Genesis creation in bible doesn't make sense

Factual Questions
41

[[[Part of me really wants to just avoid getting myself any further into this whole debate. But, my name and veiws have been mentioned so often, it makes it hard to just walk away.
When I said that I interpret the Bible literally, I really meant that to mean that I interpret the first few chapters of Genesis as having occured basically as described in Genesis, rather than as being mythology.]]]

Eh, see, I tire of having these same discussions over and over with people who seem to think there’s some special nobility in believing things that are demonstrably silly . . .

Let’s look at it from this perspective: As I mentioned in the other thread, either the language and methodology of science are useful, or they are not. Given that language and method, then well-designed experiments and repeated consistent observation yield useful results, or they do not.

If they do, then to say, “Science can accurately describe what goes on in my television, my car and my body but cannot accurately describe astronomical phenomena” makes no sense. You need a better reason than “It says so in the Bible” to simply dismiss the results of centuries of observation and experiment using better and better methods, and expect reasonable people to agree with you.

We have a pretty good working hypothesis of planetary and star formation, and can observe them taking place, and it takes significantly longer than six days. We also ave good working theories of genetics and speciation, and those take a lot more than a single day. If all you can come up with to dismiss those as regards the earth and its inhabitants is, “My particular holy book says so, even though both science and other holy books disagree,” well, as Spike Lee says, “You got nothin’.” If that’s how you go about deciding what is and isn’t true, please remind me not to drive over any bridges you design.

** Phil D. **
“Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine.”
–J.B.S. Haldane

42

I’m not following your logic here. Admittedly, the alluded-to statement was poorly worded, but I do not see how “you believe noone in the bible is real” equals “I believe everyone, and everything is literally true.” It does not follow.

Not so clear as you think. As an engineer, I have had the experience, if not the pleasure, of attending numerous discussions on the scientific and/or technical merit of some idea or other. I can think of dozens of instances in which the same evidence was interpreted in completely different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) ways by highly intellegent people. What you already believe certainly influences your standards of logic and proof. Objectivity is far more difficult than most scientists are willing to admit.

I’m not going to attempt to debate faith versus proof right now. Entire libraries could be filled with what has already been written. I never believed that the bible was a science book, but I do not dismiss myths off-hand either. Myths were created to explain beliefs. Since I believe in Divine Inspiration, I believe that the creation myths were inspired to impart the points I previously listed. Even though we probably evolved from apes, God still created us. Whether the Earth was created in six days or millions of years, it is still a creation.

I am an engineer. I know well what science is. I know what it is useful for and, just as importantly, I know what it is not useful for. It is useful for determining if something is physically possable. It is not useful for determining if there was a greater meaning to an event. It is useful in understanding how stars form. It is not useful for understanding why stars were formed.

As an engineer, I see a universe that is a marvenously designed creation. It runs flawlessly, far more dependable than anything humans have ever designed. Divine intervention occurs when God sees fit to remind us that he is still around, and has not abandoned his creation.

Like Phil D and Archimedes, I am really getting tired of arguing with everyone to no effect. I suspect that we are all still posting because we have invested too much of our respective egos to back down now. I am beginning to understand why the NATO chiefs are still mucking around in the Balkans, even they haven’t changed a thing.

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island

43

Phil D,
Thank you for your last post directed at me. I am finally begining to understand why you find science and religion so incompatible. (I still don’t agree with you, and probably never will).
I think Diceman’s comments on the roles of science and religion express my basic reaction better than I would have been able to do, had my first intended reply not been interupted.

44

Archimedes said:

So are you saying God was originally wrong? How do we know which part of “God’s word” to believe?

The other question is whether you are willing to accept the possibility that such laws were removed so it would be easier for non-Jews to accept Christianity (Jews were already following Kosher laws, so it wasn’t an issue to them, but it might have been an issue to others).

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

45

Diceman, my problem is not so much with intelligent, thoughtful people like you and Tom, who are intellectually honest enough to say, “Yes, evolution is the most likely explanation for speciation and extinction and development, and yes, the universe is around 15 billion years old,” and consider religion and its associated myths to be some means of investigating the bigger picture. I disagree strenuously that your method provides any useful results; or that there even are questions in some cases. (Why even ask a question like “Why do stars form?”) (And I also disagree that the universe runs flawlessly and is particularly “well-designed,” whatever that means.)

My problem is with people like Trig and Archimedes, who, in the face of all reason and logic, resort to special pleading to make some unlikely theological point; and insist on the literal interpretation of what are obviously mythological and symbolic stories. There has been a treacherous move in this country, over the last few decades, towards superstition, anti-intellectualism, and anti-reason, and frankly I don’t care to see it continue.

You want consolation in the face of death or to be told you are a good person or you’re forgiven for your bad deeds? Great, fine, go see a priest. You want to know where planets come from or how life develops? Look elsewhere. People like Trig are proud of their ignorance–they wear it like a badge. Well, sorry, but I will combat such ignorance wherever possible. That’s what the Straight Dope stands for, and I happen to agree that it’s a useful thing.

** Phil D. **
“Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine.”
–J.B.S. Haldane

46

Oh, almost forgot–my other point about Sodom and Gomorrah, in case you missed it, is that an equally likely explanation is that the cities, if they are the cities located on said fault line, were destroyed in some catastrophe and the Biblical myth grew around it. Not an uncommon occurrence in writings from 4,000 years ago.

You are of course free to go down whichever explanatory path you feel is necessary, but you are not free to insist that others follow and modify their behavior because of some lesson you think it teaches.

** Phil D. **
“Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine.”
–J.B.S. Haldane

47

David,
No, God was not originally wrong. However, the lessons that people were to learn from the laws dictated as part of the Pentateuch had become lost amid traditions insisted upon by Pharisees. When Jesus came, he tried to put the focus on salvation by grace rather than by earning heaven by appearing to be perfect. Thus, Jesus ignored a lot of laws and got himself in trouble by appearing to party with the sinners.
As for which part of God’s word to believe, read all of it. Then, decide whether you believe Jesus to be the son of God. If you agree, follow his commandments. If you don’t, decide whether you believe the Old Testament to be the word of God. If do, you can follow the laws laid out there. If you don’t, you can still choose to follow some of the guidelines laid out (in either testament) or you can choose to look elsewhere to find guidance on how to live your life.

48

I got your point. I’m just too tired of this thread to start a debate over it.

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island

49

My last post is for Phil. Archimedes beat me to the gun.

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island

50

Oh, and FTR to both Dice and Arch, I have read the Christian Bible cover to cover, twice, and re-read many parts in many translations. I am also, according to my confirmation certificate (received of my own accord in the 10th grade), an Episcopalian; and was also a longtime member of a charismatic evangelical church. I don’t want either of you thinking I haven’t investigated this stuff from both sides.

** Phil D. **
“Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine.”
–J.B.S. Haldane

51

I like Ron usually stay away from threads of this sort, as there is generally just too much disparity of views to make any meaningful progress.

However, as a highly spiritual person who finds great interest in physics, this statement stuck me though as rather myopic. It is totally false to say that science is incompatible with religion. It may be true to say that science it rather incompatible with conservative christian views, but conservative christianity hardly represents all world religion.

52

The issue is not, IMHO, whether science and religion are compatible. The question – and a burning, critical question it is – is whether science and morality are compatible.

The argument that science is correct in all things, and that religion is wrong, can (and has) lead all too easily to the argument that science transcends morality. Then we get the Nazi “scientists” throwing people naked into freezing water to see how long it takes them to die; or withholding antibiotics from blacks with syphilis to see the progress of the disease; or…

53

This question was very important to Einstein, and he spoke eloquently about it. I agree with his view that religion and the values it brings are very important, and must work in concert with science. He didn’t agree with highly dogmatic religion that refused the contributions of science, but saw the values and the sense of meaning that comes from religion as important.

“science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” – Albert Einstien, 1941

54

I am both an engineer and a practicing Catholic. I don’t think that religion and science are incompatable. As I said above, science has great use, but is limited in application to physical reality. Scientists that believe that science can be used to make moral decisions are using science as a religion, which is a clear distortion of it’s nature and purpose.

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island

55

Science is a TOOL – a method for finding out about the world and universe around us. What somebody DOES with the science is another issue.

In other words, science does not “trascend” morality so much as it has nothing to do with morality. Is withholding vaccine in a double-blind test a scientifically valid way to examine something? Yes. Is it a HUMANE way to do it? No. But one can be humane and have morals without also having religion. In fact, some of the most moral people I know are atheists, while I know very religious people who hate gays and see no problem with messing around on their wives…

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

56

Never once in this thread did I claim that science is useful for making moral decisions, so I hope noone thinks I was suggesting anything of the sort. I was claiming the converse, that religion is not useful for explanations concerning the physical world–geology, astronomy, biology, genetics, and what have you.

Moral decision should be made based on that which benefits the greatest number of people while causing the least amount of suffering. Anything else is window dressing.

** Phil D. **
“Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine.”
–J.B.S. Haldane

57

There are a number of liberal theologians commenting in this area. None of them are sufficiently connected to the real world. Christian doctrines that conflict with reason should not be revised, but rejected. Intellectually honest people know that the Bible is factually incorrect. Atheists, therefore, say that there’s nothing more to argue, and that further “interpretation” by the liberal theologian won’t move him or her one inch closer to refuting atheism. No kidding! Theologians spend far too much time defending a set of beliefs, and far too little time searching for truth. As usual, the atheists have all the best arguments.

58

quote:

The question – and a burning, critical question it is – is whether science and morality are compatible. – CXDextHavn

Are religion and morality compatible?
Peace,
mangeorge

59

I am surprised that with all the bible “scholars” in this board noone pointed out that S&G in the myth were not destroyed for getting all freaky and Jiggy with it. They were destroyed for forcing their moral beliefs on others. Being inhospitable to guests is and always will be one of the greatest crimes in subsistance level societies.

<insert witty sig here>

60

Uh, have you read this story lately? When God’s (male) messengers show up at Lot’s house, the townsmen gather outside and demand that Lot send the visitors outside to “have intimacies with them” [Genesis 19: v1-11]. Translation: “those guys have nice asses!” Of couse, the angels will have none of this, and blind the guys. This is attempted rape, not just inhospitablility.

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island