Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[REASON]

You're correct Tinny. Generalizations can seem wishy-washy, and I haven't researched every religion. I was referring mainly to long held Christian beliefs such as Adam and Eve were the first humans, the Earth is only five or six thousand years old, the Creation story as told in Genesis is why we are here and evolution has no validity, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (current issue), there was a massive flood that covered the entire Earth, and so on. I even had someone tell me that God created the Earth with the dinosaur bones already in it. Point being, that there seems to be a need by many to justify everything stated in the Bible as fact or risk that maybe it isn't actually God's word. And that if people start listening to scientists, they will lose faith, and that would be disasterous. I don't believe that to be the case. A person can still have faith, and understand the values that are applicable to their lives from the Bible, yet gain an updated understanding of the world around them. Some of this has already taken place. I'm not aware of anyone who still believes that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around this planet (although it did take until the early nineties for the Catholic Church to admit it).

 

As for agnostcism, I am aware that it has been gone over in earlier posts. I was simply stating that there wasn't an option for an agnostic position in the poll.

[Queso]

I even had someone tell me that God created the Earth with the dinosaur bones already in it.

haha i have heard this one before too. cracks me up every time.

[mcsquared]

It may bring forth an exasperated groan but surely the following must bear repeating as looking at any forum the question of God always brings more response than any other. There is seemingly an overwhelming need for humanity to examine the question of a creator.

Simple logic demands that there either is or there is not a God(S)

If there is not then science can go on looking for answers but for no good reason other than to improve the life on this planet for as long as it exists.

On the other hand if there is a God then we are creatures of a creator and by virtue of that lowly position can have no understanding of the divine mind other than that permitted by application of intelligent thought to the purpose of our being.Then science can proceed to unravel the secrets of the universe and display the wonders of God's creation for his creatures' adoration.

It is a question of which one prefers,a life span of worthless endeavour to no end or eternal wonder at an intelligence that brought humanity forth to follow philosophical/scientific threads!

[Stargazer]

don't even bother. they never give proof because they never have proof and they never will. they believe they do and when they realize that what they brought forward was not proof at all-well, they don't realize that. it's something they can't, won't admit. because they have FAITH. who needs proof when you have faith?!

If they had proof or evidence it wouldn't be much of a faith, would it? Indeed, the less evidence you have to back up your belief, the more of a faith it is.

[bumab]

I was referring mainly to long held Christian beliefs such as Adam and Eve were the first humans, the Earth is only five or six thousand years old, the Creation story as told in Genesis is why we are here and evolution has no validity, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (current issue), there was a massive flood that covered the entire Earth, and so on. I even had someone tell me that God created the Earth with the dinosaur bones already in it. Point being, that there seems to be a need by many to justify everything stated in the Bible as fact or risk that maybe it isn't actually God's word. And that if people start listening to scientists, they will lose faith, and that would be disasterous. I don't believe that to be the case. A person can still have faith, and understand the values that are applicable to their lives from the Bible, yet gain an updated understanding of the world around them. Some of this has already taken place.

 

Very few members of the Christian community (in my experience) believe in the literal interpritation as you presented it. But as a science teacher who loves the subject of evolution, I can tell you that the few that do are the most vocal! ;)

 

Basically, things can be true without being literally (or historically) true.

[Biochemist]

...And WHY do so many of them feel so threatened by scientific discovery that, through painstaking reseach and analysis, simply seeks to understand the nature of the universe.

This knife seems to cut both ways. Even on this site, there are a number of folks that are pretty animated against belief. This is pretty similar to the dogmatism of believers who are animated agianst science.

 

I think all truth is God's truth. Note I said "think" not "believe".

 

Many religious values and ideals are still applicable in our lives today, and we should hold onto them. But as scientific research continues to provide us with more and more knowledge and clarity about the nature of our universe and the processes which brought about life, religion had better let go of some of its ancient dogmatic beliefs, or risk losing credibility.

I think we should separate the credibility of religion from the credibility of specific spokespeople. We do the same for science. That would be evenhanded.

[Biochemist]

....I was referring mainly to long held Christian beliefs such as Adam and Eve were the first humans, the Earth is only five or six thousand years old, the Creation story as told in Genesis is why we are here and evolution has no validity, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (current issue), there was a massive flood that covered the entire Earth, and so on. I even had someone tell me that God created the Earth with the dinosaur bones already in it....

As a case in point, there are many conservative Christian folks that do not believe any of your examples are true, and yet still hold the scriptures true and inspired by God. They tend not to get a lot or air time when folks are critiquing the incongruity of Christians.

 

If I were to talk to my next door neighbor about biochemistry or medicine (or my mother, for goodness sake), I get some pretty thoughtless responses as well. People are surprisingly consistent as a mass. Most folks don't really understand most things (including me). If you want the best thought, you seek out specific people in that area.

[Biochemist]

...the question of God always brings more response than any other...

Simple logic demands that there either is or there is not a God(S)...if there is a God then we are creatures of a creator and by virtue of that lowly position can have no understanding of the divine mind...It is a question of which one prefers,a life span of worthless endeavour to no end or eternal wonder at an intelligence that brought humanity forth to follow philosophical/scientific threads!

E-You are correct in noting that the "God" discussions get an extrordinary number of views, even on this site. I find that interesting as well.

 

I wanted to respond to your point about "lowly position/no understanding". It is reasonable to posit (on a philosophical basis, not a scientific one- we are, after all, in a philosophy forum) that a God could be personal. If that were true, we would not only find out about Him by studying His creation, but also by things He elects to reveal about Himself directly. Just a point.

[lindagarrette]

Very few members of the Christian community (in my experience) believe in the literal interpritation as you presented it. But as a science teacher who loves the subject of evolution, I can tell you that the few that do are the most vocal! ;)

 

Basically, things can be true without being literally (or historically) true.

Approximately 34% of the US population overall believe the Bible is literally true. Almost all Christians believe that Jesus lived and died, then came back to life as atonment for the original sin of Adam. That's a lot of very confused people.

[infamous]

Approximately 34% of the US population overall believe the Bible is literally true. Almost all Christians believe that Jesus lived and died, then came back to life as atonment for the original sin of Adam. That's a lot of very confused people.

 

I believe confusion is a human trait Linda, common to us all.

[Biochemist]

Approximately 34% of the US population overall believe the Bible is literally true. Almost all Christians believe that Jesus lived and died, then came back to life as atonment for the original sin of Adam. That's a lot of very confused people.

Odd. I have gone to churches pretty consistently since about 1975. Most of those churches were conservative sorts, across several different denimonations. I have never met ANYONE that believes the Bible is literally true. This includes at least three Baptist pastors, three ThDs from Dallas, and a large number of other evangelicals. I think these numbers are more than a little bit suspicious.

[Fishteacher73]

Approximately 34% of the US population overall believe the Bible is literally true. Almost all Christians believe that Jesus lived and died, then came back to life as atonment for the original sin of Adam. That's a lot of very confused people.

 

The polling was probbaly skewed...I doubt 34% of the US population has actually read the entire Bible. More than likely this 34% is people that think they believe in a literal interpretaion, but mainly have the Bible translated through their pastor/preacher to them. They believe in Christ, so they "believe" what the Bible says and therefore think they have a literal inerpretation.

[TINNY]

As a case in point, there are many conservative Christian folks that do not believe any of your examples are true, and yet still hold the scriptures true and inspired by God. They tend not to get a lot or air time when folks are critiquing the incongruity of Christians.

I'm quite sure that you're aware of the many contradictions of the Bible. In any case, the originality of it is extremely doubtful. It therefore becomes a very unreliable source of knowledge.

[Buffy]

The polling was probbaly skewed...I doubt 34% of the US population has actually read the entire Bible. More than likely this 34% is people that think they believe in a literal interpretaion, but mainly have the Bible translated through their pastor/preacher to them. They believe in Christ, so they "believe" what the Bible says and therefore think they have a literal inerpretation.

Not the whole bible, and what's there is so unreadable, they need the preacher to tell them what it means. Listen to those TV preachers: its mostly "read a passage, explain what it means, damnation and hellfire to those who disagree with us, repeat". I'd wager that more people have read the Left Behind series than have read the Bible. OTOH, I've read the whole thing dozens of times and look at me! Its great stuff, especially as literature (a plug for one of my old profs at Berkeley Robert Alter who won the Koret Book award last month for "The Five Books of Moses" which I highly recommend if you want to know the historical context of what the good ol Pentateuch means).

 

Now I'm admittedly horridly bi-coastal, but spent enough time in flyover country to attest that yes, there are *lots* of folks who really do believe its literally true. I'll never forget the day when I was about ten and made some offhand comment that assumed Evolution when chatting with a friend's mother, and she immediately shot back: "you don't believe that man come from monkey do you?" This was not an unintelligent woman, and this was in liberal territory in Los Angeles. It taught me to be cautious about what people's views are. To this day I do have close friends who are very fundamentalist, and although some actually make consessions to Evolution (this IS California), they're all sure the Rapture/Apocalypse is right around the corner. These *are* normal people. They're *nice* even though they do occasionally imply I'd better get my theological act together. Politically, a lot of them are being manipulated horridly, although I have one strongly religious friend who likes to say "*MY* God doesn't say gays are going to hell." Her minister doesn't agree, but he's too scared of her to say so to her face. There's lots of conflict among the various views, so its just as incorrect to associate all conservative Christians with the likes of Dobson and Falwell, as it is to say Osama represents devout Muslims.

 

Bottom line: be careful who you pigeonhole, you're probably going to be wrong more than half the time....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

I'm quite sure that you're aware of the many contradictions of the Bible. In any case, the originality of it is extremely doubtful.

There may well be some contradictions in the Bible, although frankly, I can't think of any as I sit here. There are lots of antinomies. Most folks regard those as contradictions. Those would be the same folks that do not believe in quantum physics, I guess. Folks who reference the Bible's contradictions usually are attacking straw men, as you suggested elegantly in one of your earlier posts.

It therefore becomes a very unreliable source of knowledge.

The Bible is actually a quite reliable source of knowledge. That is why archaeologists tend to use it as a key reference source (when applicable) for time, location, etc. when they are spending real money to begin a dig.

[Queso]

The Bible is actually a quite reliable source of knowledge. That is why archaeologists tend to use it as a key reference source (when applicable) for time, location, etc. when they are spending real money to begin a dig.

that's probably the only DECENT source of knowledge it's good for. the rest of it, as posted above, is unreliable. i would never depend on mythology...unless i found some crazy treasure map and was bored and wanted to go on an adventure. THAT would be fun. :)

[Biochemist]

that's probably the only DECENT source of knowledge it's good for. the rest of it, as posted above, is unreliable. ...

If you are referring to Buffy's quote above, she did not suggest it was unreliable. She suggested it is unreadable. That is a little hyperbolic, but a fair description for trying to plow through Leviticus. But:

I've read the whole thing dozens of times and look at me! Its great stuff, especially as literature

If Buffy has actually read the "entire" Bible (including Leviticus!!) a couple of dozen times, she deserves an award. (Congrats, Buffy.)

 

I contend the Bible (though some will certainly disagree) is a highly reliable book by any standard for ancient texts.