Religion and logic

[Poetic Justice]

You are aware that Augustine did not take the literal view of Genesis, right? Here is a quote by him upon this very topic:

 

[lilpixieofterror]

I'll say the same thing I always say when someone tries this argument. So you're admitting the bible isn't true?

Hello PJ (do you mind if I call you this?). Anyway, no I am not admitting that at all. I am admitting that a certian interpretation of the Bible (specifically YEC) is wrong, not that the Bible is wrong. Do you know the difference or do you believe that YEC and the first few chapters of Genesis are the same thing?

If it is a metaphor and not meant to be true then it can't be thought of as a description of how life was created, how the earth was created, what happens after death etc.

It is an ancient book and must be properly understood, by those who it was written for. YEC and it's various views is a reccient interpretation of Genesis and that alone should tell us that the ancients did not view it in the same light. I think it's funny that Augustine (a 4th century writer) understood this nearly 17 centuries ago.

i.e. The bilbe is a story and not true. I agree

Sounds like you are making a rather sweeping generalization that doesn't support the facts. Many Jews and Christians don't take Genesis to the YEC extreme and they haven't for centuries.

 

[Poetic Justice]

PJ is fine. Welcome to the forum BTW

I don't know what YEC is so can't comment directly on that.

Could you please answer a few questions so I know where you stand

How do you believe the world was created and how did you arrive at that decision?

If Genesis isn't to be taken literally, what is it's purpose?

How do you decide what in the bible is literally true and what isn't?

 

[lilpixieofterror]

PJ is fine. Welcome to the forum BTW

Thanks and if you like, you are welcome to call me LPOT.

I don't know what YEC is so can't comment directly on that.

YEC is short hand for Young Earth creationism, it is a view that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Could you please answer a few questions so I know where you stand

How do you believe the world was created and how did you arrive at that decision?

Well everybody believes the earth was created, it's just not everybody agrees on who did it or why. In terms of how the world and the universe was created, I tend to take the view known as 'Theistic Evolution" (TE for short). In short, it is a view that God uses things (such as evolution) to create things. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Well, lots of time in study and in reading is how I came to this conclusion.

If Genesis isn't to be taken literally, what is it's purpose?

I first should point out that I am talking about the first few chapters of Genesis (but till the point that Abraham is introducted), but there could be many purposes of Genesis and the huge problem with trying to know what it is... is the fact that we are over 3,000 years removed for whom it was written for. What do I think it's purposes is? Well, basically to show that God is the creator of the world around them, that is it's main purpose.

How do you decide what in the bible is literally true and what isn't?

I decided this based upon both how it is written, how often it is refered to as literal truth in subsquent books/chapters, and what the people it was written to thought about it. Remember, we are thousands of years removed and we must understand the Bible, in the culture and context it was written in. That is, by far, the most important step when it comes to interpretations.

 

[88chaz88]

Thanks and if you like, you are welcome to call me LPOT.



YEC is short hand for Young Earth creationism, it is a view that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old.



Well everybody believes the earth was created, it's just not everybody agrees on who did it or why. In terms of how the world and the universe was created, I tend to take the view known as 'Theistic Evolution" (TE for short). In short, it is a view that God uses things (such as evolution) to create things. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Well, lots of time in study and in reading is how I came to this conclusion.



I first should point out that I am talking about the first few chapters of Genesis (but till the point that Abraham is introducted), but there could be many purposes of Genesis and the huge problem with trying to know what it is... is the fact that we are over 3,000 years removed for whom it was written for. What do I think it's purposes is? Well, basically to show that God is the creator of the world around them, that is it's main purpose.



I decided this based upon both how it is written, how often it is refered to as literal truth in subsquent books/chapters, and what the people it was written to thought about it. Remember, we are thousands of years removed and we must understand the Bible, in the culture and context it was written in. That is, by far, the most important step when it comes to interpretations.

You both agree on the same points, the only difference is you say god "did it" whereas PJ says "god may have done it".

I tend to agree apart from everything that lumps me in the theistic camp. I'm a man of science, and while science leaves room for god you can't just say that "god did it" and walk away. The default position on science is always "we don't know".

 

[Poetic Justice]

YEC is short hand for Young Earth creationism, it is a view that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Again, it is a proven fact that this is not the case. ALL evidence shows it is billions of years old

I tend to take the view known as 'Theistic Evolution" (TE for short). In short, it is a view that God uses things (such as evolution) to create things.

This may well be the case. However I don't think the specific rules, beliefs, explanations of christianity or any other religion I have come across are acurate. If god exists, we have a twisted view of who he/she/it/they are

What do I think it's purposes is? (of genesis) Well, basically to show that God is the creator of the world around them, that is it's main purpose.

I can't base my beliefs on a single book which is open to so much contradictory interpretation. Even it's proponents admit some of it isn't true and even which parts are isn't agreed upon.

If god exists he in all likelihood couldn't care less about whether or not we go to church on sunday (incidentally, the reason people go to church on sundays is because of the bit of the bible you say isn't true) whether we have sex before marriage or disaprove of homosexuality.

God probably exists. But, the specific rules and beliefs of man made religions are nonsense IMO

 

[Flavus Aquila]

How about evolution, carbon dating, layers of sediment proven to be billions of years old, the fact that light coming from far off galaxies is red shifted, the fact that it takes millions of years to create some elements etc

But all this and more aside. How about the complete lack of any evidence of any kind. The bible is not evidence. anyone can write a book

Edit:

Adam and eve - proven to be false

God created the world in seven days - proven to be false

I can't stand it when so-called bible-christians try to state absurdities from their own reading of the Scriptures.

If you look at interpretation of Genesis by the great Church Fathers and theologians like St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas it is clear that they did not think that the world was created in litterally six 24hour periods. The Church doesn't hold such a dogma - so I hate it when people talk as though it were.

 

[Barnabas]

The bible and most if not all other religions have been proven to be incorrect numerous times over. If you want logic you can't really believe in any religion that man has invented.

However, christianity and other man made religions have been conclusively proven to be false

Sorry, jumped the gun a little, I assumed when you posted this and following agreeing posts that the existence of God was included seeing as it is the focal point of Christianity.

(this is mostly towards Chaz)

Secoundly, carbon dating and fossils prove nothing. The simply give the age of things that lived on the earth or in one apparent case the universe(I find it hard to believe that we can date universe).

It might prove something if the bible had numbers on how old the earth was, but it doesn't. YEC comes from a monk who looked through all the geneologies of the Bible and concluded that the earth was this such and such years old. LPOT mentioned it's not a very popular view today and LPOT also mentioned that some believe that Genesis 1 is a story that leads into Jewish history.

I disagree with that, but I neither have any qualms about it either.

This moves me onto to your second argument, that thearth being created by God is just as unlikely as the rediculous possibility that everything just happened.

the difference is that if God is realy behind it, everything makes sense from there on out. However for earth to com together just so as to support life, then life has to go the through the statistical improbability of just happening and then it has to keep fighting the odds untill we get to today.

With design argument you bypass all of that as statistical improbablity is thrown out the window.


(sorry if I'm incoherent It's 7:30am here and I haven't slept a wink)

 

[Barnabas]

I think we may have Jacked JessVJ first thread, or maybe this is exactly what he was looking for, who knows? Probably Jess.

 

[Poetic Justice]

the difference is that if God is realy behind it, everything makes sense from there on out. However for earth to com together just so as to support life, then life has to go the through the statistical improbability of just happening and then it has to keep fighting the odds untill we get to today.

With design argument you bypass all of that as statistical improbablity is thrown out the window.

IMO this is religions one valid claim to evidence of the existence of god.

However the many universe version of M Theory can also account for this. This is still in the theory stage though so it remains to be seen whether it pans out

 

[Barnabas]

IMO this is religions one valid claim to evidence of the existence of god.

However the many universe version of M Theory can also account for this. This is still in the theory stage though so it remains to be seen whether it pans out

Technicaly so is evolution and gravity... just saying.

Interesting thought about themany universe theroy is that everything in statistics has to be tossed. Because if something seems absurdly improbable, it can simply be said that it had to happen in some universe eventualy.


Something like a guy winning the jackpot on the slots twenty times in a row in one night.

(I know I'm not coherent and I'm sorry.)

 

[lilpixieofterror]

You both agree on the same points, the only difference is you say god "did it" whereas PJ says "god may have done it".

I tend to agree apart from everything that lumps me in the theistic camp. I'm a man of science, and while science leaves room for god you can't just say that "god did it" and walk away. The default position on science is always "we don't know".

I would agree, in pure science, you can not make the conclusion that a God, of any kind, is the creator of the universe. That being said, I am not aruging with pure science though, all that I am aruging is that there is nothing contradictary about evolution or an old earth, within the Christian framework.

Again, it is a proven fact that this is not the case. ALL evidence shows it is billions of years old

And that is why I'm not a YEC, but a TE instead.

This may well be the case. However I don't think the specific rules, beliefs, explanations of christianity or any other religion I have come across are acurate. If god exists, we have a twisted view of who he/she/it/they are

I tend to disagree with you on this, but you are welcome to believe whatever you like.

I can't base my beliefs on a single book which is open to so much contradictory interpretation. Even it's proponents admit some of it isn't true and even which parts are isn't agreed upon.

Anything is open to contradictory interpretation, but you don't throw it out the window just because of that. You study and see if one view is true and another is false, or if both views are false and something else is true.

If god exists he in all likelihood couldn't care less about whether or not we go to church on sunday (incidentally, the reason people go to church on sundays is because of the bit of the bible you say isn't true) whether we have sex before marriage or disaprove of homosexuality.

That is merely an assumption, but I don't believe that going to church makes you a Chistian or 'saves' you. Christians are saved by Christ work on the cross, not by how much you take part in your local church. I would say church is good for the social and learning aspects, but not a requirement for salvation.

God probably exists. But, the specific rules and beliefs of man made religions are nonsense IMO

On some, I'd agree with you on that, but I also feel that a good study and understanding of a belief system is good to learn about it. I think Ravi Zacharias said it best when he stated:

"If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it" The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

Over all, our salvation is found upon Christ, not upon how much we go to church or how 'goodie good' we are.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Anything is open to contradictory interpretation, but you don't throw it out the window just because of that. You study and see if one view is true and another is false, or if both views are false and something else is true.

The problem is that it isn't evidence any which way you look at it. No interpretation is valid because it is just a book written by a man/several men. I dismiss christianity because of the complete lack of evidence to support it and the countless instances of it being proven to not be true

The argument that it's not meant to be literally true is just another copout like "faith" and "god is testing us".

It's very easy to say that the stuff that has been proven false is not meant to be true and everything else is.

That is merely an assumption, but I don't believe that going to church makes you a Chistian or 'saves' you. Christians are saved by Christ work on the cross, not by how much you take part in your local church. I would say church is good for the social and learning aspects, but not a requirement for salvation.

It's not an assumption. if you research the pagan background of christianity it's easy to see how many of the rules of christianity were invented.

On some, I'd agree with you on that, but I also feel that a good study and understanding of a belief system is good to learn about it. I think Ravi Zacharias said it best when he stated:

I study belief systems in depth. Please don't think of me as someone who is just dismissing this out of hand. I don't believe in christianity because of the research I have done that clearly shows it is an invention.

"If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it" The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

Sorry, I disagree with this and don't see how it has any relevance

 

[Odyne]

Hm, there seems to be a lot of discussions on whether what is true and what is not.

My only advice to you is that you do research on your own. Read, read, and read!

If this matter is important to you then do the effort to look up all the sources, theories, religions and religious texts, and information you can find, and synthesize it into what will eventually become YOUR belief.

People here have voiced their opinion and what THEY think is right, but remember this is about you. Take what's been said here and look it up, as well as reading on other things. A few have already suggested books, read them.

I don't mean to point out your age, but let me say, that this is the age at which you start to doubt your faith because you are faced with new things in life and new facts that you are not sure how your faith fits in or deals with. Again, research.

Another thing, the things you learn in highschool are introductory. Because of how simplified the information is at that stage, it can lack some truth in it, or overlook other facts, or tend to generalize. When you move on to higher levels of education you will learn that there's more to what you currently know, and it might slightly contradict what you've been taught. You'll also realise that science in its self is a faith and has MANY theories that are yet to be proven. Ever heard of Quantam Physics? It;s an interesting topic, look it up. As well as the theory of Evolution, General Relativity. All those are interesting topics to research.

Don't rush it, you've got a long life ahead of you, take your time and cultivate yourself, and you're bound to find a life style that is befitting. =)

Best of luck.

 

[Barnabas]

The problem is that it isn't evidence any which way you look at it. No interpretation is valid because it is just a book written by a man/several men. I dismiss christianity because of the complete lack of evidence to support it and the countless instances of it being proven to not be true

The historical evidence for the Bible is clearly there, were still finding cities and locations that were mentioned in the Bible but long forgot about in history.

The argument that it's not meant to be literally true is just another copout like "faith" and "god is testing us".

Not all of the Bible meant to be take literaly, but a great deal of it is, the majority of it is. If your having a hard time to distinguish what is and what isn't literal then you need to dig more into the context of when it was written.


It's very easy to say that the stuff that has been proven false is not meant to be true and everything else is.

What false stuff are we talking about?


It's not an assumption. if you research the pagan background of christianity it's easy to see how many of the rules of christianity were invented.

There was a good documentary a while back that I read, it in short said that while christianity at a glance may look as if it borrows from other relgions. If you actualy dig into whats beings said you'll see that it's completley different.

With that being said, may I ask what is being taken from pagan religions?


I study belief systems in depth. Please don't think of me as someone who is just dismissing this out of hand. I don't believe in christianity because of the research I have done that clearly shows it is an invention.

Not to offend you, but I'm going to college over religion, and my study say that it is true.

with that being said what studies have you done that lead you to this conclusion.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Here's my opinion:

First off, standing in a Church makes you no more of a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.
There is so much more to religion than doctrine and figure heads. You can choose what you believe in, but be aware of why you believe it and, more importantly, what it means to you; whether or not God "exists" can't be proven, but you can't really say that something is pointless if it gives you real meaning.

Religion has existed for as long as people have been around. It grew hand-in-hand with civilization. People are hardwired to have beliefs in something, really. Although it may not be "logical," spirituality of many forms is universal and kind of important. Logic helps us understand the world; spirituality helps us accept it and become content and happy.

Spirituality is different from religion, of course. You can be religious and lack a strong sense of spirituality, but usually religion is a catalyst for it.

Either way, in the end, the wonderful thing about religion is that it speaks to the individual. You may be in the same religion as someone else and have a totally different sense of spirituality. And anyways, before you ask if God is illogical, maybe you should first ask what God is to you -- people seem to have it in their heads that God is some guy with a toga and white beard, but really, although the Bible states we were fashioned after God's image, that really doesn't give much clue to what God is. I see God as everything, and I believe that people connect with different aspects of the same entity, even across different religions. God could just be a perception for all we know, but that doesn't change the fact that "knowing God" creates strong senses of self-worth and contentedness in people.

So, yeah. That was a lot of rambling, actually. Recap: God and religion is what you make of it, and plenty of logical people have benefited from spiritual beliefs. That is perfectly alright, too.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Ok, I see that we're just going to go round and round in circles here.

I can't be bothered to continue this as you will obviously not be convinced and I don't have the inclination to try.

Lets agree to disagree

 

[88chaz88]

Sorry can't argue, I'm off to be a car...

Vroom, vroom.

 

[Odyne]

Here's my opinion:

First off, standing in a Church makes you no more of a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.
There is so much more to religion than doctrine and figure heads. You can choose what you believe in, but be aware of why you believe it and, more importantly, what it means to you; whether or not God "exists" can't be proven, but you can't really say that something is pointless if it gives you real meaning.

Religion has existed for as long as people have been around. It grew hand-in-hand with civilization. People are hardwired to have beliefs in something, really. Although it may not be "logical," spirituality of many forms is universal and kind of important. Logic helps us understand the world; spirituality helps us accept it and become content and happy.

Spirituality is different from religion, of course. You can be religious and lack a strong sense of spirituality, but usually religion is a catalyst for it.

Either way, in the end, the wonderful thing about religion is that it speaks to the individual. You may be in the same religion as someone else and have a totally different sense of spirituality. And anyways, before you ask if God is illogical, maybe you should first ask what God is to you -- people seem to have it in their heads that God is some guy with a toga and white beard, but really, although the Bible states we were fashioned after God's image, that really doesn't give much clue to what God is. I see God as everything, and I believe that people connect with different aspects of the same entity, even across different religions. God could just be a perception for all we know, but that doesn't change the fact that "knowing God" creates strong senses of self-worth and contentedness in people.

So, yeah. That was a lot of rambling, actually. Recap: God and religion is what you make of it, and plenty of logical people have benefited from spiritual beliefs. That is perfectly alright, too.

DITTO!

Ok, I see that we're just going to go round and round in circles here.

I can't be bothered to continue this as you will obviously not be convinced and I don't have the inclination to try.

Lets agree to disagree

aw, I was really curious as to what your answers to Barnabs's questions going to be. shame

 

[Poetic Justice]

aw, I was really curious as to what your answers to Barnabs's questions going to be. shame

Dammit, ok.

I'm just going to post a link though because I can't be bothered to drawn any deeper into this debate

Pagan origins of christianity:

http://www.pocm.info/

It is simply a re hashing of previous religions. So is Islam. haven't you ever wondered why islam has so many similarities to christianity. Just like lord of the rings, religions are copied with a few minor adjustments and resold to the masses.

Regarding what is and isn't true in the bible. again it seems rather convenient that you can pick and choose what to believe and what not to. I have no desire to go through it page by page and decide what is meant to be true and what isn't. Once again it comes down to interpretation so one interpretation can't be believed over another

regarding the cities found, this isn't proof of god or the bible. it is proof that they were cities many years ago and some of them have only just been found. Maybe the writer of the bible knew about the cities, maybe they have nothing to do with the bible and are just cities. it hasn't been proved that they are the ones talked of in the bible.

Of course religious studies in college would show religion to be true. That is the point is it not?

I research everything from quantum physics, philosphy, religion, the possibility of an afterlife, string theory, neurology. the list goes on.

I have no prejudice regarding what I believe. Everything is challengable, everything I think I know is regularly revisited and re assessed for validity.

The main problem I have with religion is the way it discourages this. Before you disagree, it does discourage this. christians get their beliefs from a single book and try and make everything else fit. This is the opposite of the logical, scientific approach.