Undergroundnetwork

hello, i wanted to return the comment you gave me. Again you have made very good points in your arguments. Your references and descriptions all work brilliantly. But i have a few questions of my own. if morals were evolved in animals in order to survive and the first species or organism was not born with a complete set of morals and they had to build slowly build the morals( and those morals are key in survival) then how did they first live without them. For example, if the first breed animal was given the moral to not kill your friend then why wouldn’t he have done so which would escalate to the extinction of the species. Although this question may not be completely solid and there are many ways to argue this such as why would that species kill the other for no reason? You ask that because you have morals? I can not argue that not sort of evolution did not take place because i was simple not there but then again their wasn’t anyone there that is still alive today. I am not closed into the thought that the earth and all of its life was literally created in six days, there may have been evolution and that famous big bang. Believe that evolution could have been in existence does not make you a non believer. I do not believe in all of the theories and there is archaeological evidence of humans(humans not half breeds) being around much longer than thought by scientist. I am referring to a find a few years ago in north east Africa. they found an whole skeleton of a man that was older and had a stronger resemblance us than the previous scatterings. In the bible it states that people are born with the truth about God and i imagine that morality and logic comes through that. Many religious stories including Native American are extremely similar and the bible refers to that. Because people are born with the truth(subconsciously) they create stories of the formation of the earth, gods, etc. almost identically. You would that if culture or groups of people were separated without ever having contact with one another then they would have different stories of something like their own creation, but they’re not. there almost the same or at least every religion that i have done any sort of research on. For me that is more assurance in God. I am sure you are thinking of something that might counter this so tell me as i am sure you will because i will do the same to you in your reply. I looked up one of your verses proverb 13:24. have you read it yourself. If would study it and give it any consideration i am sure you would not refer it as you have done. it is not implying that a good father should abusive but rather strict in raising a child. This is even mentioned by Socrates(or Plato because he was the author) in the Republic not by referring to this verse but this subject. He claims that if you raise a child and not enforce rules on him then the outcome of the child will be poor. this is the same for raise a dog. if you do not enforce rules on the animal, if you do not have authority over the animal then the dog will result in poor behavior. (a great reason why people give up their pets). if someone robs a store and are caught they will (hopefully) be sent to jail in an attempt to correct this behavior, if the person is let free with no sort of punishment then they will most likely commit the crime and greater crimes again. I could continue with this for a while but i am sure you understand what i am saying the verse is not saying be an abusive parent but is saying if you do not discipline when he does wrong your child he will turn out poorly. the bible does not state that you beat your child senseless but give the proper amount of discipline. I only looked up one verse that you mentioned, but I imagine that like this verse, you took it out of context.

Thanks for your comment Andrew.

You do make some good points. Let me address them each separately.

Firstly you bring a great point regarding how life survived pre-altruism. This is really also an argument into how altruism also came about. As I said I do not pretend to be a biologist nor an expert on evolution, so I will answer as best I can. My argument focuses on how altruism is beneficial to a species evolutionally, but you question how it came about in the first place. Richard Dawkins argues that altruism may have firstly come about as a by-product of another trait. I cannot pretend to fully understand this idea and would surely butcher it if I tried explaining it. I believe it is a core idea of his selfish gene book, perhaps I will reply to this point when I have actually read that book! As for now I am inundated with university assignments, I really should cut back on the blogging! I am sure another blogger will be able to competently answer your point in the meantime.

You believe that people are born with the truth about God, and that morality and logic come as a result. You refer to the bible as evidence of this, which of course I cannot accept this as credible, as I’m sure you will understand. See my “but it says so in the bible blog” for why I cannot accept the bible as support for anyone’s arguments. In any case I doubt I was born with the “truth about God” within me!

Where in the bible does it mention the Native Americans or even other faiths? Unless God is demanding infidels be stoned to death, I don’t think the bible accounts for other religions. For me, similarities between religions tell me more about man and his insecurities, than god, in that religions typically represent the wills and hopes of their followers. But that will be because I only see all religions as inventions of man, and each religion seems to confirm this for me. Perhaps my “but it says so” post somewhat covers this too.

You pulled me up on using the Sam Harris quote, you are right; I should have looked at all the quotes, instead of taking good old Mr Harris at his word. The one you refer to could be interpreted as you have. However many of the others would be hard to interpret kindly, in fact I would be surprised to see if anyone could find even an acceptable metaphorical definition! In particular:

Leviticus 20:9
9For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Exodus 21:15
15And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I’m sure I read somewhere that one book of the bible does explicitly say that the following text is the literal truth of God, therefore negating the ‘metaphorical’ argument. I cannot remember the book so don’t quote me on that! But my main objection with the common tendency of Christians interpret immoral scripture as metaphorical is that if one passage is not literal, perhaps the whole thing is not! This is similar to Dawkins’s “cherry picker” argument. In the past the entire book was considered the literal truth, but the advance of science and the liberal rights movements have led Christians to re-evaluate the bible. The question is: why then take any of it literally?

Cheers,
Paul

hello, I am new to this website and I am still trying to figure it out. I just saw your reply and I was delighted to hear you respond. I am very glad to see that you did not ignore my comment. First i would like to respond on the very last thing you mentioned and then work my way up. You are quite right “why then take any of it literally?” wells lets say you do take it literally and that the earth was created in 6 days… but first can you define what a day is? You could say that a day is the time it takes for the earth to rotate. But perhaps this was not the intended definition in the bible, maybe a day was supposed to mean a completed cycle. I have a hard time believing that the earth was literally created in the 6 days that we know because God always uses patience in the bible he never rush’s things so why would he do so with the earth? It does not make since. Christianity is to be token by faith and not knowledge which is why it can be so difficult to defend. Obviously you do not believe in it but I think God did this to make sure that it was faith that made us believe in him and not knowledge. But you believe all of that is crap, and I understand because you have become so accustomed to not believing and sought and found supposable evidence against his existence. But however there has never been actual evidence that has been able to fully deny his presence, but you could say that Andrew there is no evidence god does exist and i could not possibly say anything to persuade you because I would say is the nature around is the evidence but you already believe that nature is only a result of evolution.
Now on the verses, I have no checked to make sure how accurate they are but if I am right they were a set of laws given to the Jews for certain circumstances at a certain period of time. Punishment and ethics is often just a matter of opinion and punishment may have to become more or less severe for different situations or time periods such as war. This is not all that crazy; think about it, i am sure you are familiar or somewhat familiar with the philosophies of Pythagoras. Pythagoras said that when ever a man commits a crime and any crime they should be hung. His thoughts on this were that if people were afraid of being killed they would not commit crime. the situation in that period in the bible may have been something like this: the jews have now left the ruling of the Egyptians and now they have to basically make a new society. In this new freedom and with no rules and governmental control you could imagine with any group of people that there would be a lot of chaos especially among the youth. In order for the group to obtain control and set rule in such a risky situation they had to make it severe, very severe. AND THAT is my take on it.

I’m not sure your understanding me, haven’t you noticed that all religions have a story of the creation of the earth and they are almost identical? This has been literary and philosophical study for a long time. Explain to me how every groups take on the world is almost the same. Other religions were mentioned; the bible clearly mentioned the worshiping of ideals, the birds and trees, and even the Greek religions. Native Americans were not mentioned you got me there ill admit it, I never once came across the name native americans but i also never read anything about the Chinese but weren’t to far away. if meant something else by bringing up the N.A as I am sure you did please bring it up.

Unfortunately I know nothing about altruism and if you would like my take on it you will have to enlighten me on the subject.
As always, it was a pleasure hearing and responding to you.
p.s. If you would, could you check out some of my other blogs like my favorite “the one handed politicians”. maybe we can agree on something.

Hi Andrew,

Likewise I appreciate your correspondence. Even though you are new I assume you have discovered there is some unintelligent debate taking place on some blogs, so it is nice to have some sincere, open and honest discussion with someone with differing views. All too often to degenerates into insults, although perhaps insults are all that some posts are worth (angryxtian!).

My first objection (perhaps the wrong word, it seems so strong!) to your response is the opting to redefine the meanings of what is said in the bible. You say that perhaps days does not refer to an earth’s rotation, fair enough, I have often have heard of the “days” in genesis representing a larger measure of time than 24 hours. You propose that it could mean I “cycle”, this is perhaps a fair argument. However, if the days in genesis could be reinterpreted to mean, for arguments sake, several million years each, then what is to stop one redefining other parts of scripture that do not hold up when considered literally? Perhaps anything from Jesus’s resurrection to Moses parting the sea could be reinterpreted as something more likely or credible. There is perhaps one of my strongest objection to religion. It is so easily manipulated in order to fit the thinking, and knowledge of the times.

You are right to say that there is no evidence to disprove God, as there is also no empirical evidence to prove that there is a deity. So I do acknowledge that there could possibly be a god, although I am confident that it is not one that has been worshipped by any existing religions, or any that have become extinct. As far as I understand, things that have historically only been able to have been explained using religion can now be explained by science, and therefore we potentially may reach a time when everything in the universe can be explained using science. This is why I believe the intelligent design movement is arrogant, and why it is ultimately not science (see my “irrational design” post for my full thoughts.) So although science cannot disprove god, science can, for the most part, explain life without the need for a god. The burden of proof, as far as I’m concerned is with those that claim God’s existence, just like we would demand evidence from a conspiracy theorist proclaiming alien invasions, or from someone who swore they saw Elvis. Perhaps the thought processes of an alien conspiracy theorist and many deists are very similar, perhaps not.

Your example of Pythagoras merely reminds me of, and reinforces, my belief that the bible is merely a product of its time. This is part of why I see the bible as a man made book, reflecting the cultures and norms of the times in which it was written, and not the dictations of a God that exists outsides of time and space. Other religions appear similar to the bible because religion reflects the desires and wishes of its followers (life after death, justice, prosperity etc). If, as I think you are saying, religions are the similar because God spoke to all these people, not only does this make holy wars all the more ridiculous (meaning God’s demands to kill other faiths are immoral), but it renders all religions just as valid, and perhaps means that one should not follow one religious tradition, but all of them. However there are also massive differences between religions; some are monotheist, others are polytheists, some are in essence violent, others are ultimately much more peaceful, some demand sacrifices of life, others demand dedication in prayer. For me these differences reflect the different cultures these religions arose in.

I hope all that made sense; I have just come home from a few quiet ones after a wee celebration following completion of a particularly difficult university assignment! I hope this has been coherent.

Again, thank you for you comments, it is great to speak to a thoughtful believer, who is humble, open minded and respectful. Let me tell you, that apart from my girlfriend, I meet all too few of them!

Cheers,
Paul

Hello, I’m always excited to read your comments or replies. I too respect your works, your opinion and how you go about saying it. I very much appreciate someone who can discuss a serious subject that is opposite of what I believe. You would not be as great of a debater as you are if you did loose your temper, I was once told “the moment someone looses their temper or makes a personal attack they have lost the argument. I don’t think people understand how important it is to listen to those who disagree with what you think because that way we have a chance to spot our own ignorance, and we can understand the other side.

You make an excellent point (Perhaps anything from Jesus’s resurrection to Moses parting the sea could be reinterpreted as something more likely or credible), it seems impossible to trap you. But I am a little confused maybe you could help me out and explain any way that those two stories could have been misinterpreted in the same way that the 7 day theory might have been?

You are also quite right; the bible can be manipulated in so many ways. I think the reason for this is because it is literature. I am sure you have read a book or a poem (besides the bible) and your view of what the meaning might have been was different than someone else’s. Why should the bible be any different? People are going to have their own take on each section of the bible.

But there is one thing I do disagree on, I do not think that mankind will ever be able to explain everything by science, I honestly think that we do not realize how much we do not know.

I have another question for you but I am going to build up to the question before I ask.

I was born and I will die, my friend was born and he will die, you were born and you will die. If my neighbor is living then it means one day she will die. If she is living then it also means she was born. That is also true for the plants and animals out side. So far we can say that if something is living it was born and it will die. So now I have to ask, if that one micro-organism that ended up giving birth to everything that is hear today how was it born? If it was not the first how the first born?

Like always it was a pleasure talking to you,
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I’m not aware of any reinterpretations of those two examples I gave, but I could hazard a guess of what potential reinterpretations could be, for someone who is trying to reconcile the bible with science. The moses story could be a metaphor, perhaps he used a boat, or maybe waited until the tide was out before he crossed! As for the resurrection, this was a bit of a dumb example, as science could never prove that Jesus never came back to life, although it is clearly impossible, and no Christian would want to turn that story into a metaphor anyway, as it would surely render the religion particularly meaningless. However my argument still stands that if parts of it are not the literal truth, why should any of it be? If parts are merely stories, perhaps the entirety is, and the bible is really a work of fiction. The burden of proof lies with those who claim it is the truth, either partially, or in its entirety.

As for saying that the bible is open to interpretation just like any other piece of literature, surely this only applies to works of fiction or subjective observational works. Non-fiction books are not up for interpretation, what is said is what is said and nothing else. One can either take it or leave it. Historical texts state exactly what is believed to have occurred. Science books have objective truths backed up with empirical evidence. So for me the bible is either all right, or all wrong. And as Noah’s flood did not occur, rabbits do not chew cud, and the sun does not revolve around the earth, I can only reject the bible in its entirety.

You’re final question is an old one, but a good one. It is one that I cannot answer anymore than anyone can competently answer than the atheists’ counter question: “Who created the creator”.

Evolution can be traced back through all living species today, back through the creatures that are known to have preceded them, all the way back to the simplest organisms. The details of this are considered scientific fact by almost all biologists and most scientists of other disciplines. However they can only theorise as to how life initially arose. Theories range from bacteria forming from chemicals present following the earth’s birth to organisms being transported to the earth via an asteroid from other planet with the necessary preconditions for the development of life. Those are very brief versions of those two ideas. Anyway, an experiment conducted a few decades back found that the building blocks of life can arise through what’s called “chemical evolution”. I’m not too schooled up on the science side of things, but it pretty much explains how life can arise independent of a deity.

Google ‘Miller-Urey’ for the details on the study.

Cheers,

Paul