b>Pilate put their blood together with the blood of the animals.</b> Jesus said to them, “What about these people from Galilee? Were they worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee because they suffered these things?</blockquote><p></p><p>So even in Luke we can read about Pilate killing Jews, and further more showing his disdain for their religion by mixing the blood of the sacrifices with the blood of his victims.</p><p><i>That is not the work of a man easily cowered by the Jews. That is the work of a cruel tyrant, as described by Josephus and Philo.</i></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Why Jesus Was Executed</p><p><br /></p><p>There is a theological reason and a historical reason, and while the theological reason is arguably more important, this is about the historical reason. Was Jesus executed by the Jews or the Romans? And on what charge?</p><p><br /></p><p>The exact charge will be impossible to determine, but a few possibilities must be considered. These are blasphemy, sedition and causing trouble.</p><p><br /></p><p>Blasphemy can be rejected immediately. The Jews may have convicted him of blasphemy, but Jesus was crucified; it was the Roman's who did the did, therefore he necessarily must have been found guilty of breaking Roman law, and the Romans would not care one jot if he blasphemied gainst the Jewish religion - Pilate did that himself!</p><p><br /></p><p>That is not to say the priests did not find him guilty of blasphemy, and then frame him for sedition; that is a possibility. But he was not executed by the Jews and he was not executed for blasphemy.</p><p><br /></p><p>Note that the Bible tells us the Jews were allowed to execute blasphemers; if Jesus was accused of blasphemy, they had no need to hand him over to Pilate, they could deal with it on there own, just as they did with Stephen.</p><p><br /></p><p>Acts 7:59 They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>So was he executed for sedition or just being a trouble-maker?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>A word about sedition. This has some nuance, and scholars have debated exactly what the exact charge would have been.</p><p><br /></p><p>"Because Ulpian mentions maiestas as a possible exception to burial of individuals condemned to death, it is necessary to discuss that as a possible charge against Jesus. Although Raymond Brown and others have argued that maiestas was the charge against Jesus, it is more probable that Pilate executed him for sedition or troublemaking, especially because Jesus was a peregrinus (not a Roman citizen). Since Jesus was a peregrinus, it is difficult to see that a formal charge like maiestas (or perduellio [high treason]) would be relevant. I have not found any records of Roman trials in which a peregrinus was explicitly accused of maiestas by a magistrate. A. N. Sherwin-White, a meticulous classical scholar, thinks that Pilate executed Jesus on the charge of sedition. The bibliography is endless, and it is not necessary to rehearse it here". (Cook, J. (2011). 'Crucifixion and Burial'. New Testament Studies, 57(2)</p><p><br /></p><p>Maiestas was the crime of treason, so the above is considering whether Jesus was charged with sedition or treason. What is the difference? Either way Jesus was considered a rebel against Roman rule.</p><p><br /></p><p>One difference appears to be how the accused was executed. Those accused of maiestas were generally beheaded, but as the above says this applied to Roman citizens, so would not be the case for Jesus. That said, definitions changed over time, so it cannot be ruled out.</p><p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_majestas</p><p><br /></p><p>Was Jesus executed as a rebel against Roman, whether the charge was maiestas or sedition?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The Jews Hailed Jesus as the messiah, the man sent by God to deliver them from the Roman oppressors</p><p><br /></p><p>The Jews understood the messiah to be the man sent by God to deliver them from their oppressors.</p><p><br /></p><p>Micah 5:6 They will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword,</p><p>The land of Nimrod at its entrances;</p><p>And He will rescue us from the Assyrian</p><p>When he invades our land,</p><p>And when he tramples our territory.</p><p><br /></p><p>So when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, he was hailed as the man who would restore the coming holy nation of our father David, i.e., the kingdom of Judah.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Mark 11:8 Many people put their clothes down on the road. Others cut branches off the trees and put them down on the road. 9 Those who went in front and those who followed spoke with loud voices, “Greatest One! Great and honored is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Great is the coming holy nation of our father David. It will come in the name of the Lord, Greatest One in the highest heaven.”</p><p><br /></p><p>The Saduccees supported the Romans, and the high priest had been appointed by Pilate. They were against Jesus because they did not want a rebel, which would only lead to the destruction of their nation (and indeed in AD 70 just that happened). Hence we read:</p><p><br /></p><p>John 11:47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council meeting, and they were saying, “What are we [o]doing in regard to the fact that this man is performing many [p]signs? 48 If we let Him go on like this, all the people will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take over both our [q]place and our nation.” </p><p><br /></p><p>If Jesus had a message of love and peace why would they be worried? A message of love and peace will calm people down, and reduce civil disturbances.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Saducees were worried because they knew the people were hailing Jesus as the messiah, and hence potentially sparking a revolt.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some other verses where Jesus was hailed as the new king.</p><p><br /></p><p>John 1:49</p><p>Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel!”</p><p>John 6:15 So Jesus, aware that they intended to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself, alone.</p><p><br /></p><p>John 12:13</p><p>they took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, indeed, the King of Israel!”</p><p><br /></p><p>John 12:15</p><p>“Do not fear, daughter of Zion; behold, your King is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.”</p><p><br /></p><p>Clearly the disciples expected Jesus to deliver them from the Roman oppressors too.</p><p><br /></p><p>The disciples expected this too</p><p><br /></p><p>Luke 24:21 But we [i]were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel....</p><p><br /></p><p>Acts 1:6 So, when they had come together, they began asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>What did Pilate believe?</p><p><br /></p><p>Was Pilate aware that the Jews were hailing Jesus as their new king? That is exactly what the gospels tell us.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Mark 15:2 Pilate questioned Him: “So You are the King of the Jews?” And He answered him, “It is as you say.”</p><p><br /></p><p>Mark 15:9 Pilate answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?”</p><p><br /></p><p>Matthew 2:2</p><p>“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”</p><p><br /></p><p>John 18:33</p><p>Therefore Pilate entered the Praetorium again, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “You are the King of the Jews?”</p><p><br /></p><p>19:1 So Pilate then took Jesus and [a]had Him flogged. 2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and placed it on His head, and put a purple [b]cloak on Him; 3 and they repeatedly came up to Him and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and slapped Him in the face again and again. </p><p>...</p><p>12 As a result of this, Pilate [g]made efforts to release Him; but the Jews shouted, saying, “If you release this Man, you are not a friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king [h]opposes Caesar!”</p><p>13 Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called [i]The Pavement—but in [j]Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the [k]sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Look, your King!” 15 So they shouted, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate *said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king except Caesar.”</p><p>...</p><p>19 Now Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written: “JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 20 Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in [n]Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>https://www.history.com/news/why-pontius-pilate-executed-jesus</p><p>https://www.israel365news.com/352567/this-good-friday-may-the-false-claim-the-jews-killed-jesus-be-cancelled-opinion/</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-1331509759842752422023-03-17T01:54:00.006-07:002023-03-17T01:54:54.006-07:00The Bacterial Flagellum<p>Way back in 1996 Behe published a book, <i>Darwin's Black Box</i>, claiming that so-called "Irreducibly Complex" (IC) systems disprove evolution. An IC system can be defined as one in which removing a part stops it working altogether. This supposedly means it cannot have evolved.</p><p>The argument has been <a href="https://biologos.org/articles/behe-and-irreducible-complexity-failure-to-engage-the-evidence">soundly trashed</a>, including in a court of law, but IDists still use it because... well what else do they have?</p><p>The modern argument involves two different definitions of IC, changing between them as convenient.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Definition 1: A system is IC if it fails if a component is removed.</li><li>Definition 2: A system is IC if there is no evolutionary route, direct or not, to it.</li></ul><p></p><p><i>We see systems that fail if a component is removed, and they are IC, by definition 1. Then we quietly swap to definition 2. If the system is IC then it cannot have evolved.</i></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">The Bacterial Flagellum</h4><p>One such system is the bacterial flagellum. This is a tail-like structure in some bacteria that spins to provide forward motion. This was cited by Behe in his book, and became the poster child for the D movement.</p><p>Since Behe published his book work was done to explore how it could have evolved via an indirect route. It was originally thought the type three secretion system (T3SS), a mechanism some bacteria use for injecting proteins into another cell, was a precursor, but <a href="https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00430-X?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS009286742100430X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">it now looks </a>as though the T3SS evolved from the flagellum. This dates from 2021.</p><p>It is interesting that it is evolutionary biologists who determined this, not creationists. I expect that is because evolutionary biologists do science, creationists do not.</p><p>So this is an area of on-going research, and I am aware of at least two groups working on it, one in the UK and one in Australia.</p><p><a href="https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/general/unsw-researcher-awarded-18m-international-life-science-grant">This page</a> is about the Australian work, and only says how it is starting. </p><p>One interesting point is that the project is valued at 1.8 million Australian dollars, so about 1.2 million US dollars. Bearing in mind the Discovery Institute has a <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/911521697">revenue of over 9 million dollars</a> a year, this is well within their reach. So why are they not doing any research on this?</p><p>I suspect it is because they know it will fail.</p><p>The UK team have <a href="https://www.sci.news/biology/bacterial-flagellar-motors-05612.html">published some results</a>, working back from the 17-part system, to a 12-part system.</p><p>Clearly this is on-going work. That is what science is like - new results come to light, and it heads off in a new direction. I have faith that science will have an answer one day, probably in the next ten years.</p><p>In contrast, the DI clearly have no faith in their position.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Proving A Negative</h4><p>If IDists want to claim there are no evolutionary routes, direct or otherwise, to an IC system, the burden of proof is on them to support that claim. If they cannot then the default position is that we do not know if indirect routes are possible or not, and that position is sufficient to defeat the IC argument.</p><p>If we do not know if a system could have evolved, it is nonsense to conclude evolution could not have happened.</p><p>This feels like it is obvious, but IDists will still try to claim the argument stands.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">See also</h4><p><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mmi.14246">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mmi.14246</a></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-48165496008518047152023-02-22T00:20:00.001-08:002023-02-22T00:21:38.621-08:00On Obstinacy in Belief<p>This is the name of a paper presented by CS Lewis in 1955, and can be found here:</p><p><a href="https://thesewaneereview.com/articles/on-obstinacy-and-belief">https://thesewaneereview.com/articles/on-obstinacy-and-belief</a></p><p><br /></p><p>It is a curious paper. What exactly is Lewis trying to argue here? As far as I can tell he is admitting that Christian's believe with a certainty the evidence does not warrant, but that is fine because he, as a Christian, is certain his belief is right.</p><p>He starts by comparing Christian thinking and scientific thinking, but quickly shifts to a scientist and a Christian. This is important to his argument because then he can point out that some scientists are Christians, so therefore they must be the same. Some scientists have bad judgement outside of science or hold to beliefs with a certainty that is not proportionate to the evidence.</p><p>To me, the issue is religious thinking against scientific thinking. One man can be both Christian, believing absolutely the resurrection with scant evidence, and at the same time a scientist, thinking string theory is merely a viable possibility. People are complex and can and do think about different things in different ways, and religion does seem to bypass reason.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some quotes from the paper:</p><blockquote><p>And no one, to the best of my knowledge, uses the word “believe” about things he has found out. The doctor says he “believes” a man was poisoned before he has examined the body; after the examination, he says the man was poisoned. No one says that he believes the multiplication table.</p></blockquote><p>What a remarkable view of science! A doctor examining a patient is using science, but not doing science. And a multiplication table is maths! Why could he not find an example that is actually science?</p><p>When Einstein proposed relativity, it was just a hypothesis that might be true. The confidence we now have in it was gained after many years of experiment. It is not the first time Lewis has shown a very superficial understanding of science.</p><blockquote><p>Of course he uses hypotheses or supposals. I do not think these are beliefs. We must look, then, for the scientist’s behavior about belief not to his scientific life but to his leisure hours.</p></blockquote><p>This is Lewis saying the scientist does not use scientific thought all the time, and therefore..? It does not undermine science itself if the practitioners have time off sometimes.</p><blockquote><p>It may be asked whether belief (and of course disbelief) of this sort ever attaches to any but theological propositions. I think that many beliefs approximate to it; that is, many probabilities seem to us so strong that the absence of logical certainty does not induce in us the least shade of doubt.</p></blockquote><p>Sure. I believe I am sat on a chair. I have utter conviction in that. But here is the thing - I am sat on it so I know the chair is there. There is, it seems to me, a fundamental difference in my belief that I am sat on a chair and the Christian's belief that Jesus was resurrected.</p><blockquote><p>It is not the purpose of this paper to weigh the evidence, of whatever kind, on which Christians base their belief. To do that would be to write a full-dress apologia. All that I need do here is to point out that, at the very worst, this evidence cannot be so weak as to warrant the view that all whom it convinces are indifferent to evidence.</p></blockquote><p>I think this can be disputed. The vast majority of theists adopt the religion of their culture - whether Hindu, Muslim or whatever. Why is that? Because they get indoctrinated as children. Lewis is a great example; his material grandfather was a priest and he was baptised. Although he became an atheist at 15, he returned to the fold in his thirties. Why to Christianity, not Hinduism or Islam? Because of his childhood conditioning.</p><p>If I am right (and I may not be), then the evidence may well be so weak to warrant the view that all whom it convinces are indifferent to evidence.</p><blockquote><p>Many of them have been scientists. We may suppose them to have been mistaken, but we must suppose that their error was at least plausible. We might, indeed, conclude that it was, merely from the multitude and diversity of the arguments against it.</p></blockquote><p>But many scientists are Muslims or atheists or whatever, and see the same evidence. At the very least, this indicates that the evidence is ambiguous, and certainty is not warranted.</p><blockquote><p>I therefore ask you to substitute a different and less tidy picture for that with which we began. In it, you remember, two different kinds of men, Scientists who proportioned their belief to the evidence, and Christians who did not, were left facing one another across a chasm. The picture I should prefer is like this. All men alike, on questions which interest them, escape from the region of belief into that of knowledge when they can, and if they succeed in knowing they no longer say they believe.</p></blockquote><p>The picture certainly is less tidy because there are people who are both Christians and scientists. I would suggest it is messy because people think differently when doing science or religion. When doing science, they believe proportionately. But when it comes to religion they abandon that principle, believe utterly despite it not being warranted.</p><p>What Lewis describes above <i>assumes Christianity is true.</i></p><p>He is saying that his belief in the resurrection is knowledge - and (depending on how you define knowledge) that depends on whether it is true.</p><blockquote><p>And all these beliefs, weak or strong, are based on what appears to the holders to be evidence; but the strong believers or disbelievers of course think they have very strong evidence. There is no need to suppose stark unreason on either side. We need only suppose error. One side has estimated the evidence wrongly. And even so, the mistake cannot be supposed to be of a flagrant nature; otherwise the debate would not continue.</p></blockquote><p>This assumes there is good evidence for the resurrection. That is a big assumption.</p><p>Suppose it is not true, but religion has clouded Lewis' judgment? Every day we see people claim there is strong evidence for Christianity, and yet time and time again that "evidence" is personal feelings or assume the Bible is true.</p><blockquote><p>But then I do not admit that a hypothesis is a belief. And if we consider the Scientist not among his hypotheses in the laboratory but among the beliefs in his ordinary life, I think the contrast between him and the Christian would be weakened.</p></blockquote><p>Here Lewis is saying religious beliefs should not be treated the same as scientific hypotheses. Why not? He does not say. At best, all he can offer is that even scientists may be guilty of doing similar - outside of science. So what? People are fallible and believe things that are not true. We all know that - everyone on this forum thinks all Muslims believe something that is not true</p><blockquote><p>But the Christians seem to praise an adherence to the original belief which holds out against any evidence whatever. </p></blockquote><p>So he does acknowledge this to some degree.</p><p><br /></p><p>From here onwards, Lewis is saying why it is good to have utter confidence in religion, despite the lack of evidence to warrant it, which seems a reversal on his original point.</p><blockquote><p>In getting a dog out of a trap, in extracting a thorn from a child’s finger, in teaching a boy to swim or rescuing one who can’t, in getting a frightened beginner over a nasty place on a mountain, the one fatal obstacle may be their distrust. We are asking them to trust us in the teeth of their senses, their imagination, and their intelligence. We ask them to believe that what is painful will relieve their pain and that what looks dangerous is their only safety.</p></blockquote><p>Note that in his analogies, the belief is warranted. How about the con artist who asks for complete trust from his victim. Strangely Lewis does not give that example (though, in fairness, he does later).</p><blockquote><p>No one says afterwards what an unintelligent dog or child or boy that must have been to trust us.</p></blockquote><p>Only if it turns out to be true. If someone gets scammed on the internet, we certainly would say that. It very much depends of whether the claim is true or not.</p><blockquote><p>Some of it is more like the evidence on which the mountaineer or the dog might trust his rescuer: the rescuer’s voice, look, and smell.</p></blockquote><p>I think this is the most damning sentence in the article. It is an admission that the evidence really does not warrant the certainty, and that it is founded instead on hope, on wishful thinking.</p><blockquote><p>When you are asked for trust you may give it or withhold it; it is senseless to say that you will trust if you are given demonstrative certainty. There would be no room for trust if demonstration were given. When demonstration is given what will be left will be simply the sort of relation which results from having trusted, or not having trusted, before it was given.</p></blockquote><p>Here is Lewis excusing God for not making himself apparent - for God doing such a good impression of something that does not exist.</p><p>Does it ever cross his mind that, if the gospels are true, God gave just just proof to the disciples? God demonstrated that certainty. Did the disciples then lack room for trust?</p><p><br /></p><p>I want at this point to return to the start of the paper:</p><blockquote><p>We have been told that the scientist thinks it his duty to proportion the strength of his belief exactly to the evidence; to believe less as there is less evidence and to withdraw belief altogether when reliable adverse evidence turns up. We have been told that, on the contrary, the Christian regards it as positively praiseworthy to believe without evidence, or in excess of the evidence, or to maintain his belief unmodified in the teeth of steadily increasing evidence against it. Thus a “faith that has stood firm,” which appears to mean a belief immune from all the assaults of reality, is commended.</p></blockquote><p>As far as I can see, Lewis has ended up agreeing with this statement; he is admitting that Christians do not have the evidence that would give them certainty, but hold their faith with that certainty anyway.</p><p>So what exactly is his point?</p><p>That Christians believe in the resurrection with an obstinacy that is not warranted, but that is okay because he obstinately believes the resurrection is true?</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-86575573628095320852022-11-11T03:10:00.004-08:002022-11-11T03:10:33.708-08:00Other "Virgin" Births<div style="text-align: left;">The point of this page is to show how common miraculous births were in the ancient world. Few of these are virgin births in the manner described in Matthew and Luke, but they are all miraculous - they all point to the individual being superhuman.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Christianity assuredly did not copy pagan religions, but we can be just as sure that it was influenced by them. Converted from paganism wanted their god to have a miraculous birth too! But that miraculous birth had to be fitted into the extant narrative. Jesus was known to have a mother called Mary and several siblings, including the disciple James. The virgin birth was as miraculous as they could reasonably claim, perhaps inspired by - or at least legitimised by - Isaiah 7.<br /> </div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Attis</h4><p></p><blockquote>The daemon Agdistis is linked to both the birth and death of Attis. Agdistis had both female and male reproductive organs. The gods feared this and plotted his death. Tricked into swallowing a sleeping potion, the gods tied his male genitalia to his foot. He castrated himself when he woke and stood. His blood fell to earth fertilizing the ground. An almond tree grew where it fell. The daughter of the river god Sangarius, Nana, picked almonds from the tree and carried them at her bosom. The almonds disappeared and Nana became pregnant with Attis.</blockquote><p></p><p><a href="https://greekgodsandgoddesses.net/gods/attis/">https://greekgodsandgoddesses.net/gods/attis/</a></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Alexander the Great</h4><div>This one is especially interesting because he was a real person. It is possible his mother invented the story either because she was pregnant before she married the king or to promote her own position, as she was ne of seven or eight wives.</div><p></p><blockquote>Alexander was the son of King Philip II of Macedon and of Epirote princess Olympias. According to Plutarch (Alexander 3.1,3), Olympias was impregnated not by Philip, who was afraid of her and her affinity for sleeping in the company of snakes, but by Zeus. Plutarch (Alexander 2.2-3) relates that both Philip and Olympias dreamt of their son's future birth. Olympias dreamed of a loud burst of thunder and of lightning striking her womb. In Philip's dream, he sealed her womb with the seal of the lion.</blockquote><p></p><p><a href="https://www.sheppardsoftware.com/Middleeastweb/factfile/Unique-facts-MiddleEast5.htm">https://www.sheppardsoftware.com/Middleeastweb/factfile/Unique-facts-MiddleEast5.htm</a></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Romulus and Remus</h4><p></p><blockquote><p>Romulus and Remus were twin brothers. Their mother, Rhea Silvia was the daughter of Numitor, king of Alba Longa, an ancient city of Latium. Before the twins are conceived, Rhea Silvia’s uncle Amulius takes power, kills Numitor’s male heirs and forces Rhea Silvia to become a Vestal Virgin. Vestal Virgins were charged with keeping a sacred fire that was never to be extinguished and were sworn to chastity.</p><p>However, Rhea Silvia conceives the twins. Most accounts claim their father was either the god Mars, or the demigod Hercules. </p></blockquote><p></p><p><a href="https://www.historyhit.com/origins-of-rome-the-myth-of-romulus-and-remus/">https://www.historyhit.com/origins-of-rome-the-myth-of-romulus-and-remus/</a></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Ra</h4><p></p><blockquote>Another Egyptian god, Ra (the Sun), was said to have been born of a virgin mother, Net (or Neith), and to have had no father.</blockquote><p></p><p><a href="https://www.hope-of-israel.org/originsVBmyth.html">https://www.hope-of-israel.org/originsVBmyth.html</a></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Hephaestus</h4><blockquote><p>Hesiod, however, claims that Hephaestus is solely Hera’s child and that she gave him birth by parthenogenesis to get back at her husband who had done the same with Athena.</p></blockquote><p><a href="https://www.greekmythology.com/Olympians/Hephaestus/hephaestus.html">https://www.greekmythology.com/Olympians/Hephaestus/hephaestus.html</a></p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Perseus</h4><p>Again perhaps a woman who got pregnant when she should not so make up a story.</p><blockquote><p>Akrisios had locked up his daughter in an underground prison made of bronze after an oracle had declared that his future grandson would kill him. Of course, this was no barrier to Zeus who entered the cell as a shower of golden rain. Naturally, when the child was born, Akrisios was unwilling to believe Danae’s far-fetched story of the golden rain.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki/doku.php?id=2013:perseus">http://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki/doku.php?id=2013:perseus</a></p><p> </p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Horus</h4><blockquote><p>After Osiris was brought back to the underworld, Isis now focused on revenge. She was impregnated by nature, which means Horus born of a virgin. Isis had the longest labor and went through many trials and tribulations in bringing Horus into this world safe and sound.</p></blockquote><p><a href="https://www.timelessmyths.com/mythology/when-was-horus-born/">https://www.timelessmyths.com/mythology/when-was-horus-born/</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-7822532232953196292022-10-20T05:24:00.004-07:002022-10-20T05:24:57.721-07:00Oral Tradition<p>An argument some make about the credibility of the gospels is that the material they contain all comes from oral tradition, and the Jews at the time had a long tradition for accurately keeping a good oral tradition. There are, in my view, a number of issues with this argument.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Who was doing it?</h4><p>To say the Jews were good at keeping an oral tradition is a very broad claim. What we know is that collectively they kept their holy texts (i.e., the Old Testament) very accurately, but it is quite a stretch to therefore suppose every Jew of the time was trained in maintaining oral tradition.</p><p>Their oral tradition was maintained by specific people, all of whom were in the priesthood, and all of whom were trained presumably from an early age.</p><p>Quite different to Galilean fishermen.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">But there was an oral tradition!</h4><p>That said, it seems likely Jesus did teach the disciples to memorise some sayings. We do read about him sending the disciples off to preach.</p><p></p><blockquote>Mark 6:6... Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. 7 Calling the Twelve to him, he began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits.</blockquote><p></p><p>It is almost certain he told them what to preach before doing so!</p><p>How accurately did they memorise it? We do not know. However, a bigger issue here is: what actually was it? At this point the oral tradition was what Jesus said, not what Jesus did.</p><p><br /></p><h4>What was part of the oral tradition?</h4><p>This bears repeating: The first oral tradition was about what Jesus said, nit what he did. When he taught the disciples what to say, he was teaching them his words. He would give them a saying, they would practice until they got it right, then they would go and preach to others.</p><p>The events in Jesus life - the most important of which was Jesus' death - were very different. Clear Jesus did not teach them how to memorise the story of his own death.</p><p>So we have two significantly different oral traditions: what Jesus said, and what Jesus did.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">What Jesus said</h4><p>This is what would have been practiced and controlled. It existed before Jesus died, the words were carefully prescribed by Jesus, and all the disciples were told to say the same thing.</p><p>Some of the earliest written works were composed only of sayings. The purported Q document and the Gospel of Thomas were just Jesus' sayings.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">What Jesus did</h4><p>Stories about what Jesus did were quite different. Certainly Jesus did not prescibe the words of the passion account - the disciples were left to do tat themselves. We have no reason to suppose the same controls were in place, or that the disciples were all saying the same thing; it seems likely each disciple told his personal story in the first few years, ad with no compulsion to tell it the same each time.</p><p>That is not oral tradition, that is gossip.</p><p>That does not make it false, but it makes it less reliable.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">The rumour mill</h4><p>In such a culture, what is to stop new rumours appearing and getting adopted as fact?</p><p>If the enemies of Christianity are claiming the disciples stole the body, and some guy speculates that maybe there was a guard on the tomb, how long until the community take it as fact that there was a guard on the tomb?</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-76275622066556961422022-09-02T00:03:00.005-07:002022-09-02T00:03:48.402-07:00The Bell Found In A Lump Of Coal<p> I will let the "Genesis Park" introduce this subject:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>In 1944, as a ten-year-old boy, Anderson’s task was to keep the coal furnace stoked at his home in Buckhannon, West Virginia (WV). One evening he went into the basement to refuel the furnace and carried a particularly large lump of coal on his shovel. As he carried the loaded shovel, it wobbled and the coal fell onto the floor, breaking the lump in two. A slender metallic object was revealed, protruding from one of the broken halves. Newton set aside the piece with the curious object and placed the remainder into the furnace.</p><p>Over the next couple of days the boy extracted a small bell from the coal, first by whacking it with a croquet mallet and then by cleaning it with lye and a scrub brush. Unfortunately he scoured all the coal off the intriguing artifact! But his parents and others witnessed the bell that he brought up from the basement and it became an object of conversation, residing on an old secretary desk shelf.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>https://www.genesispark.com/essays/update-on-the-mysterious-bell-found-in-coal/</p><p>So what we have is a metal bell. The metal bell seems to be real; there are pictures of it. I am not going to dispute its existence. But what is is provenance?</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">A ten-year-old boy</h4><p>A ten-year-old boy claims was found in a lump of coal, <i>but no one else saw with any coal on it.</i> The creationists' sole witness here is this boy.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">No Coal Residues</h4><p>The creationists had some analysis done on the bell.</p><blockquote><p>In the 1963–1964 timeframe, a man named Boris Bilas took the bell to the geology department at the University of Delaware at Wilmington, where it was studied and then returned. They confirmed that the bell was handmade. ... He subsequently wrote (Morris, 2010), “Nuclear Activation Analysis determined it to be primarily of bronze with a curious admixture of zinc. <b>A micro probe showed no residual traces of coal.</b>”</p></blockquote><p>No sign of residual coal? Almost like it was never buried in coal in the first place.</p><p>Remember, the creationist scenario is that the coal formed by heavy compaction around the bell. This is like putting a load of vegetable matter in a giant press, applying heat and pressure, and making coal. That is going to push coal into every scratch and imperfection in the surface of the bell. Indeed, you might imagine the bell being crushed in the process.</p><p>And yet the creationist scientists found no sign of coal on the bell! Either this ten-year-old kid was a master at polishing metal, or he lied.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Composition of the metal</h4><p>What is the composition of the metal? From the quote above "<i>primarily of bronze with a curious admixture of zinc</i>". See <a href="https://dailyoddsandends.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/strange-man-made-bell-found-in-coal/">also</a>:</p><blockquote><p>There a nuclear activation analysis revealed that the bell contains an unusual mix of metals, different from any known modern alloy production (including copper, zinc, tin, arsenic, iodine, and selenium).</p></blockquote><p>Unfortunately we do not know if the arsenic, iodine, and selenium are there in percentage levels or ppm, but the earlier reference does not mention them, I would guess they are just impurities in it.</p><p>They also do not report the percentage of the metal, but it sounds like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunmetal">gunmetal</a> to me.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Conclusion</h4><p>So we have a bell made of an alloy that could be gunmetal, found by a kid who claims it was inside a lump of coal, and without any further witnesses and with no residues of coal on it.</p><p>It is a fake!</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-41311971524036937872022-08-29T23:56:00.006-07:002022-08-29T23:56:56.833-07:00Just-so stories in the Bible<p>Occasionally creations will accuse evolutions of inventing just-so stories to explain what we see in nature. The reality, of course, is that evolution is real science, and the account for why something is how it is will always: (1) be backed up be real evidence; and (2) noted as speculation.</p><p>The real irony, however, is the number of just-so stories in the Bible, especially Genesis. Note that none of these are backed up by evidence and all are presented as fact.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Daddy, why do we feel shame when we are naked?</h4><p>Because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Genesis 3:7</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Daddy, why do snakes not have legs</h4><p>Because God cursed all snakes when that nasty snake in the Garden of Eden tempted Eve. Genesis 3:14</p><p><br /></p><h4>Daddy, why is there enmity between snakes and mankind?</h4><h4 style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Because God cursed all snakes when that nasty snake in the Garden of Eden tempted Eve. Genesis 3:15</span></p></h4><h4 style="text-align: left;"><br /></h4><h4 style="text-align: left;">Daddy, why do women suffer in childbirth so much?</h4><p>Because God cursed all women after Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Genesis 3:16</p><p><br /></p><h4>Daddy, why does man have to work so hard if God is looking after us?</h4><p>Because God cursed all men after Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Genesis 3:17</p><p><br /></p><h4>Daddy, why are there rainbows?</h4><p>It is a sign from God that he will not cause a global flood. Again. Genesis 9:13</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Daddy, why is it morally right to keep Canaanites as slaves?</h4><div>Because God cursed them all after Canaan saw his father naked. Genesis 9:25</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><h4>Daddy, why do people speak different languages? </h4><p>Because God cursed them when they tried to built a tower to heaven. Genesis 11:9</p><p><br /></p></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-52182404741963089352022-08-29T03:04:00.002-07:002023-02-22T00:22:02.090-08:00"Mere Christianity"<p> CS Lewis book, <i>Mere Christianity</i>, can be found <a href="https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PCM/merechristianitylewis.pdf">here</a>.</p><p>This is about book 1 of the book, five chapters across about 20 pages.</p><p>Lewis spends a long time saying there are moral laws that exist as abstract concepts in the same way as mathematics. It is debatable, but I tend to agree, so will not address it further. Then, a the end of page 20, we get:</p><blockquote><p>I should expect, for instance, to find that the stone had to obey the law of gravity—that whereas the sender of the letters merely tells me to obey the law of my human nature, He compels the stone to obey the laws of its stony nature. But I should expect to find that there was, so to speak, a sender of letters in both cases, a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide.</p></blockquote><p>Thus, his argument is that if the is a law of gravity or a moral law, then there must be a law maker. It is an old argument, but that alone does not make it wrong.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Maths</h4><p>What he does not say is whether he thinks the laws of mathematics requires a law maker. And to be clear, he does say moral law is like mathematics. And I think he does not say that because for maths it seems far less necessary that you need a law maker.</p><p>The internal angles of a triangle add up to 180°C. Did it require God to decide that? Or is that a fact that just is true? As an atheist, I of course say it did not require a law maker, however I am not aware of theists saying otherwise.</p><p>But if the abstract laws of mathematics require no law maker, why should moral laws?</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Communication</h4><p>An issue Lewis neglects is how God supposedly communicates these moral laws to us.</p><p>If they are built into our DNA, then evolution is able to explain them. Cultures and tribes that cooperate, that value life and reject theft and murder within the social unit, will thrive more than those that do not. If these are traits that can be inherited - which they must be if they are built in - then evolution explains them just fine.</p><p>To be clear, they do not need to be inherited via DNA for them to evolve; they could be passed down by word of mouth. I think the actual situation is a combination of the two, and it is interesting to note that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215880/">chimps display some basic moral behavior</a>.</p><p>And there is no sign of God telling anyone. He never told <i>me </i>that murder is wrong. Non-Christians know this as well as Christians. So if God is the law maker, exactly how is he telling us what those laws actually are?</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Relative Morality</h4><p>If God had to devise the moral laws, does that mean they are merely his opinion? God chose for rape and murder to be wrong, but - if Lewis is right - then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with, say, torturing babies.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Amoral God</h4><p>Furthermore, if something is right because God says it is, then in what sense is God a moral agent? A moral agent can choose between right and wrong - in contrast to, say, a tiger, which kills on instinct. But if God is choosing what is right and wrong, then he surely has no choice to do wrong.</p><p>To be perfectly good you have to always do the right thing. but you also have to have the potential to do the wrong thing.</p><p><br /></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Slavery</h4><p>A constant bugbear for Christianity is that the Bible states that chattel slavery is okay. How do we fit that with God giving us morality? Does God think slavery is okay? Did he back then, and then he changed his mind?</p><p>The point here is that if we got our morality from God - and slavery is wrong - mankind would have known slavery was wrong right from the start. Slavery would likely still have been a thing, but the Bible would would have said it is wrong.</p><p>Instead, mankind had to work this out for ourselves.</p><p><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Lewis on science</h3><p>As an aside, there are a couple of paragraph in book one that wonderfully illustrate Lewis' understanding of science. </p><p>Page 19:</p><blockquote><p>Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, "I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 A.M. on January 15th and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science — and a very useful and necessary job it is too.</p></blockquote><p>Now it must be accepted that Lewis was writing in the 40s, and maybe science education and communication was not what it today, but to think that that is science is woeful.</p><p>There is also this, on page 21:</p><blockquote><p>I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know — because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0