Richard Dawkins

[Mallon]

Isn't that close to the definition of a miracle? I see miracles as being contrary to what we normally observe.

By "not those that clearly contradict what can be observed in God's creation", I'm thinking particularly of the Flood miracle. Such a miracle is said to have had devastating physical effects on the earth -- effects that we see no trace of on the earth today. Therefore, the description of the miracle contradicts what we can observe today.
You might say that the evidence has been mired by thousands of years of erosion, tectonism, etc. But this would be in complete contradiction with those creationists who claim that the stratigraphic record can be used in support of the Flood.

 

[Willtor]

Isn't that close to the definition of a miracle? I see miracles as being contrary to what we normally observe.

Sometimes miracles leave traces that can be looked at (Jesus turning water into wine - you could examine the wine) -- but you must be careful. If you just see the wine, you may want to think there was a grape sometime inthe past.

Actually, I've discussed this at some length, before. Consider events in terms of cause and effect: when one measures an effect, one asks about the cause. In science we look for material causes. Thus, in the case of the birth of Christ, or the wine at the wedding feast, we have effects and we look for causes. It has been asserted, in both of these instances, that there was no material cause. Although this is not necessarily the case with all miracles, it is certainly asserted with regards to these two. As such, it can be accepted, or rejected, or a person can be uncertain.

Consider a global flood, on the other hand. There is no effect to observe. How can causes be posited for an effect that ought to leave traces but hasn't? If such a flood had occurred, no doubt, science would look for material causes. It might be able to find some, if there were any (in which case, the miracle would be a miracle of providence and not special intervention). But, at any rate, the historicity of a global flood would not be denied because the corresponding effects would be measurable.

Likewise, if the wedding feast came and it was asserted that the water had been changed to wine, but it still looked and tasted like water, on what basis could it be called literal wine? No, the miracle is said to be so because the host was surprised at how good the wine tasted, never identifying it as water. There aren't any effects that we can measure, today, but even if the wine were still present, although one might posit a material cause, it would be difficult to deny the effect: there is wine (or probably vinegar, at this point).

 

[laptoppop]

Consider a global flood, on the other hand. There is no effect to observe. How can causes be posited for an effect that ought to leave traces but hasn't? If such a flood had occurred, no doubt, science would look for material causes. It might be able to find some, if there were any (in which case, the miracle would be a miracle of providence and not special intervention). But, at any rate, the historicity of a global flood would not be denied because the corresponding effects would be measurable.

Just to be clear - for some of us, a global flood is a superior explanation for the formation of the geologic structures that we see. For example, there are continent size layers in several locations -- either one must talk about many huge "local" floods... or a global flood. There are also so-called "out of order" layers that extend for hundreds of miles -- again, much better explained using the global flood model. Far from "no evidence", there is a world full of direct evidence -- it all depends on how one interprets it.

 

[shernren]

The part where redemption actually involves God's activities in Time and Space, human history and reality.

An 'occasional hero' is your answer...and you really asked me which part is unclear...wow...I'm astonished beyond words.

I say the Bible is all redemptive history - in the form of pithy maxims, flowery poetic prose, wild flights of fantasy, and the occasional plain old historical description especially whenever the Hero comes onstage.

All of redemptive history is God's activities in Time and Space, human history and reality.

All of the Bible is devoted to describing redemptive history.

Some of the Bible describes redemptive history by using pithy maxims.
Some of the Bible describes redemptive history by using flowery poetic prose.
Some of the Bible describes redemptive history by using wild flights of fancy.
Some of the Bible describes redemptive history by using plain old historical description.

But no matter what approach the Bible uses, it describes redemptive history.

This is not complicated at all.

 

[laptoppop]

" Some of the Bible describes redemptive history by using wild flights of fancy."
I guess this is the one I have the most trouble with. To me -- history should be historical, i.e. factually true. I don't expect a wild flight of fancy to be factually true -- so I wouldn't call it history.

 

[Willtor]

Just to be clear - for some of us, a global flood is a superior explanation for the formation of the geologic structures that we see. For example, there are continent size layers in several locations -- either one must talk about many huge "local" floods... or a global flood. There are also so-called "out of order" layers that extend for hundreds of miles -- again, much better explained using the global flood model. Far from "no evidence", there is a world full of direct evidence -- it all depends on how one interprets it.

Well, there are lots of threads on this, already. At any rate, I'd like to emphasize the difference between arguing a supernatural cause for an observed effect vs. arguing a supernatural cause for an effect that should be observed but is not.

" Some of the Bible describes redemptive history by using wild flights of fancy."
I guess this is the one I have the most trouble with. To me -- history should be historical, i.e. factually true. I don't expect a wild flight of fancy to be factually true -- so I wouldn't call it history.

This is the root of the difficulty. As long as a written history is only history insofar as a 21st century lay person deems it so, ancient histories can never be read for the value they represented to their original readers. In this way, the meaning of Scripture changes from generation to generation as different generations value different things.

 

[Deamiter]

" Some of the Bible describes redemptive history by using wild flights of fancy."
I guess this is the one I have the most trouble with. To me -- history should be historical, i.e. factually true. I don't expect a wild flight of fancy to be factually true -- so I wouldn't call it history.

You do realize that's a very modernist view of history right? It's a result of the Enlightenment where facts and details became much more important than morals or lessons when discussing history (or indeed just about everything).

I challenge you to read through some other literature from the Ancient Near East. You won't find much at all that sounds "historical" -- geneologies that lead back to mythical characters, impossible feats and all sorts of spirits and gods etc... It was a time when the STORY was primary and facts were an occasional unfortunate necessity.

You simply can't understand the context of the Bible using modernist assumptions about motive and culture.

 

[laptoppop]

Um, no, not necessarily. The Hebrew culture was unique and distinct from the surrounding people -- monotheistic, etc.

For example - this paper http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/v17n3_chronogenealogies.pdf
quotes an extensive passage from Josephus where he uses the various chronology dates in a very YEC like fashion - calculating the dates and ages based on the geaneaologies. These were seen as real people, with real ages and real offspring -- not a myth.

 

[shernren]

" Some of the Bible describes redemptive history by using wild flights of fancy."
I guess this is the one I have the most trouble with. To me -- history should be historical, i.e. factually true. I don't expect a wild flight of fancy to be factually true -- so I wouldn't call it history.

Why can't God use wild flights of fancy to describe history? Just look at Revelations. John was definitely out of this world when he was writing it, what with dragons with tails that swat stars and witnesses that breathe fire and all.

And yet a significant proportion of Christians through the centuries have held that the events Revelations describes are historical future events. - ie, that the wild flights of fancy are descriptions of historical events. And you will see this theme in any of the OT prophecies as well. While we're at prophecy, even in Genesis 3 we see this - the Seed of Woman stepping on a Snake's Head is a flight of fancy to me, and yet it described the very real and historical events of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, though obviously in a way that paid little regard to the actual historical details surrounding it.

 

[laptoppop]

Its just terminology - but to me "wild flights of fancy" imply things that did not happen, not just vividly picturesque constructions.

 

[Deamiter]

Um, no, not necessarily. The Hebrew culture was unique and distinct from the surrounding people -- monotheistic, etc.

For example - this paper http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/v17n3_chronogenealogies.pdf
quotes an extensive passage from Josephus where he uses the various chronology dates in a very YEC like fashion - calculating the dates and ages based on the geaneaologies. These were seen as real people, with real ages and real offspring -- not a myth.

Do you REALLY believe that a 1st century Roman historian's report on the geneology in Genesis shows that the Jewish culture was so very different from surrounding cultures in 700BC?

Here, I'm talking about how the ancient near east wrote and how their culture works, and you say, "no -- this Roman guy wrote a report on Genesis and adds up the dates just like YECs do!"

Remember, I'm a Christian. I find very important differences (like the monotheism you mentioned) between the Hebrew culture and other ANE cultures. At the same time, you seem to deny any similarity offhand and without evidence when it disagrees with your modern scientific view of how history should be written (one that was just becoming popular in Greece and Rome a century or two before Josephus lived).

 

[helter]

Has anyone read the book?

 

[JohnR7]

Exactly. Either accept Creationism and God or accept science, you can't have both. I'm sure this will really help win souls over.

So you do not agree with dawkins all or none position? He seems to have a fair number of recruits.

 

[JohnR7]

Has anyone read the book?

I listened to his hour long lecture where he was plugging the book. Then I listed to a part of the second hour when he answered questions. Also there is a interview with him in Time magazine. Actually it was a debate between him and Francis Collins sense they are both trying to sell books right now.

Dawkins: Do you mind if I call you Francis?
Collins: Oh, by all means, call me Francis.

 

[JohnR7]

either one must talk about many huge "local" floods... or a global flood.

There was global flooding around 12,975 years ago. But Noah's flood was around 4,252 years ago, so it would have had to be more of a local flood. All though Noah's flood could have been caused by a glacier lake. As the ice melted there are natural dams that hold back the water for a while, but eventually break. Even today with global warming that is a problem in various parts of the world. As the ice melts it forms into a lake, but as more ice melts it can turn into a flood at any time.

 

[grl4christ17]

hey here's a quote by robert frost- live everyday as if it were your last

 

[theFijian]

hey here's a quote by robert frost- live everyday as if it were your last

So after I've quite my job the first day, what do i do the next day?

 

[Assyrian]

Why quit your job if it is your last day?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So after I've quite my job the first day, what do i do the next day?

my dad one time told me he had met the most intelligent person in his life at work.
they hired the guy to work with him and the new guy quit before lunch and left. my dad said that there were people he knew there that had been there for 35 years and still thought it was a good place to work, and this guy figured out the truth in just a few hours.

 

[theFijian]

Why quit your job if it is your last day?

Yeah I guess, I mean I wouldnt be able to work my notice period anyway