I think it is an unwarranted view to take the position that 'we can't know if this existing'. A person can believe in the existence in God with the same conviction that they believe in the existence of the people they see down the street. There are people that believe that only they exist. So belief and truth do not have a one-to-one correspondence which really makes the point moot. The current pendulum swing away from religious belief, especially in the West, is a testament to the fact the people base their beliefs are influenced or even determined by society. The pendulum could swing back again.

I will let the millions of believers around the world, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists make the determination that their faith is 'no longer needed'. They certainly need it, and if numbers are not an indication of validity, then it follows that if only one person in the world believed in God, it would not make their belief irrelevant because of numbers.

On a side note, I don't get why anyone bothers arguing about the six days vis-a-vis science. There is literally a second origin story in the next chapter that goes differently. Genesis clearly isn't focused on a scientific retelling of creation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Apparently there are many who argue about just such a thing, and the arguments are among theists, since it concerns their faith. There are many arguments here: six days versus 'science', versus old earth, old universe, the God who did nothing, who did nothing visible. In the midst of it, there are public debates and school textbook wars.

I am looking for good options to integrate the Christian faith and belief in the Bible and the current scientific view of origins. I have got some good answers and some bad ones. I need to sort these out.

To be fair the ad Infinitum version of the argument requires an infinite succession of creators, so that does not work either.

And then a God-Creator would require a God-Creator Creator.

Is a first cause the same thing? We are looking for a cause for the existence of the universe, are we not? By 'we' I mean cosmologists like Lawrence Kraus.

Yes, but with an additional comment, that there is a reason to believe that the universe was created 6,000 odd years ago, and that 'reason' is the tradition of belief of some of the worlds religions. More to the point, it is the traditional interpretation of the divine texts. I do not think it that belief in an arbitrary time of origin, say last Thursday for example, carries any weight.

What carries weight then, is the religous traditions of various large groups, and if there is a rationale for believing in these things (the Hindu belief is in a cyclical universe, for example) which is a question for the social scientist. The deeper question is: do religous beliefs correspond to reality? But that is out of scope of this discussion. My question is, given a religous belief, what are we allowed in terms of reason and logic, and I think we are making good progress here.

The fact that various factions within the Creationist community are engaged in serious disputes regarding Biblical interpretation, integration of faith and science makes for a rather confusing and unsettling state of affairs. Irrationality abounds in all camps. which is what I want to avoid.

'

Rather, I can suppose there is a God of some type that prefers not to be identified with physical evidence. — Cheshire

That view is on the face of it rather simplistic, but at a deeper level it is a sophisticated argument: God exists, but leaves no evidence, as in miracles, but on a more subtle level could be that God does not leave evidence that is detectable, for example, 'loading the dice' in the game of evolution, or arranging for some unlikely event such as the fine-tuning of the universe. One must be careful here, though, that lack improbability does not constitute proof.

I am curious though, as to what sort of evidence you think God has not seen the need to provide. Evidence of Creation, Guided Evolution or sometthing else.

Although a literal interpretation of Genesis is very clearly in conflict with the current scientific understanding of origins, it is clear to me that any interpretation of Genesis is in conflict with the current scientific understanding of origins.

If you look at the theory of evolution, the theories of origin of life, and the theory of the origin of the universe, there is simply no room for God's action there, there are no gaps for God to act. Do you agree? In which case it is impossible to see how any 'harmonization' could be done rationally. It is not that God is unnecessary, it is necessary that there is no God.

Evidence may be damaging to an irrational position, but may not persuade a person to give it up. There is evidence that will support the several sub-claims of a principal claim that is irrational or perhaps unsupported is a better word, and that evidence is valid, even though it is circumstantial. Of course, support for sub-claims does not prove the principle claim that is being made: for example, if is not possible to prove the existence of God, beyond all reasonable doubt, one could easily argue for a sub-claim convincingly: Taking God's existence as a given, then either God created the universe of the universe created God, it follows that the former inference is logical one.

Anyone may think God does exist or does not exist but in any case, it may or may not correspond to reality. But that is not what I want to discuss.

I want to address your comment "When they say they can prove their faith is true" - this is one branch of something have encountered recently, under the God-Aweful name of 'Apologetics'.People are free to proclaim their faith, but when they try to make a case that a reasonable person has no choice but to believe in Christianity I ask - so what if someone is not reasonable? If a person is not 'reasonable' then trying to make a case will only put them off.

It is a very curious thing to me what evangelicals will make of Jesus's admonition to leave people alone if they will not believe.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Matthew 10:14, KJV

Also, one of the most important features of the ministry of Jesus and His disciples was that his teaching was accompanied by miracles, which caused many (but not all) to believe. This is very much absent from the current evangelistic program.

St Paul's instruction was to show 'gentleness and respect' when explaining one's reasons for faith to a non-believer, so you may have been the recipient of something less than gentleness and respect?

The entire question of evidence is central to this debate. I have already distanced myself from the practice of finding evidence to fit my interpretation of Genesis. In fact, Dr. William Lane Craig calls this a problem with hermeneutics. Presenting evidence that can later be dismissed is a bad idea, and these things have happened in the past with Ken Ham's enterprise.

I would appreciate it if you could give me examples of the 'evidence' the Creationists in question are presenting. Do you mean Ken Ham and Noah's Ark?

The short answer would be to ask God in heaven, but that is really not a reasonable answer.

A miracle, not to put too fine a point on it, in one sense is about attribution. Of course, it could represent objective reality, but that determination is out of reach for us at the moment, and from a modern scientific point of view, there is no reason to expect an explanation will be found. If there seems to be no other explanation, then it is a miracle.

For example, certain cancers can disappear without treatment, there are peer-reviewed journals that document this. Then there is the Lazarus syndrome. Obviously, anyone who has been praying for healing or raising the dead will consider someone being 'healed' or rising from the dead as a miracle.

The stories of Jesus, even if one thinks of Him as a fictional character, contains accounts of miracles, and if one accepts these stories as being true, then there is no logical reason to pick and choose as to which miracles happened and which ones did not. If miracles are attributed to God, being all-powerful 'as the story goes, there is no reason to imagine to give a reason why it should not have happened at the beginning as well.

Correction: if someone believes that miracles happen, then they could believe that Creation was a miracle.

As for being irrational, what can I say? If a person believes irrationally that miracles happen, then they could believe that any number of miracles could have happened. The initial belief may be irrational, i.e. belief in miracles, I accept that person would be guilty as charged but you can only charge them once.

Classifying faith in any or all religions as irrational is nothing really new.

Why not have this teaching established not only at present, but the opinion is offered that this will be the stand for now and all possible future generations, unless the Church ceases to exist. This should be, I believe, the last stand of the Church which we should not ever retreat any further. There is no point in doing so.

Distinguished Academicians, I wish to conclude by recalling the words addressed to you by my predecessor Pope John Paul II in November 2003: “scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful”.

The only comment I make is that 'scientific truth'. although can help, often impedes and damages philosophy and theology and darkens our understanding of God. By "scientific truth" I mean the common consensus of the science of the day, which may or may not reflect reality and maybe a vehicle for the philosophical agenda of the scientists involved, a huge majority of whom are atheists.

If any mutual enrichment takes place, I am also, along with His Holiness, grateful, but if it does not. my gratitude will turn to something else.

Referring to the above address, the following is found:

Thus the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that “every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not ‘produced’ by the parents – and also that it is immortal” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 366). This points to the distinctiveness of anthropology, and invites exploration of it by modern thought. — HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI October 2008

In your opinion, then, is the Catholic church's stance rational? Is it self-consistent?

The Catholic Church teaches “theistic evolution,” a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God’s existence or any divine role in creation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-evolution-idUSLG62672220080916

Also: (I will examine in detail later)

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081031_academy-sciences.html

I find this interesting. Of course, it does not include the dinosaurs. Or reptiles. Or maybe the mustard seed is not the smallest of seeds.

According to research published in the Journal of Mammalogy in 2018, the number of recognized mammal species is 6,495, including 96 recently extinct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

From other sources, there are about 10,000 reptiles. I have a way out though, I am not locked into proving the literal account to be true, in order to prove the inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy does need to be defined.

That is just the point. Believing in monsters on Venus is an option for the Monster Believing cult. We are not discussing this leap of faith. Granted, it is an extreme example that few if any would claim as a belief. What we are discussing is, given that someone believes in a monster on Venus, what are the self-contradictions we can find. Mind you, the religious traditions found here on earth are much more rational and sophisticated than fairy tales, and especially with the attempts at integration are quite flexible. I would be a comment on the entire human race that they believe in fairy tales, but that is a sociological or evolutionary issue that is outside the scope of this discussion.

"Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat"

" Something doesn't add up if you want to take this literally. Unless, of course, the base of the mountain is part of the mountain. " - Hanover

This is what I am interested in: what are the things that do not add up if you take them literally? How does one deal with these rationally?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208&version=NKJV

If you begin with the position that the document was written by God, then you are forced to make sense out of it, even if it's jumbled nonsense. — Hanover

Indeed, so making sense of it has to be something like this: the thoughtful believer sits down with a pen and paper and uses the dimensions of the ark, the number of animals on board, the problem of the insects and so on, and has to come up with an answer that seems reasonable. One could simply say that one does not know, and to use the often-used exit strategy : "I will ask God when I get to heaven". Well then this raises an interesting question: The answer, as far as we can see now, is that "Yes. all the animals and creatures did fit on the ark" or "That was a story to illustrate the Providence of the Almighty"

The Answers in Genesis team gives an answer:. Still, making there is nothing inconsistent in saying one does not know. The calculations and assumptions could be right or wrong, in fact I could do a fact checking myself sometime.

Based on initial projections, the Ark Encounter team estimates that there were around 1,400 animal kinds on the ark. It is anticipated that future research may reduce that number even further.

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-all-animals-fit-ark/

That is an excellent book, I have not read it, but it demonstrates the kind of frameworks that help the Christian and perhaps the scientist grapple with these issues, and indeed integrate them into his faith. The purpose of this discussion is to make a case for holding on to one's Christian faith and also integrating what is in the scientific body of knowledge, an informed, civil discussion.

You can gather from my comments what I can say explicitly, that I while I can be expected to be dismayed by attacks on the faith, mainly be Atheists, old and new, I am just as dismayed, maybe even more, by the irrational, non-theological as well as nonscientific treatment of the issue by Creationists. Has anyone read Henry Morris? Hugh Ross? Surely there is a way for people to speak without making themselves sound irrelevant, or a laughing stock for all humanity? Has anyone seen this?

They make good points, but there is a way to discuss this thing, without destroying the image of the Church.

My point is that, if someone believes in miracles, there are many who do, but numbers do not matter, then it is reasonable that Creation itself could have been a miracle. There is no self inconsistency in believing water to wine or nothing to the universe. All it says is that it sounds absurd if you take a certain view. I grant that belief can be called absurd, but not the beliefs that stem from that belief, and these could follow a rational train of thought.

And by the way, the date and time of creation is not supported in the text. There is a set of genealogies, if taken at face value, give date of about 6,000 years as far as I know. Projecting the date on the current calendar system and working backwards was certainly unwarranted and does neither science nor religion any favours.

Why is the Christian view always off the table in these discussions? He could have been the Son of God for Christ's sake!

The success of the Bible and other religious texts rests on the demographics and possibly the social psychology of the human race. Why are certain books and teachings given a special place? Blame history, or maybe evolution. There are scientists who are Christians and who believe in the Bible, so it seems that pronouncements by "Bible-believing" Christians fall on ears that are as deaf as their own when it comes to the theory of evolution. If we have abandoned the ultimate truth then we are discussing opinions and engaging in opinion polling.

My approach is the the conditional approach - if, by some chance, you have come to believe in God and the Bible as God's word or if it contains God's word or something like that, then what is the relationship between faith in the Bible? Does it make sense to discuss the Bible with those who believe it is a fairy tale? I for one am not interested in discussing Hans Christian Anderson.

For me, much fruitful discussion lies in the field of logic and reason. How does logic and reason, which is the heart of science, be applied to religion, to preserve the same intellectual rigour that is demanded of that field of knowledge? I believe it can, but the intellectual discussion on faith and reason seems to be still in its infancy. Just witness the Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate. What in the world was that?

What we follow is the received text, to be blunt, no matter how inaccurate it turns out to be. There are some reasons to have confidence in the text, but if this is again a matter of opinion, that is OK as well.

If we believe in miracles, or to be more exact, for people who believe in miracles, what are the options? Surely they are not unlimited.

Any acceptance of the Biblical account as being a true account of creation has to be accompanied by a harmonization of the scientific theories of evolution and the geological record. There are various ways of doing this. I should, by the way, state that I do not make any of the claims that the Scientific American article states, except for the fact that no one knows how life began.

So how does one harmonize the accounts? John F. McArthur of Grace Community Church calls the creation event a miracle. The creation of the heavens and the earth, in effect the universe and everything there is, and the creation of the earth, moon, animals, plants, and human beings takes place a week-long miracle. The creation story ends at Genesis chapter 2, but followed by a flood event which creationists interpret as a literal account. It is possible to harmonize the flood account as a local event, but it is not possible to find any corresponding body of evidence in the geological record, according to geologists. This must remain a mystery, at least from my point of view because I have no access to the geological record or any means of interpreting it in accordance with the story of a flood. There are flood myths that exist in communities worldwide, but that is all that the scientific community will admit.

The question is then, is there anything logically inconsistent in considering the creation account as a miracle, like the miracle of turning water to wine, or parting the red sea? Again, I make no other claims that Creationists make. Of course from the scientific point of view, taking the Biblical record or the any other accounts of creation as fact is problematic. There is nothing to prevent scientists from staying away from commenting on any religious accounts, no matter how well accepted by most of the world.

Any ideas on harmonization?

In the area of Biblical translation, actually, the problem is fairly straightforward. The translations are in front of us now, and with the additional assumption that we can read and understand English, we are can easily ascertain what it means. There is the issue of cultural context, which is linked to the linguistic context, but this is easily overcome by using a hypothetical approach: If the Bible has been translated correctly, and if the text is this, then we have these sets of meaning we can draw from the text. If this meaning is taken, then this is the conclusion. I will elaborate, but a dispassionate analysis of the text is possible, I think.

Well I would not call it a Jesus Legend. Also, the accounts of creation seem to be different on further examination, and there are contradictory statements there, thanks for pointing that out. The secret seems to be the courage to admit the truth, which Christians are supposed to have, fear God and having nothing left to fear, even Biblical texts!

I really need your views on how to handle irrational, attacking, dogmatic views on both sides of the debate. I do mean both sides. This is a real concern now.

OK I will look at these.

Yes, this is one approach, which is not without difficulty, but one that has been adopted by many denominations.

"The world would have to be irrational in a high degree for science to be wrong on this and why do Christians think their translations of ancient texts is more reliable than science on this? It doesn't make sense "

This is a good question to ask. Let me quote you something from the Stanford Encylopaedia of Philosophy:


"Creationism
First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Sep 21, 2018
At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be “transcendent” meaning beyond human experience, and constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense."

The reason for the belief is based on what are considered ancient texts, and considered the very word of God. There are reasons for belief. Given the existence of God, it seems natural to reason that the Universe was created by Him.

The difficulty lies with harmonizing the scientific theory of origins with the religious claims of origins. There are several approaches, and I will discuss these next, however, I need help in analyzing these claims for rationality and for logic, since both religious and scientific thought can rule out irrational arguments.

Hi Gregory. First of all, thanks for the civil response. I have been discussing these with various persons and I know the reactions that I get from deeply entrenched views in science. So we have agreed that the creation story is self-consistent. The scientific establishment has a different view.

The age of the earth has been a matter of debate from antiquity, and there are traditions where the universe was thought to be ancient, I think the Hindu traditions.

Time is not a straight line. Instead there are eternal cycles with universes being created, existing and dying, followed by recreation, existence and death. There is no beginning and no end. This is mirrored in the belief in reincarnation. — BBC

I would think it reasonable to assume that the writers of Genesis would have been aware of this concept. In fact, the eternal existence of God may have led some to believe that God created a universe very far back in eternity.

The study of the geological record, the finding of fossils and the theory of evolution all supported a different view of the origins of the earth and life on earth. It is hard to see how this could have been postponed indefinitely!

Just to be clear, the received truth is that the Republican party is bad and the Democratic party is good, is that correct? An objective standard would be if anything they do violates the constitution.

Personal insults and vilification as well as accusing the others side as being communists or traitors or idiots is not expressly or tacitly unconstitutional, is that how it works?

I am trying to figure out how the system works that a free fair election produced Donald Trump in 2016 and then Joe Biden in 2020. Are the voters to blame, and is it always the voters on the other side?

The framers of the Constitution did not write it for a two-party system.

Blistering piece by Ben Sasse in The Atlantic: — Wayfarer

It is a really tiresome piece of hyperbole and exaggeration. Again, the entire Republican party is now to blame, in some insane logic, for a few hundred people who broke in and entered government buildings are equated to those who refused to do so. A protest gone awry an a few bad apples is what it is.

The Republican party is fine, despite wishes to the contrary. Anyone can see the character of their representatives such as Mitchell McConnell . If people wish to demonize Republicans for voting with their conscience, and having a right to non-conformity of opinion, then it is indeed a huge reversal of what the progress towards freedom of speech and especially a failure to respect the Constitution. There was no danger of the party being led by Alex Jones. What is dangerous if forbidding the Republicans for agreeing in any way with the polices that Trump, in any case the winning Republican candidate of 2016. It is this sort of thing that has damaged democracy, people do not have a freedom to express their opinion without being censured, so be it, but I guess reason if not literacy has taken a real step backwards.

Not everyone is part of a cult that thinks of their chosen candidate as being an idol. Most people vote for a candidate simply because they believe they're better suited to the job. — Michael

Better suited for the job is a good criteria.

A pre-election article about voters highlighted the reasons people voted for their candidate. Some voters were voting for Biden because they thought Trump had mishandled the Coronavirus Pandemic, not given suitable relief to those who lost their jobs, enough to make the 5% difference in votes. Some mentioned 'hating Trump' but no one said they hated Biden. Hate is not a good reason to vote anyway.

Voting for policy is what people do. Even hating people for policy - for example stricter immigration laws and border controls is also a possibility. Build a wall? I hate you for that!

What I find unacceptable is that some use the same type of language they accuse Trump of, insulting, calling people stupid for voting for policies that they do not agree with. Can this sort of thing be defended under your constitution? If it is , then the defense applies both ways. In any case, you are welcome to resemble Trump as close as you want.

To be fair, the insults fly both ways. Many things have been said about Biden as well as the Democrats, and even the Clintons. I am neither a block Republican Supporter not a Democrat supporter - I broadly supported - though I am not a US resident - the policies of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and I was very happy to see Barak Obama elected to office, although in later years I was unsure if he was a good president after all. I believed also that Bernie Sanders would have been a great choice.
So partisanship is out for me, which might explain the lack of interest in calling the other side demons.
The alternative is secession, which I understand has been tried in the past.

While we all seem to agree that Trump voters made an exceedingly poor choice in voting for Trump, there are ample good reasons for voters to be reaching beyond the traditional political class. — Hippyhead

That is absurd. 80% or more were approving of him after 4 years. Does that sound like a poor choice? Not from their point of view, and your point of view is just your opinion. Check out who won most admired person of the year, yes I cannot believe it myself.

The US Constitution restricts The State (or the states) from interfering with free speech. Private organizations (like churches, corporations, universities) are not so limited. That's why speech codes are more common on private campuses than public ones, or why Congress can not make Donald Trump shut the .... — Bitter Crank

So those private 'speech codes' are not subject to government regulations, is that right? If Twitter has decided to take sides, shouldn't there be an alternative for those who are banned from Twitter from expressing their views? I am not saying it is a good thing, for example China only permits media channels to operate with their approval, but I am not sure denying evil Trump supporters from expressing their views is in line with allowing free speech. Am I missing something?

Mass delusions of the political kind are quite common. We socialists in American engage in delusional thinking just about every day. In this we share delusional thinking with people who think that through hard work and inspiration they will become rich, maybe as rich as Elon Musk or Bill Gates — Bitter Crank

Well yes, I agree with you here. I do not think Trump is delusional. With the people who came forward to say various things about election fraud forged mail in votes, and the people like Rudy Guliani who alleges more votes than voters, it is reasonable that he thinks so. The question is, if these were all lies, who misled him? How would he know if ballots were scanned multiple times? How would you know?
Is this a moot point? Will we ever know - I feel the truth will out in coming months.

Some talk of a 'K' shaped post pandemic recovery - a recovery for some and not for others. It may be time to look beyond Trump and both parties and question why things are the way they are, who really is in power and who is benefiting. History is rife with examples of the common population revolting against the elite. Even in North Korea communist party members enjoy increased privileges.

To paraphrase an old saying: we have nothing to gain but more chains. I think it is time to bow down to people in power and accept our lot with meekness and thanksgiving.

Michael Hobbes, Senior Enterprise Reporter, The Huffington Post, wrote in The Huffington Post:

“Other than Netflix, Andrew Cuomo and the virus itself, no one has benefited from the COVID-19 pandemic more than American billionaires.

https://countercurrents.org/2020/10/the-pandemic-has-benefited-billionaires/

I'd like to know your ideas on how ordinary people can get out of this mess.

Banned from Twitter? Twitter has their own rules which they are absolutely in their right to enforce. Of course we can all keep checking on Twitter's political bias and their alleged hyporicy if we want.

I do not know if the tweet referred to below has been removed, but this non-incitement to violence was made in July this year (not by Trump)

Twitter executives last month rebuffed a request from the Israeli government to remove tweets from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for the genocide of the Israeli people — claiming in a stunning letter obtained by The Post that the Jew-hate qualified as “comments on current affairs.”

https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/

Shouldn't it be the government that decides what to censor or is it up to private organizations? Then is it upto the government to decide which private organizations have a right to operate based on their censorship pattern? Quite a slippery slope here.

When I spoke about respecting the office I simply meant taking the example of President-Elect Biden:

"He exceeded even my worst notions about him. He's been an embarrassment to the country, embarrassed us around the world. He's not worthy to hold that office," Biden said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/biden-trump-inauguration/index.html

Name - calling is not what is needed here, and is a kind of verbal violence. That is all.

I was referring to this curious Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

And also this one:

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

For example, everyone has the right to join the Trump Supporters group if they want.