David McKay - 22 January 2008 10:04 AM

I often wonder how many atheists are out there.

Where is “out there”????

Does this betray a negative mentality?

Jason Hobba - 23 January 2008 06:59 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I won’t be getting to Lennox’s book anytime soon, though it sounds interesting. I’m currently reading through Francis Collin’s “The Language of God” - about how, as a scientist (and an eminent one at that - one of the leading scientists involved in the human genome project), he can reconcile science and Christianity.

What’s to reconcile?

Hi Dannii,

I don’t know if you’re being facetious or not.

If you aren’t: You might not think there’s anything to reconcile. That’s fine. Others do think there are real issues between science and Christianity. And if that perceived misfit of science and Christianity is a barrier to faith, I’m personally glad someone like Francis Collins is writing to help people work through the issues.

I don’t think there’s much reconcile between science and Christianity. There may be a lot of reconcile between “science” and Christianity, but that’s another matter. I don’t think Francis Collins is doing a good job at it though.

Dannii,

Semantics win the day! All the atheists and agnostics, not to mention troubled Christians, just need to recognise that “science” isn’t science.

Sure, Francis Collins mightn’t make the tightest case I’ve ever read (at least in the 40pgs I’ve read so far), but here’s the rub: today I was able to use a couple of his thoughts in a pastoral context with a dying person who has had their faith shaken by the likes of Dawkins.

To my mind, that means the book has been worth the price tag.

Yes, it has been of worth to you then :)

Though I do think it’s a sad world (and a sad state of the church) that people can have their faith shaken by Dawkins.

Hi David

I understand that very few people claim to be atheists and that very few people smoke these days.

So, I ask myself, why do I always seem to be encountering atheists and smokers?

If the stats are right, I’m meeting way too many.

David McKay - 24 January 2008 01:01 AM

Hi David

I understand that very few people claim to be atheists ... these days.

So, I ask myself, why do I always seem to be encountering atheists ...?

Not sure why. I think we are seeing an upward trend in those saying they are atheists, particularly among the young - maybe even as a fashion statement.

I suppose it is a way to fob off a christian - “you’re a christian, but I’m an atheist, push off”

It may be “I’ll let this christian know that I know the atheists have got the upper hand in arguments over religion”.

Anything to take the christians, who sure are an irritant, down a peg or two!

But what do I know? What do you think?

Dannii Willis - 23 January 2008 10:32 PM

I do think it’s a sad world (and a sad state of the church) that people can have their faith shaken by Dawkins.

The reason I’m reading these books is that close on a million of them (combined) have been sold - the Dr I visited yesterday said his own son gave him Sam Harris “End of Faith” to read and he tried to quote me one of the harsh words from Deut.

I think these books would shake any poorly taught church affiliated person without a strong faith. Personally, I have found them quite challenging, even as I find fault with them.

Therefore we need to understand their arguments, concede where we have to and demolish the rest and make sure our own people, to the extent that they need to, are across the arguments. Furthermore these people (ie atheists) need to be publicly challenged by informed Christian leaders - something which is not happening and that spells trouble for the Church in its mission. This is where things like the current arguments within the Anglican Communion become a huge distraction for the likes of A/B Jensen who is one of the Church’s champions alongside broader Australian society. But there needs to be more than just him and Pell doing the work in the public domain.

No doubt others have other opinions on these things.

Back to Dennett, who is proceeding at a snails pace in his argument. Why can’t these guys understand any decent book that people will be read should not exceed 200 pages - 375 pages, I ask you!!??

Actually I like Francis Collins, but I can see why some Evangelicals wouldn’t.
And
I think that there is enough gap between science and doctrine or at least thinking/ attitude to register concern for Christians.
This becomes truer the more literalist/ fundamentalist a believer is. The YECS/ Science divide is a case in point.
But other divides also exist. As psychology and neurosciences develop, questions are raised. I suspect that the homosexuality issue is one example. Genetics are another. Consider Triple X Syndrome. The sufferer tends to lower intelligence, a real tendency to fixation (often leading to stalking behaviours), uninhibited sexualised behaviours and often homosexuality. (In the real world this is a really troubled person who can do the most dreadful thing).
Once this person would have been considered a moral reprobate. Probably winding up at the stake.
Now we know this person is sick.
The morality assessment has shifted. How we think about such people has shifted. But there are an oodleplex of other conditions and even more subtle influences that provide us with much to think about.
There are parasites that can influence human behaviour and cause us to act in dangerous ways (they benefit cos, in the wild at least, the host gets killed and the body consumed by something that is gonna host the next generation.)
The whole field of crime prevention opens up ways of thinking that I’ve noticed some folks don’t cope with. Their theologies make the individual fully accountable. But town planning that reduces crime challenges the individualist tendencies of many theological strains.
It maybe that we can make blanket statements that all science is subject to God and should be interpreted by Scripture. Cool
But we still have to find ways to express those thoughts so that the wavering are given thought paths that they can deal with.

For my part, I am comfortable with doubt about things. I regularly have doubts about God but I don’t doubt God (much). I hope you can see the distinction. And, personally, I think today’s sure science and today’s sure theology will be different tomorrow.

Owen,

I have to say that a lot of my colleagues are into YEC. In many ways it is an attractive position. I think part of its attraction was in combating evolution, but since Mr Hoyle and the man with the long name showed the universe was not eternal but had a beginning only 15 billion years ago, plus the continuing gaps in the fossil record plus the ongoing miniaturisation of microbiology raising real doubts about evolution (I’m not talking micro evolution but the big stuff), the need for a young earth to combat evolution appears to be evaporating. Additionally, the fact that the scientific evidence runs so strongly against a young earth makes YEC an embarrassment. One of the things I like about ID is that it does not focus on creation vs evolution, but on the impossibility of life in all its myriad forms without design.

Whilst you no doubt are on to something re natural causes for various things in the past interpreted as moral failure, it won’t do to leave the matter there.

Human sinfulness is a human condition and for happiness and a life pleasing to God and one another needs combating. Sin has somehow messed up human nature at its deepest level so that some are born with a propensity to anger, homosexuality, just as surely as another with congenital heart disease (as I was). Just as the person born with some congenital disease/malfunction may need an operation, so the person born with red hair and anger needs by application, discipline and the grace of God to learn self control.

PS I acknowledge that people can gain pleasure in their misdeeds (if only through personal experience). Cornelius Plantinga in “Not the Way it’s Supposed to Be - A Breviary of Sin” makes the important point that the pleasure in sin comes from the good in sin – think about that!

Anyway, we are off the topic a bit.

Andrew,

Thank you for mentioning Dinesh D’Souza’s “What’s so great about Christianity.” - I’ve seen good reviews of it.

Additionally, the fact that the scientific evidence runs so strongly against a young earth makes YEC an embarrassment.

Creationism isn’t a scientific theory, so science can say nothing about it. It’s all philosophy.

Actually Danii, the YECS people are working over time to demonstrate their position scientifically.

I think that’s triple time, on the weekend, on half pay… some even work this hard as volunteers. Some other naughty YECers need to demonstrate their “scientific sincerity” (and Christian-ness) by sending nasty threats to Christian Theistic evolutionists. Some just write very rude rants.

This particular group has so much self righteous anger with us Sydney Anglican’s that it overflows in so many directions and such volume that they’ll even get stuck into Connect 09 in such a vicious way that they treat us like we are almost apostate and refusing to listen to God! For daring to choose a strategy to spread the gospel! Amazing. I love that… because we dare to choose a strategy as we try and marshal the troops to fulfil the Great Commission, we are obviously not listening to the bible! ;-)

Other YECs here are capable of much more polite dialogue, and good on ‘em. But the last thing I imagine them saying is that it’s a Philosophical position. They’d say that Theistic Evolution was bad theology AND bad science. The SydneyAnglicanHeretics mob would say it louder… turn it up to 11 man!

Dave,

I’ll bite - who are the Sydney Anglican Heretics (PS I’m an old earth creationist who is happy to acknowledge evolution at the micro level)?

Oh thanks for reminding me of them David.
I’d rather forgotten that rabble of ranting rubbish regurgitators, now I have to remember them. Hah! But only for a moment.
That blog contributes nothing of worth, unless vitriol has value.

At least this may be said for many of the YECSers I know, they are never as rude, unpleasant, unChristian and unintelligible as that blog of biased bull and banter.