On the reconciliation of scripture to science

[HMS_Beagle]

Von nit doesn't know what the phrase functional difference means

wait a minute - thats not so funny.....its kind of par for the course with Van Nitt

I thought you were leaving?

Why is it the fools with the biggest egos who make a big to-do about flouncing out always forget to actually go?

[klaus54]

ROFL......What a nit who said anything about equivalent. Let me see if I can break it down in smaller chunks for you to comprehend (yeah I know hopeless).Try this nit

"If a man cares about truth he can refute this"

whats the implication Von Nitt?? How does that make it magically not trying to set up a condition?

pure twittery

So no can and should makes no FUNCTIONAL difference to the condition being set up. Its STILL a condition

what
a
collection
of
Nitwits

Gawd, are you ever a world-class dope...

[sylas]

I look forward to our continuation of this thread of thought - if you have more to say. I know Collins of biologos takes a fully metaphorical view. But a pope not too long ago required belief in a literal Adam and Eve (I remember Sylas lamenting he'd done that too ...) So it's not a trivial problem, and to this point mostly as a matter of conscience I've stayed on the 'they were a literal couple' side of the argument.

Sometimes I search for my name to see if there is something I should comment upon... late to the party on this but I felt it worth mentioning as it is somewhat on topic for the matter of how one goes about the business of constructing an understanding of the world and of the bible.

Not sure what Jim refers to here. I don't think I'd normally care much what the pope thinks. I think the literal couple idea is silly, but there's nothing particularly new or surprising in the pope proposing silly notions. Any pope has got worse examples than this. But I could have commented upon it, I guess.

What I find truly bizarre in the above is the notion of choosing a side of an argument on a matter of fact such as this on the basis of "conscience". Conscience is for matters of ethics, behaviour, policies, actions, etc. Not for matters of understanding or comprehension of either books or the natural world. Forget the actual question of where there was ever a single couple that could sensibly be identified as Adam or Eve; of the questions of what the bible writers were intending. There is, IMHO, I bigger difficulty and stubbling block here -- the misuse of conscience.

Cheers -- sylas

[oxmixmudd]

Sometimes I search for my name to see if there is something I should comment upon... late to the party on this but I felt it worth mentioning as it is somewhat on topic for the matter of how one goes about the business of constructing an understanding of the world and of the bible.

Not sure what Jim refers to here. I don't think I'd normally care much what the pope thinks. I think the literal couple idea is silly, but there's nothing particularly new or surprising in the pope proposing silly notions. Any pope has got worse examples than this. But I could have commented upon it, I guess.

What I find truly bizarre in the above is the notion of choosing a side of an argument on a matter of fact such as this on the basis of "conscience". Conscience is for matters of ethics, behaviour, policies, actions, etc. Not for matters of understanding or comprehension of either books or the natural world. Forget the actual question of where there was ever a single couple that could sensibly be identified as Adam or Eve; of the questions of what the bible writers were intending. There is, IMHO, I bigger difficulty and stubbling block here -- the misuse of conscience.

Cheers -- sylas

Hi Sylas. It was just a passing comment you made in a thread a good while back, about the time the previous pope made some sort of declaration on Adam and Even. "Lamenting" would resolve to something along the lines (IIRC) "I was disappointed he did that" - and it seemed there was a bit of annoyance in how you said it. But again, it was just a sentence or two in a relative thread. It just stuck in my mind for one reason or another.

As for 'matters of conscience'. This likely will not make sense to a person not a Christian, but in Romans and Corinthians Paul speaks of some people being offendend by the concept of eating meat offered to idols. Now Paul understood the idols were just inanimante figures, and that the meat was just meat. But he also knew that for some who had become Christians from out of a polytheistic society there where emotional/cultural even educational elements that caused them to be unable to be fully divorced from their previous beliefs about the idols. And so he resolved not to eat meat offered to idols before them for the sake of their conscience, to keep it from troubling them. There similar examples today in that some Christians come from backgrounds where drinking any sort of alcohol is considered sin or taboo, and some in areas of the country where that sort of idea is very common will chose not to drink alcohol for their sakes.*

As it applies to this discussion, some can't see scripture as being what it claims to be (Holy,Inspired by God) if Adam and Eve are not two literal people. I personal have struggled with this - though I'm sure you find that silly - but then again, you are perhaps not concerned with whether or not the Bible is inspired or Holy (or possibly concerned but fully convinced it is not). The decision to believe in something that may or may not be is also somewhat arbitrary. I outlined a scenario where Adam and Eve would be two distinct individuals but also part of an evolving population. Others take the approach there is some kind of miraculous differentiation, some direct action by God that sets Adam and Even apart from his physical contemporaries. These are things that can never be proved or disproved. But they may be important to the individual person's 'conscience', sense of what 'ought to be'. I have no problem with such things.

We often believe in things that can't be proven, regardless of our religious persuasion. Marital Fidelity is one such element that most of us engage in 'faith'. And we maintain that good faith belief until we have hard evidence to the contrary - sometimes even in the face of hard evidence to the contrary.

The primary difficulty comes when the evidence grows that a particular belief is incorrect and we ignore that evidence. Sometimes we find maintaining faith is the right decision (a bunch of circumstantial evidence that give the appearance our belief is not correct) sometimes not. And even there, unless the evidence is irrefutable, it's often a bit of a subjective judgment call.

Jim

*please do not be offended if you are already familiar with all this. But there are others reading that may not be.

[sylas]

As for 'matters of conscience'. This likely will not make sense to a person not a Christian, ...

I was a very active Christian, up until about the age of 25; but as you know Christians have many perspectives on all kinds of things.

My background was theologically liberal compared with yours, I suspect. From when I was old enough to frame the question, I never had an issue with Adam and Eve being a historical pair of individuals in the past. They plainly were not. So I never had to wrestle with quite the same questions as you have to address.

As I grew older and became more active within the wider Christian community, I did have to consider how to engage with fellow Christians with differing beliefs in various details of faith: such as those who had a belief in Adam and Eve as a literal couple, and other matters of differing interpretation and hermeneutics.

I do understand your point about Paul and offering meat to idols. It's a good point; and we have a similar kind of issue in the present with alcohol. Even in a secular context, there are IMO good reasons to be teetotal. I'm not, personally. I like a drink. But I experience something of an ethical dilemma, since it such a widely abused drug with massive negative repercussions from the way alcohol is so normalized for our society. (This has cropped up a bit in some threads here recently.)

I could understand your choosing not to make any kind of pubic issue on whether or not Adam and Eve is literal, out of deference to those who (in your Christian perspective) may find this a stumbling block of some kind. As a non-Christian I no longer have any issue with that; but I can understand and sympathize with Christians having a ethical dilemma on how they speak publicly on the subject. That's not the same thing, however, as an ethical dimension to the question itself, of whether or not Adam and Eve were a literal couple. Ethics and conscience may bear upon how you speak. It has no bearing -- not for me, and not for you either -- as to the actual historical answer. Conscience (I would suggest) should drive you or anyone to seek what is true in your own beliefs.

As to how one does seek what is true... perhaps one might continue to apply a kind of "faith" or trust to help resolve matters of fact. For instance, when faced with a dilemma between a trust in the bible (as literal inerrant history), or in empirical evidence, some folks might decide that the literal reading of the bible is a more reliable pointer than the empirical evidence. (It's IMO a dashed silly way to read the bible, even on its own terms, but hey.) That's a whole other debate.

Be that as it may, using conscience to resolve the question of which is the better pointer is, I continue to think, a bad abuse of conscience; and a misunderstanding of the role of ethics.

Cheers - sylas

[shunyadragon]

I was a very active Christian, up until about the age of 25; but as you know Christians have many perspectives on all kinds of things.

My background was theologically liberal compared with yours, I suspect. From when I was old enough to frame the question, I never had an issue with Adam and Eve being a historical pair of individuals in the past. They plainly were not. So I never had to wrestle with quite the same questions as you have to address.

As I grew older and became more active within the wider Christian community, I did have to consider how to engage with fellow Christians with differing beliefs in various details of faith: such as those who had a belief in Adam and Eve as a literal couple, and other matters of differing interpretation and hermeneutics.

I do understand your point about Paul and offering meat to idols. It's a good point; and we have a similar kind of issue in the present with alcohol. Even in a secular context, there are IMO good reasons to be teetotal. I'm not, personally. I like a drink. But I experience something of an ethical dilemma, since it such a widely abused drug with massive negative repercussions from the way alcohol is so normalized for our society. (This has cropped up a bit in some threads here recently.)

I could understand your choosing not to make any kind of pubic issue on whether or not Adam and Eve is literal, out of deference to those who (in your Christian perspective) may find this a stumbling block of some kind. As a non-Christian I no longer have any issue with that; but I can understand and sympathize with Christians having a ethical dilemma on how they speak publicly on the subject. That's not the same thing, however, as an ethical dimension to the question itself, of whether or not Adam and Eve were a literal couple. Ethics and conscience may bear upon how you speak. It has no bearing -- not for me, and not for you either -- as to the actual historical answer. Conscience (I would suggest) should drive you or anyone to seek what is true in your own beliefs.

As to how one does seek what is true... perhaps one might continue to apply a kind of "faith" or trust to help resolve matters of fact. For instance, when faced with a dilemma between a trust in the bible (as literal inerrant history), or in empirical evidence, some folks might decide that the literal reading of the bible is a more reliable pointer than the empirical evidence. (It's IMO a dashed silly way to read the bible, even on its own terms, but hey.) That's a whole other debate.

Be that as it may, using conscience to resolve the question of which is the better pointer is, I continue to think, a bad abuse of conscience; and a misunderstanding of the role of ethics.

Cheers - sylas

So far much of the posts in this thread are worse than a high school cafeteria food fight. Your posts add a more reasonable discourse.

[oxmixmudd]

So far much of the posts in this thread are worse than a high school cafeteria food fight. Your posts add a more reasonable discourse.

That is the way it goes most of the time around here. A few good posts, a few good threads of thought, amidst a whole host of random noise ...

[shunyadragon]

That is the way it goes most of the time around here. A few good posts, a few good threads of thought, amidst a whole host of random noise ...

I do consider your posts reasonable too.

[oxmixmudd]

I do consider your posts reasonable too.

Thanks - I was hoping that was the case ...

[sylas]

I had stopped reading the thread for ... obvious ... reasons. Only saw the post because of a general search of my name. So yeah, in case it needed saying: me too. Jim's posts are generally worth reading and thinking about.

[robrecht]

nope.....ye of little sense......lets see how this works for you. If you want to refute that YEC is real science read these two creationist books (and I name two of my choosing ) and refute them.

What are you going to tell me oh nit? What in fact have you said in such scenarios? I'm pretty sure you would tell me that you don't have to read my two choices and refute them to prove it is wrong. You would reject my attempt to set up my condition that if you wanted to prove it you should read those books

Now lets see if you can muster an ounce of intellectually honesty and say you see my point (i'm betting since its you that you can't).

its this kind of obvious intellectual dishonesty why Robby is beneath continuing on with. Obviously attempting to set conditions in a discussion he claims he was out of hours and hours before and even commenting on the subject through the articles on the texts but then claiming in dishonesty that he's still out of the discussion.

Its like you people on this forum have no morality - Christians or Atheists. Maybe thats why your numbers are small and you all have the same lack of character in a discussion/debate. even low in number birds of a feather find a way to flock together. The lack of an honesty compass acts like a magnet to pull you into small places.

Why not talk about the topic of this thread? Shuny has asked you a couple of times to explain your comment about 'real science'.

But, if you really want to talk about intellectual honesty, you should stop misrepresenting my remarks.

[TheLurch]

Why not talk about the topic of this thread? Shuny has asked you a couple of times to explain your comment about 'real science'.

I've tried to engage him on biology a number of times. It just devolves into insults and unsubstantiated claims.