Coyne gets so much wrong in his entire diatribe it’s hard to even know where to start. Faith in God is not blind. What do you think the picture of Thomas and Jesus was about in the first place? Blind faith? No! Jesus walked through walls to get to Thomas to show himself wounded and allowed himself to be touched physically by Thomas in the area of his wounded side. Over 500 people watched as Jesus ascended to heaven after his passion and resurrection! Angels comforted the people as they watched Jesus disappear into the clouds! OVER 500 PEOPLE! Blind faith??? Not even close!
And on and on, Coyne is wrong, wrong, wrong. Only in the feeble philosophy of man is there even such a thing as “religion”. There is only one God, one true God, and he was from the beginning. This is not a mere “religion” to be counted with all other feeble attempts at “god” and “gods”. This is the authentic Maker of heaven and earth and Mankind. The One who has proved himself time and again to be the only true and living God. Blind faith??? Not even close.
I never said science says miracles can’t happen. I said science can’t ACCEPT that miracles HAVE happened. Big difference. Science is neutral on the existence of the supernatural.
What about the millions since the beginning of time who say people who reject God and the concept of sin are mistaken? When do we get a voice? Now sounds like a good time to me.
Even atheists hold to beliefs that are entirely subjective and without verifiable support. For example, I believe dogs are far superior as pets than cats are. I also believe my nieces are perhaps the cutest human beings on the planet. Carrying around a mix of objective and subjective beliefs is called “being human”.
We can add fallibility to the list of human attributes.
Christianity has had too much of a voice for the past 2000 years. It is time to let science do the talking. Each of us need two doses of vaccines against COVID and Christianity. I don’t know how others may feel but given all the suffering and sacrifice due to COVID in 2020, I for one am not in the mood to celebrate the birth of a human sacrifice (Jesus) that enables an angry God to forgive sinful humans.
So you don’t think healing and forgiveness are bad? I don’t know what you’re saying here.
There’s a large difference between 5% of atheists and 40% of people who believe in God. The statistics that people are more likely to believe in special creation than in the Bible being literal are telling. Just because it’s the opposite of what many Christians in this forum believe doesn’t mean you can make the statistics mean they just reject it for a “variety of reasons.”
It is the world-view philosophy of scientism/naturalism that erodes faith, not the science itself.
The fact that people wrongly use Darwinism as a social construct in destructive/oppressive ways and turn it into a worldview philosophy does not make evolutionary science wrong.
It is completely reasonable to believe in a creator God and to believe in salvation through Christ while also affirming the science of evolution.
I do not personally think that morality can be explained by human cooperation and evolutionary psychology, nor do such concepts reduce my faith in a creator God.
It does not make sense to reject findings in multiple disciplines of science to maintain a YEC viewpoint, which is not even demanded by the Biblical text and is not required for salvation. Such a stance draws people away, not towards faith. In my view, that battle line is misplaced. Why do you think that battle line is necessary?
It seems that most people on this thread agree that Coyne’s reasoning is flawed. His diagnosis is incorrect because he does not understand the religions he is trying to criticize. Thus, it’s not very effective to use his article to promote YEC views.
Happy Solstice to you, Patrick. Looking forward to seeing Jupiter and Saturn next to each other in the sky.
Of course to understand my experiments I assume that miracles are not constantly happening (methodological naturalism).
However, if God exists, then miracles are possible. God can break His own laws, but He does not do that all the time. God uses miracles as one means of revealing Himself to us. We understand miracles to be miracles because they do not constantly happen. Usually things happen according to the natural laws that God set up.
@dga471, if you insist on being “insult[ed]” because of (me recounting) what I said before I even joined this forum, then there’s nothing I can do about it.
I do not really regard it as being my problem however.
This is particularly true given that it seems to be neither a particularly idiosyncratic viewpoint (given that Coyne, Harshman and myself each came up with it independently) nor a particularly well-discredited one (your attempted rebuttal of it on the previous thread seems to have generated more heat than light).
And I feel that you have already flogged this horse to death in the previous thread.
This feeling is further exacerbated by the fact that, in spite of the fact that my original comment was neither directed specifically at members of this forum, nor at you yourself, you insist on taking it personally.
This has led you to post on this thread in a manner that that I feel has not been conducive to calm, considered discussion.
For these reasons I will state:
@dga471I have no interest in discussing this topic further with you.
(And even lower interest than I previously had in discussing any topic with you.)
Let me make it clear that this is not a matter of mere personal offense. The fact that you didn’t direct your comment to me, or to members of this forum, is immaterial to the point I’m making. It is a matter of offense against religious scientists as a class, of which I am a member.
Let’s take a different hypothetical which may be more understandable.
If, for example, someone were to state an unjustified generalization about Asian people on this forum, I would speak up against it, even if 1) that person didn’t refer to me personally, or 2) the speaker believes that the viewpoint is “not well-discredited” nor “idiosyncratic”.
Why would I do that? Because I think I have a duty to call out certain types of rhetoric or arguments which are false and harmful, even if it’s not directed to me personally. My act of speaking against that argument is a public act not necessarily directed exclusively at the speaker of the argument, but at the space in which discourse happens. I want to get others in the space to know that such a viewpoint will not be aired without rebuttal. It is a rhetorical act as much as an argumentative one.
Your statement generalizing religious scientists is similar to that example. Now, of course, I don’t mean to imply that discrimination against Christian scientists is as bad as racism against Asian people. Which is why my initial reaction was not meant to be hostile in tone or accusatory towards you in particular. I simply stated a counterexample to the generalization.
And I personally choose to keep registering my objection to such rhetoric of “compartmentalization”. It caused me a lot of personal distress growing up a Christian teenager interested in science, and I wish that we move on from that sort of rhetoric. (Actually, it seems that most atheists have indeed moved on. I hope you have too.)
I agree with all of this, I just put a few adjectives in brackets to show you how I take a slightly different twist on the agreement.
By necessity, a YEC view is defined by rejecting interpretations of findings in multiple fields of science that we do think are demanded by the biblical text. There is no reason to have such a stance unless we believed it to be so.
I think a line is necessary because as I’ve said in this forum, I believe Jesus requires it of me. This is how I think: God could not have created this world with death as a created norm when death is a punishment for sin. Why else would Jesus have to die? Why could he not have suffered a spiritual death for all of us only? Why else does the resurrection need to be the miracle than proved him as the victor? And then we have the doctrine of the first Adam and last Adam, the image of God in both man and woman but also their separate roles, which means Genesis 1 and 2 must be read as one story to understand marriage correctly
I can see that you can interpret specific passages of Scripture so that it agrees with evolutionary science. IMO, you can’t really have a higher regard for Scripture than @swamidass does in his GAE hypothesis and still affirm current evolutionary science. I appreciate it in that way.
But from my perspective, interpreting Bible passages in light of certain aspects of current scientific theories may be possible, but you’re breaking many themes of the Bible when you do so.
I hope it’s OK to share a poem I wrote in college that shows this. It was good that I looked at it tonight as I’ve thought since I wrote it, the last word didn’t fit, and I rewrote that line tonight Hopefully it helps you understand my perspective regarding some of these themes. And it’s an excuse to share my poetry.
From Fruit to Fruition
I eat this fruit:
succulent life breathing life
from the creator-synchronized creation
in the splendor of that first light.
In the cool of the night
His goodness I taste and see.
I eat this fruit:
blinding pride poison clouds my eyes.
Naked to the core
dying I die.
Now rising, now rotten red sun
peeling in pain, uncovers my shame.
I eat this fruit:
communion of the body, shed scarlet skin
battered and bruised to breathe new life in
my soul; His white flesh rots,
while turning raw, red flesh
unblemished as lamb’s wool.
I eat this fruit:
sweet inheritance of grace,
plucked from undying branches,
an enveloping, enthralling taste.
Eating, I stand with the throng inside the gates,
as the Creator smiling, chews and captivates.
Hopefully it helps you understand my perspective regarding some of these themes. And it’s an excuse to share my poetry. 