The Money Bag

 

Bible scholars, particularly the Christian ones, are quick to boast about the reliability and fidelity of the Jewish oral tradition to explain away doubts about the period between when Jesus is alleged to have come back from the dead and 30-60 years later when it was first written down by the authors of the Gospels. To be fair, there is a tradition in Judaism where a deliberate, careful effort was made to pass some stories and some information on from master to student. I don’t know the research where the reliability of this tradition has been analyzed. What we have with documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls, I think, are earlier copies of documents that we also have later copies of, so we can compare and check for drift and fidelity in written transmission. But checking the reliability of oral transmission from 2,000 years ago would be a much more difficult matter. No doubt much has been written on it. Here are some reasons to doubt that this method can really do what Christians claim it does. (What follows is a better version of an analogy I’ve used before).

For all of the repetition about the accuracy of the Jewish oral tradition we hear, there are some very basic points about reliability and transmission between people that are often overlooked. The problem is that we often overlook the cumulative effect of having information repeated again and again as it passes through different speakers. A simple example from probability theory can illustrate the point.

Suppose that a bag with a police escort arrives at a courthouse in Los Angeles. We can suppose that is part of the evidence in a trial. A court clerk receives the bag, opens it and finds a large sum of money. The clerk then asks the police who brought it in some questions. It turns out that the bag travelled from New York. Along the way, it was carried by three different police escorts. It changed hands for different legs of the journey. Let’s also suppose that the manifest has been lost so the clerk doesn’t know how much money started the trip in the bag. The clerk does some checking and discovers that there is corruption in the three police departments that had custody so that the general likelihood that a given cop is honest is .8. Let’s stipulate that if a corrupt cop gets custody of the bag, he or she will take some. And if an honest copy gets custody, he or she will deliever it to the next leg of the trip without taking any of it. The clerk wants to answer this question: What is the probability that the money that arrived in my office is the same amount of money that left New York?

The answer is the probability that the first cop will take some multiplied by the probability that the second cop took some multiplied by the probability that the third cop took some, or .8 x .8 x .8. The probability that the amount that arrived in Los Angeles was the same as the amount that left New York is .51. If you add two more cops at the .8 honesty rate it goes down to .32. And that is despite the fact that the majority of cops in each department are honest. If five cops with a honesty rating of .9 escort the money, there is only a 59% chance that all of it will arrive at the destination. If seven cops with a .95 honesty rating excort it, there is only a 66% chance that all of it will arrive without some being stolen. Of you can think of the a system that captures and relays information. It doesn’t take many generations of copies on a copy machine, particularly a poor one, for the text on the original to become unreadable and for the information to be lost partially or completely. What’s important to note here is that even when the links are highly reliable, the cumulative effect of transmission across multiple links quickly diminishes the fidelity of the system. And it doesn’t take many links, even when the links are 95% reliable for the odds to drop off to the point that it is more likely that the information/money did not make it through than the probability that it did. If there were 5 cops relaying the money from departments that were 80% honest, there is a 68% probability that someone stole some along the way.

(These numbers deal with the transmitters. If we add in a multiplier that represents the reliability of humans at reporting miracles--think of Mary telling someone she saw Jesus as being comparable to the first person who filled the bag and handed it to the cops--then the overall probability that Jesus came back from the dead becomes vanishingly small. See The Case Against Christ.)

Matters are made worse by other variables. Suppose the clerk has no independent way to know what was put in the bag in the first place; she was just handed a bag, afterall. Then she doesn’t know if it originally contained drugs, or diamonds, or cash, or bonds. She could ask the cop who handed it to her, or she could check the contents of the bag for some clue. Suppose there is a note inside the bag itself that says “This bag originally contained $10,000.” Then she counts it and finds $10,000. Now can she be assured that all of the original contents of the bag made it to her safely? No, she can’t. Notice that the note is part of the contents of the bag too. For all she knows, there was $100,000 in the bag, or 5 kilos of heroin, and when one of the cops took $90,out, or replaced the heroin with $10,000, she wrote the note and stuck it in there. Using the contents of the bag itself to determine that fidelity of the system that transmitted the bag is circular and completely unhelpful. What she needs is some independent (trustworthy!) source to corroborate the origination and transmission of the bag. If she put the money into the bag in New York, and then flew to Los Angeles with it, keeping her eyes and hands on it all the way, then she could be more assured (although a person’s honesty with themselves and even their witnessing an event are issues in many circumstances).

The point of the extended analogy should be clear. We are told by a book that has been transmitted to us across 2,000 years and countless unknown people in between that there were some important religious events that transpired in 30-35 C.E. Between those alleged events themselves and the first recording of those events into a system with relatively high fidelity (writing), there were 30-60 years. And during those several decades we do not know how many times the story was repeated or how many people it passed through before it got the authors and they wrote it down.
We have some semi-independent means of secondary corroboration. We have other historical grounds to think that the oral transmission tradition in Judaism at the time was fairly reliable. Part of our evidence is using written sources to check the error rate of stories that were written vs. relayed orally in different eras of history where we have both streams of information. But as far as we know, the stories about Jesus were spreading far and wide among the early Christians in the first two centuries. And while there may be some transmitters who have a higher fidelity than others, we’re not sure who or how many sources the authors of the Gospel stories consulted. There may be a stream of information running through the Jewish oral tradition that is more reliable, but there can be no question that people will talk, and when normal people talk and repeat stories, we know that they embellish, omit, alter, and improve either deliberately or unknowingly. We can see that the story of Jesus’ resurrection varies greatly among the Gospels. And we also know that a number of non-cannonized sources that gave even more contrary accounts were deliberately excluded. So it is difficult to accept some of the exaggerated claims about the reliability of the verbal transmission of the stories.

(Via Atheism: Proving The Negative)
Matt McCormick
Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:17:00 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Case for Christ (reasonabledissent.com)
• Pseudoreality and Archaeology. Virtual Reality and Qumran (drjimsthinkingshop.com)

The good god fearing people - Lets All Pray For Presidential Brain Cancer!

 

Some of you may remember the major league asshole Steven Anderson.

Copyright ABC

Recently he has gotten a bunch of attention for a sermon titled “Why I Hate Barack Obama”. Here is a great quote from all that:

“I’m not gonna pray for his good. I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to hell.”

Very Christan of him. Now when most people fuck up, they try to rectify the problem. Apparently this guy is wayyyyyyy to good for all that. On Sunday he made this comment:

I hope that God strikes Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy. You know, and I hope it happens today.

Wishing BRAIN CANCER on somebody. Isn’t that atleast slightly fucked up? They let this asshole be a pastor? While this might not be what every Christian thinks, he still is a representative of Christianity. Also, he uttered this sentiment during an interview with FOX. So of course you can watch the clip in all its glory:

So just being a douchebag and praying for the president to “melt like a snail” or calling him a “murderer” isn’t enough. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t go along very well with the whole love theme of their religion. Also, his flock was quick to defend this bullshit too. The man who brought an AR-15 to Obama’s speech had this to say:

“I concur, I think we’d be better off if God would send (Obama) where he’s going now instead of later, (Obama) is destroying our country.”

What the Hell is wrong with these people? I don’t even wish death on Christians. Here is some good evidence that religion is dangerous and really not healthy.

 

(VIA Godless Blogger)
Jake Collyer
Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:31:16 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• "I don't care how God does it" (dailykos.com)
• Pastor Continues To Pray For President's Death - Woman Suffers Gender-Identity Changing Seizures [Leftovers] (jezebel.com)
• Video: Pastor Says He Wants Obama To Die Of Brain Cancer Like Ted Kennedy (thegayatheist.com)
• "I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy" (americablog.com)

The good god fearing people - Deacon steals $300K

 

Image via Wikipedia

Saint Peter’s and Paul’s catholic church in Garfield Heights has fired Deacon Lawrence Cermak for allegedly stealing $300k from the parish.

"As your pastor, I want to assure you that I am committed to safeguarding the parish's assets and to doing whatever I can to ensure that something like this does not happen again," noted Matusz.

Catholic Diocese of Cleveland spokesman Robert Tayek said the diocese is also reviewing the financial record of St. Therese Church because Cermak kept the books for that parish as well.

What broke my heart was a short story I found related to this where a young man discusses a friend who left everything she had to the church when she died. All for what? So the Deacon could have a bigger house?

 

(Via Mojoey Deacon steals $300K)
noreply@blogger.com (Mojoey)
Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:18:00 GMT

A Few Virgin Births Before Christ

(via Proud Atheist)

(image from Atheist Cartoons)

The “virgin birth” of Christ
I have always wondered why is it that the virgin birth of Christ is only told in two of the four gospels in Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:26-35 The book of Mark was the first completed gospel, but yet does not mention the birth story of Christ at all. The book of John claims that Jesus was the son of Joseph and chooses to ignore or reject the birth stories in the earlier writings of Matthew and Luke. Yet, many Christians will claim the Bible as the inerrant word of God. When humans become inerrant, I’ll believe that one.

Here’s a short list of other “virgin births” of other deities:

• Mut-em-ua
• Tammuz
• Zoroaster
• Tukulti-Ninurta II
• Ashurbanipal
• Ra
• Krishna
• Karna
• Attis
• Auge
• Dionysus
• Horus
• Melanippe
• Mithras

Here’s a short clip from the documentary, “The God Who Wasn’t There” in which some of the deities mentioned were from “virgin births”.

Before Jesus, there were other savior figures whose myths inspired religions. These early “savior cults” came into existence long before Jesus is said to have lived.

No doubt some members of the Christian faith will dismiss these other deities as “Satan’s work” of deception in order to sway the followers of Jesus from the truth. Mythology has accompanied human life for thousands of years before Christ.

(Tweet us!)

A Few Virgin Births Before Christ
Mark
Sun, 30 Aug 2009 06:37:09 GMT

Reflections on Thunderf00t Ray Comfort discussion

Yup too much stammer. However I had to cover a wide range of topics, while all Ray had to say was 'I know God dun it'.

Anyways, yes, I was far too stuttery, stammering.
Having said that I kept my side of the deal and uploaded the lot... warts and all.

Im actually uploading this from within sight of the Hooker telescope (Im in the observation gallery)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 9a)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 9)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 8)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 7)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 6)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 5)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 4)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 3)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 2)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 1)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion

(Over the next few posts I will put up the videos)

Discussion between Thunderf00t (Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic supporter (Pearlist)) and Ray Comfort (Creationist Christian).

Journal entry 22nd July 2009. (relevant bit, whole entry is too long for rest see beautyintheuniverse)

Up with dawnpeckish so found mcdonalds for breakfast. Back to Rays place where I had about 4 hrs to kill before our meeting at 11ish. Started adding placemarkers to the bible at the interesting bits I had found. By the time I had finished there was a lot of blue post it notes sticking out the bible. It has now also become clear to me that while my preferred modus opperandi has been in the defense of science, I have now read enough of the bible that I could utterly shred this shepherds myth. Its an interesting question should I set all the time I have spent going through the bible in detail to naught and just let Christianity have its peace, or should I actively engage in its demise. When the ministry opened at 9ish I went and introduced myself, and they gave me a rather officious line about not doing anything till the appointed time. No big deal for me, I put some effort into ordering the car and mending some bust electronics (resoldering wires etc). Stuff that had been put on the back burner for expediency on the road, but a more ordered man would have taken care of he went along. Saw Ray arrive by car, which raised an eyebrow as the 60 minutes thing said he cycled to work. Probably just he didnt want to cycle if he was going to be on camera. As a cyclist myself something I could empathize with. Ray is a small man, but chirpy and polite. Surprisingly Ray now informed me that there was no problem in me filming. Hmmm wtf?, but my only care at the time was the original deal was being honored. Shortly after he invited me in it was a little intro and pretty much straight down to business. The consequence of which was I only had a few minutes to brief him on points I wanted to raise. A point which I was keen on doing as I wanted the point I was making to survive robust scrutiny, and not to survive simply as they were bought up in real time (catching someone on the hop). The moments that raised an eyebrow for me was how quickly ray picked up on me lying to him, as an example of how religions are created an propagated. (by mechanism of the almighty Tod!) I am a poor liar. Its amazing though, how well even folk like ray can pick up on the bodylanguage. On watching the video you can see it all. How he gets uncomfortable and starts shuffling. I cant remember too much of the details (it was too much of a manic day) but I do remember seeing Ray being troubled by some of the points I was making. I could see the doubt of a man challenged with a concept altogether new to him. I could see it in his bodylanguage of his eyes. After that we went to lunch ray was buying. We took the camera man too who is obviously a hovind fan. Systematically I went through his points one by one and in the most mild of demeanors academically shredded them. The shame being that noone else at the table, other than myself would have been able to assess the academic veracity of my arguments. Ray offered to help me out by putting me up in a motel for a night (after a fashion). The offer was sincere and I think somewhat precipitated by rays sympathy for what he perceived as my hardship. I graciously thanked him for the offer but turned it down in that I like rough life in the wide open space. After lunch ray gave me a tour of the ministry. The place clearly oozes with money. Rays artifacts are very coy (a skeleton for the cupboard etc) He also has a collection of fake hominids not something to inspire someone with confidence about ones academic footing.

Then had a long chat with the camera man about the history of the earth (using the correlated history of earth poster). One by one I cut down the hovind arguments, and eventually all he had left was to simply say there are both sides of the argument.

Its amazing testament to the feedback mechanisms of the mind, that even after the foundations of his belief had been systematically and academically removed till none remained that he was still sure that there was two sides to the argument. Then had another chat with ray, which I wish I had recorded.. mostly about the bible. The things I really remember was that Ray believes in witches, wizards, demons and sorcerers. Hmmm thats usually a end of conversation type moment. He also thinks that the holocaust was gods way of punishing the jews. I told him very clearly that that was not going to make him very popular if he voiced such opinions in public.

Ray left and I spent an hour talking with his graphic design man. He clearly wasnt greatly interested in talking about points of contest, and we got on very well. He was a model maker and pilot. We talked teccie for an hour or so. A good guy!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Billy Graham attempts apologetics (bisforbarnstorming.blogspot.com)
• (Almost) Daily Dose Of Comfort - The Birdlike Reptile (atheistblogger.com)
• Does Atheism Make Life Meaningless? (theatheistmind.info)
• Yes, I repeat, we should ignore Ray (atheistexperience.blogspot.com)
• Oh, no! Monkeys are smarter than me...and Ray Comfort! (theatheistmind.info)
• Debate with Thunderfoot (raycomfortfood.blogspot.com)
• Ray Comfort Is Still A Coward... (atheistblogger.com)
• Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort (atheistblogger.com)

Derren Brown - Documentary — Messiah

Derren Brown - Documentary — Messiah
This documentary-styled one-hour film sees Derren in America attempting to raise questions about the validity of certain religious and spiritual belief systems; belief systems that people are encouraged to base their lives upon - such as new-age faiths and mainstream Christianity. Can he get certain authority figures to endorse him as the real thing?
Website:
http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/news/?messiah

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics

(Via Debunking Christianity)

"Almighty God and Christianity and the Bible professes 'DO unto others,' not, 'do NOT do unto others."--An Evangelical Christian explaining why he thinks Christianity alone is positive while all other teachings appear negative
I have run across not a few evangelical Christian apologists who have argued that their religion is "superior" because Jesus preached the Golden Rule, "All things therefore that you want people to DO to you, DO thus to them" (Matthew 7:12), while other ancient teachers merely taught the negative version of that rule: "Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT like done to yourself."
Christian apologists such as C.S. Lewis and William Barclay even cited numerous quotations of the negative Golden Rule from ancient sources to make the contrast appear more stark between what Christianity taught and what the rest of the world taught:
"Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you." (Confucius, The Analects. Roughly 500 BCE.
Hindu sacred literature: "Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57)
"Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga, 5.18)
Zoroastrian sacred literature: "Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." (Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5; in Muller, chapter 94, vol. 18, p. 269)
Buddhist sacred literature: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udanavargu, 5:18, Tibetan Dhammapada, 1983)
The Greek historian Herodotus: ". if I choose I may rule over you. But what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself."
(Herodotus, The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142. Roughly 430 BCE.)
Isocrates, the Greek orator: "What things make you angry when you suffer them at the hands of others, do not you do to other people."
Christian apologists add that it is not (in their opinion) difficult to honor a negative Golden Rule, but it is "exceedingly" difficult to live by the positive Golden Rule Jesus taught. Such apologists seem to forget that a lot of Judeo-Christian morality is based on the "Ten Commandments," which are almost all negative rules, "Thou shalt NOT..." etc. Such apologists even forget that Jesus and Saint Paul are said to have struggled hard to resist temptation and resist sinnning, i.e., to NOT do things they were tempted to do, again a negative task. The whole story of Job is about a man tempted to "curse God," but he resists. So, for Jesus, Paul, Job and other Biblical heros, there appears to be just as much "difficulty" involved in avoiding sinful behaviors as practicing positive ones, (perhaps even greater "difficulty") regardless of what the apologists state.
Indeed, the so-called "negative" Golden Rule is itself a part of Christianity. It is found in pre-Christian Jewish writings as well as in the Catholic Bible and in a textual variant in the Book of Acts, see these examples:
Philo, the great Jewish Hellenistic philosopher of Alexandria, wrote, "What you hate to suffer, do not do to anyone else."
Hillel, a great Jewish rabbi who lived just before Jesus' day, taught, "What is hateful to thee, do not to another. That is the whole law and all else is explanation." (b Shabbatt 31a; cf. Avot de R. Natan ii.26)
Even earlier than the saying by rabbi Hillel, the negative Golden Rule is found in Tobit, an apocryphal book that is included in the Catholic Bible: "What you hate, do not do to anyone." (Tobit 4: 14-15. 2nd century BCE.)
And in the Book of Acts: "Textual variants in Acts 15 :20,29 & 21:25 are quite involved... various Western texts add the Negative Golden Rule, 'Do not do unto others...' which is first attributed to the first century Jewish rabbi Hillel but also quoted in The Didache (a second century Christian text believed to consist of teachings of the earliest Christian Fathers and used to teach new converts) i.2." [from Tim Hegg and Beit Hallel's online article, "Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council: Did They Conclude the Torah was Not For Gentiles?" copyright 2001 www.torahresource.com]
And what about another claim made by Christian apologists, such as William Barclay, who argued, "The very essence of Christian conduct is that it does not consist in not doing bad things, but in actively doing good things." Was Barclay unaware of the fact that teachings that advocate "actively doing good things" are found in other ancient literature besides the New Testament?
Ancient Babylonian sacred teaching from two thousand years before Jesus was born: "Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy." (Akkadian Councils of Wisdom, as cited in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts)
Buddhist holy teaching: "Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth." (written centuries before Jesus was born)
Buddhist holy teaching: "In this world hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love dispels hate. This is the law, ancient and inexhaustible." (The Dhammapada)
Taoist holy teaching: "Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighbor's gain as your own and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others." (written centuries before Jesus was born)
The Greek poet Homer: "I will be as careful for you as I should be for myself in the same need." (Calypso, to Odysseus, in Homer, The Odyssey, bk. 5, vv. 184-91. Roughly late 8th century BCE.).
Excerpts from a pagan's prayer: "May I be the friend of that which is eternal and abides...May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good. May I wish for all men's happiness...May I reconcile friends who are wroth with one another. May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to all who are in want. May I never fail a friend in danger...May I know good men and follow in their footsteps." ("The Prayer of Eusebius," written by a 1st-century pagan, as quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion. Interesting Note: A few Christians on the internet have incorrectly attributed this prayer to a 3rd-century Christian also named Eusebius. They should read Murray's book instead of assuming that everything positive has to be "Christian.")
Islamic holy teaching: "That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind." (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)
The Positive Golden Rule is also found in Jewish literature (Mishneh Torah ii: Hilekot Abel xiv.I)
Lastly, there appears to be a flaw in the Golden Rule itself. If you simply try to "do unto other as you would like them to do unto you" then you could wind up doing things to others they might not enjoy as much as you do! Do you like listening to rap music? Then do it to others! Crank up those speakers so others can enjoy it as well! Do you like having sex? Then go out and initiate sex with others! Do you love your particular religious beliefs? Then initiate conversations with others about your favorite beliefs. Worst case scenario is that if someone fears they will be sent to eternal hell for doubting a particular religious belief, they might welcome being coerced and tortured to "correct" their beliefs and assure them eternal heaven, in which case the Golden Rule would imply that other people would be equally appreciative of being "corrected" rather than "risk eternal hellfire." So we need both the Golden Rule and also the "negative" Golden Rule, working together, to avoid the kinds of excesses mentioned above.
An even more "finely tuned" rule might be what some call "The Platinum Rule," namely, "Do Unto Others as They Would Have You Do Unto Them." In other words, take time to learn about your neighbor's tastes, their mood, their nature, and their temperment, before you start "doing" things "unto them." Treat others the way they want to be treated.
In all three cases -- the Golden Rule, the negative Golden Rule (also nicknamed the "Silver Rule"), and the "Platinum Rule" -- our similar biological and social/psychological structures ensure that our desires and fears will also be similar. And such similarities are what allow each of us a window into each others' inner self. Very few people enjoy being lied to, called names, stolen from, injured, or otherwise provoked. While almost every last one of us loves having friends, sharing experiences, good health, good meals, etc. Those are part of who we all are. So you can and should look within to sense the truth of what we all share. Hence, "you" have an inner window on what other people would like done to them. Just keep in mind that the exact "scene" that is displayed most prominently inside each person's "inner window" may differ from person to person, and you have to take that into account as well, before you "do unto them" as "they" would like.

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics
Edward T. Babinski
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:45:00 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ancient Science in the Bible? Really? (thehiddenatheist.com)
• The Christian Proselytizer Questionnaire (godless.biz)
• The Jewish View Of Jesus (anatheist.net)
• The bones of the Apostle Paul (lifewithoutfaith.com)

Ancient Science in the Bible? Really?

(Via Dr Jim's Thinking Shop & Tea Room)

Ed Babinski, who contributes to Debunking Christianity and has scribed a chapter or two for the book, The Christian Delusion, reported on in an earlier post, emailed me the other day to tell me about an essay posted on BeliefNet in its weekly guest essay section.

Image linked from Beliefnet

In “Ancient Science in the Bible” Denis O. Lamoureux discusses the biblical view of a rather flat earth. I have no quibbles with his depiction of Biblical cosmology. On the other hand, he concludes:

So what’s the bottom line? Don’t go to the Bible to find scientific facts; go to Scripture to meet Jesus. In the same way that the Lord personally meets each of us wherever we happen to be, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the ancient biblical writers and employed their understanding of the physical world in order to communicate as effectively as possible life-changing spiritual truths. By using an ancient science in the Bible, God revealed the inerrant Message of Faith that He created the world, not how He created it.

And that kind of bugs me.

Lamoureux is an assistant professor at St. Joseph’s College in Edmonton AB, a Catholic school attached to the secular University of Alberta. He is “assistant professor of science and religion” and has published two books through Wipf and Stock. Here are parts of the blurbs:

Evolutionary Creation

In this provocative book, evolutionist and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins that moves beyond the “evolution-versus-creation” debate. Arguing for an intimate relationship between the Book of God’s Words and the Book of God’s Works, he presents evolutionary creation—a position that asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process. This view of origins affirms intelligent design and the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature reflect the mind of God. Lamoureux also challenges the popular Christian assumption that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific and historical facts in the opening chapters of the Bible. He contends that Scripture features an ancient understanding of origins that functions as a vessel to deliver inerrant and infallible messages of faith.

~~~~~~~~~

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution.

In this thought-provoking book, born-again Christian Denis O. Lamoureux argues that the God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolution—an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting natural process. In other words, evolution is not the result of blind chance and our creation is not a mistake. Lamoureux challenges the popular assumption that God disclosed scientific facts in the opening chapters of Scripture thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. He contends that in the same way the Lord meets us wherever we happen to be in our lives, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the inspired biblical writers and used their ancient understanding of origins in order to reveal inerrant, life-changing Messages of Faith. Lamoureux also shares his personal story and struggle in coming to terms with evolution and Christianity.

Lamoureux’s work has been poo-pooed by some in the completely anti-intellectual wing of Evangelical Christianity here in Alberta, and presumably beyond.

Both the Big Valley Creation Science Museum and the Red Deer based Creation Truth Ministry have on their websites a big black and yellow image of dangerous looking waste barrels with a label promising a debunking of “Dangerous Theology in Alberta”. The link goes to a now defunct website, www.emperorswithoutclothes.com, where apparently once resided an “expose” of Lamoureux by a certain Mike Biehler. Alas, a very quick google could not find a new home for the piece.

(Also, see my posts on these two “museums” BVCSM and CTM.)

As far as I’m concerned, it is nice that Lamoureux is convinced of the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, and anything he can do to minimize the damage to education in Alberta at the hands of the creationist fringe, the better. On the other hand, he hardly seems a champion of academics in general, and his program to convince evangelical Christians of the reality of evolution and an old earth should not be taken as too much of a victory for those interested in comprehensive educational standards.

I’ve gotten used to the idea that the University of Alberta (where I graduated in 1993 from Religious Studies a BA and did post-doctoral and sessional work from 1998-2002) has affiliated Christian colleges. I don’t like it, but what is one going to do? At least their courses are not transferable to a degree in Religious Studies (well, they weren’t when I attended). When I finished my BA, however, the university was facing massive budget cuts. There was some talk of farming parts of Religious Studies off to the Christian colleges. Fortunately, nothing came of this and although the dept. of Religious Studies eventually disappeared, the program of R. S. retained its academic integrity.

What really bugs me about Lamoureux’s article is the way the biblical cosmology is called a “science”.

In fact, Holy Scripture features an ancient science of the structure, operation, and origin of the universe and life. The diagram presents the world as conceived by ancient Near Eastern peoples, including God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. It may come as a surprise to most Bible-reading Christians, but a 3-tier universe is found in the Word of God.

I really don’t think that term “science” is at all applicable to ancient cosmologies, biblical or otherwise. It seems to be an effort to cash in on the prestige “science” has in the modern world (at least among most folk). He seems to say that even though the Bible is to remain relevant without being a science book, it can still be a kind of science all the same. The Bible’s cosmological passages (along with a whole lot more) are myth. Why not call them that?

The Bible has virtually no “science” or “engineering” in it. Christian scripture has no astronomical treatise. There is no detailed taxonomy of different kinds of animals, insects or plants. No discussion of metallurgy, animal breeding, or the appropriate soils for each kind of crop. There is nothing on designing an irrigation system. Not a thing.

Lamoureux is right, the Bible is a book of religion. But rather than analyze the ancient religion from which the diverse biblical texts derived in its own right, he reads his own religion into it. None of the writers of any of the creation accounts in the Old Testament had a clue about the doctrine of the trinity let alone the myth of Christian salvation. They were not Christians. His is a deliberately anachronistic view of the Bible routed in Evangelical doctrine. God has to work behind the scenes, leading ancient scribes to write what they could not understand.

For Lamoureux, the ancient cosmology might be seen as a product of its own time, but the religion behind it must be Christianity. Folks concerned with the incursion of creationism in schools might be encouraged in some respects by Lamoureux’s writings, but if his books are reflective of his professional work, then he is really as far away from academic work on religion as creationism is from real science.

Ancient Science in the Bible? Really?
Dr. Jim
Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:17:00 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• A few good questions for my Pastor: The Reply. (reddit.com)
• An Atheist's Alpha Weekend (thedamned.iansbrain.com)
• The power of prayer (guardian.co.uk)
• A question for Christians.... The latest estimate is there are 38,000 forms of Christianity. What makes you so sure you engage in the "right" version? (reddit.com)

Leprechauns and Gods

(From: Proud Atheists)

Can you prove that leprechauns exist? Can you prove your god(s) exist(s)?
As a religious person, you may laugh at someone that believes there are leprechauns or elves. Do you realize that many of us atheists view your belief in God as silly or deluded or irrational? It’s not because we hate your god or are just simply rebellious. To hate something requires acknowledgment of its existence. It’s not because a priest molested us or some bad childhood experience. We simply do not believe in deities as most people do not believe in leprechauns.

The typical silly response from some believers is, “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist!” No, we cannot prove that any god does not exist, nor can we prove that leprechauns do not exist. Does that make their existence as true as the existence of a god?

* No god or leprechaun has ever left any physical evidence of their existence on earth. Scriptures, temples and idols are man made.

* Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and earthquakes continue to happen with no response from a god or leprechaun. Human response is needed to aid victims of these events.

* The Holocaust, the Inquisitions and other atrocities have occurred with no response from a god or leprechaun.

* Knowledge or belief in any god is based on ancient texts or scripture, not on an initial relationship before the learning through doctrine or one’s environment.

Leprechauns and Gods
Mark
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:55:51 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• I may not be perfectly rational, but my magic invisible monkeys are! (scienceblogs.com)
• Can science kill god? (radicalatheist.com)
• *Your Religion is False* (marginalrevolution.com)