Religions, Evolution and related Sciences

[cash_tx]

In an attempt to keep this on the rails (I really am enjoying the religious and evolution discussions and I kinda feel like the alien angle is waning too much) I will recommend one of my favorite books that I think several of you may appreciate.

The devil's delusion by David Berkinski

It's fantastic. He's a secular Jew and is as witty as Chesterton (and just between us... That's saying something.)

Sounds interesting and thanks for the recommendation. I will check it out.

 

[Philip Glass]

There is nothing new under the sun. There are and have always been deceivers and with technology, especially AI, deception is easy. In the end judgement there will be a separating of the sheep and the goats. (Matt 25) We should not be surprised by a modern day separating of the believers and the posers. There is no truth in this world. None but Jesus.
They've already done the releases and it was a joke.

 

[RLD]

I for one can absolutely agree with you that a decision to believe in Christianity (or for that matter, Judaism, Islam, HInduism, Buddhism, etc.) is a decision of faith; you will not reach a definitive conclusion for any of the above using an honest application of scientific methodology on the currently available archeological or historical data. Ironic as it may sound, this was actually one of the oft-overlooked key points made by atheistic debaters such as Hitchens, Hawkins, and Harris during the "four horsemen" new atheist movement of the mid-to-late 2000's. They didn't aspire to restrict people from making a declaration of faith of their own free will; they just wanted them to be intellectually honest with themselves that it was a decision of faith, not "fact". Personally, I think this is why it is often referrred to as "the gift of faith" (and some people might use the phrase "drawn by the Holy Spirit").

I think the Four Horsemen went farther than that. Much farther.

Titling your book "The God Delusion" is not an argument in favour of reason in the examination of religion, it was an assault on the idea of god and an insult to people of faith. Of course Dawkins (not Hawkins) was profoundly dishonest in his argument, including his intentional selective quoting of the founding fathers, was called out for it and pretty much abandoned by serious intellectuals after his comments about pedophillia not being so bad. Of the horsemen I would suggest the only one who really brought honest analysis to the subject was Dennett. The other three were profoundly dishonest in their approaches, particularly Dawkins.

BTW, as a amateur enthusiast of evolutionary biology I loved much of Dawkins work on evolution but once he published God Delusion he seemed to completely go off the rails.

Belief in Christianity and Judaism, I would also argue has an archeological and historical basis. Many of the events, people and chronologies in the Bible can be researched historically or archeologically. There is a study of Jesus, for instance, as a historic individual, as opposed to a religious figure. One can examine the evidence as to whether or not he existed. He can be better understood in his historical context which comes from a multiplicity of sources outside of the bible.

Historical evidence can also confirm or work against religious faith. For instance for many years there was no historical or archeological evidence for Pontius Pilot and many people who disbelieved Christianity argued this was proof that this part of the bible was inaccurate. Then a stone tablet from the period was found in 1961 confirming Pilot as prefect of Judea. This, both for people of faith with a rational bent and for people who had denied Pilot's very existence was an important piece of evidence.

Biblical Archeology Review, I believe remains in publication.

So the Abrahamic religions do have an important historical and archeological aspect that impacts how they understand the world and their own faith.

While it is true that the questions of the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus, etc so far remain beyond evidentiary tests, many aspects of the Judeo-Christian worldview are shaped by rational review of text and evidence. And that is without even getting into how the bible can be analysed for authorship, etc.

 

[mark-hunter]

Happy researching. I look forward to any comments on these topics

I have read your post with a lot of interest. I have never heard of Bob Lazar, for example. I will need to research about him soonest.

You also mentioned psi ops.
Now I am coming to that.

Under the presumption that no civilization will last for ever, and ours certainly will not, as long as we depend on solar power of our sun, I am drawing my thinking from Carl Sagan.

Sagan thought one of the possible answers was that civilizations are separated by immense distances and brief technological lifetimes, making encounters very unlikely even in a populated universe.

Generally, it is like two flies meeting in a territory large as Europe.
If the two flies meet once - it is luck.

And here we are speaking of repetitive encounters on fixed and known areas, that reminds me of underground train schedule.
Hmmmm.......



Having said that, there are some things we must visualize.

Majority of "sightings" is in on the territory of USA, and very often on the nuclear sites or areas closed to the "area 51".

While very large, United states are just a fraction of entire earth surface or entire land masses.
If I were the "alien" visiting another planet, I would at least circle around, make 360 degree turn, before landing or checking certain area of interest.
This would make me visible from other positions.

If we are speaking of "areas of attraction" with nuclear capability then soviet union, or now russian federation (largest nuclear force, with largest amount of nuclear warheads), should be no 1 country to be attracted by extra terrestrials.
But yet, still the biggest number of published sightings is on territory of USA.
Why?

So, all these things put together and all these indications point me to the conscluion of very large psi ops in effect.

There is also a question, why should psi ops be active in that department, and on that question I have no idea. As an ordinary citizen I have nothing to conclude of that fact that ET is checking nuclear sites.

All this frenzy started with alleged Roswell incident and lunar landings in the sixties.
(why not at 1900 for example?)
Yes there were sightings reported earlier, but not even close to the frequency of modern times.

Ever since these two events took place the frequency of sightings increased and is in complete conflict with Carl Sagan theory of possibility of two distant civilizations meet in the same time and in the same space location.

Unless other civilization mastered the time travel and the space travel, meeting is highly unlikely.

But we will see what the declassified UFO files will discover to the public.
I (or we, together with Carl Sagan), could get it all wrong.
Maybe there is something?
I havent seen any evidence of ET non existence, either.

 

[uplander01]

Kinda breezed over this thread....interesting opinions on religion, aliens, etc.. One thing I think is that I'm not so sure we're getting the whole story from the bible. I don't think we have access to all the information that was written....because they don't want us to. Add to that over the last 2000 years it's been modified and changed depending on "which" bible you read.

Scientist have been routinely wrong about a lot over the last 50 years.....how old life on earth is, or should I say how long "people" have been roaming the earth. I feel it's a lot longer than people think or believe. In the desert SW USA there are overlaid tracks of people feet just like ours mixed in with mastodon tracks, at the very minimum that makes them 10,000 years old, or could they be human tracks that are 100,000 years old. we just don't know.......maybe we're not supposed to know, who knows.

As far as alien life...lots of stars in the sky, to me means lots of planets rotating around them. Given what's going on here on earth if I was a betting man, I think GOD may have a planet ready to come off the bench.

 

[cash_tx]

I think the Four Horsemen went farther than that. Much farther.

Titling your book "The God Delusion" is not an argument in favour of reason in the examination of religion, it was an assault on the idea of god and an insult to people of faith. Of course Dawkins (not Hawkins) was profoundly dishonest in his argument, including his intentional selective quoting of the founding fathers, was called out for it and pretty much abandoned by serious intellectuals after his comments about pedophillia not being so bad. Of the horsemen I would suggest the only one who really brought honest analysis to the subject was Dennett. The other three were profoundly dishonest in their approaches, particularly Dawkins.

BTW, as a amateur enthusiast of evolutionary biology I loved much of Dawkins work on evolution but once he published God Delusion he seemed to completely go off the rails.

Belief in Christianity and Judaism, I would also argue has an archeological and historical basis. Many of the events, people and chronologies in the Bible can be researched historically or archeologically. There is a study of Jesus, for instance, as a historic individual, as opposed to a religious figure. One can examine the evidence as to whether or not he existed. He can be better understood in his historical context which comes from a multiplicity of sources outside of the bible.

Historical evidence can also confirm or work against religious faith. For instance for many years there was no historical or archeological evidence for Pontius Pilot and many people who disbelieved Christianity argued this was proof that this part of the bible was inaccurate. Then a stone tablet from the period was found in 1961 confirming Pilot as prefect of Judea. This, both for people of faith with a rational bent and for people who had denied Pilot's very existence was an important piece of evidence.

Biblical Archeology Review, I believe remains in publication.

So the Abrahamic religions do have an important historical and archeological aspect that impacts how they understand the world and their own faith.

While it is true that the questions of the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus, etc so far remain beyond evidentiary tests, many aspects of the Judeo-Christian worldview are shaped by rational review of text and evidence. And that is without even getting into how the bible can be analysed for authorship, etc.

Great comments, to which I can largely agree; particularly when it comes to Dawkins. To be clear, I'm not a "fan" of any of the Four Horsemen or their viewpoints; but were I to rank them, Dawkins was the most distasteful and would be at the bottom of my list. On one hand I can appreciate the well-honed scrutiny and oratory skills of a person like Hitchens (who was quite entertaining to say the least); but on the other hand, intellectual dishonesty and dogmatic certainty are just as harmful and unproductive from a militant atheist as they are from a hardline fundamentalist. I do appreciate their willingness at times to take the hard and inconvenient questions head-on; whereas, far too many typical local church authorities have tap-danced around them in the past and even shamed the neophyte believer who asked them.

And I agree with the assessment that archaeology, with its limitations and all, does lend credence to several Biblical claims and events.

 

[RLD]

Great comments, to which I can largely agree; particularly when it comes to Dawkins. To be clear, I'm not a "fan" of any of the Four Horsemen or their viewpoints; but were I to rank them, Dawkins was the most distasteful and would be at the bottom of my list. On one hand I can appreciate the well-honed scrutiny and oratory skills of a person like Hitchens (who was quite entertaining to say the least); but on the other hand, intellectual dishonesty and dogmatic certainty are just as harmful and unproductive from a militant atheist as they are from a hardline fundamentalist. I do appreciate their willingness at times to take the hard and inconvenient questions head-on; whereas, far too many typical local church authorities have tap-danced around them in the past and even shamed the neophyte believer who asked them.

And I agree with the assessment that archaeology, with its limitations and all, does lend credence to several Biblical claims and events.

As much as I disliked much of what Hitch was trying to say, and he did often say things that were factually untrue, he was the definition of what a public intellectual and gadfly should be, and had a razor sharp wit.

You are quite correct when you say dogmatism and intellectual dishonesty are dangerous no matter where you find it.

To my eye, many religious organizations have an educational problem, where their leaders are not well educated enough to really engage with the hard questions, and the congregants and local leaders are very poorly educated on what the official church doctrine actually is. In fact there was a really interesting MIT study that confirmed this education gap problem in America, and its authors faced death threats when it was published.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

There is a pretty well documented ufo event in shag harbour Nova Scotia which falls outside of the U.S. and is far from any nuclear site that I’m aware of.

 

[Datchew]

Another book you may find interesting, though I think it's out of print, is Halley's Bible handbook.

It connects biblical scripture with archaeological findings.

 

[RLD]

Another book you may find interesting, though I think it's out of print, is Halley's Bible handbook.

It connects biblical scripture with archaeological findings.

One of my favourites in this area is "Evidence the Demands a Verdict." It's a beast of a book but well worth the investment in time.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

The only "fatheads" I ever encountered had a badge, gun and E-4 rank.

Unfortunately, the MP corps was filling up with plenty of gung ho fatheads by the time I was ending my tour of duty. When the Army stopped drafting normal people and switched to the "new modern all-volunteer Army" circa 1973, the MP Corps had to take what it could get. But in 1971 when I enlisted, the Corps had lots to pick from and could be very selective. For instance, back then MPs had to be 5'11" and 175 lbs with clean police records. But just before being discharged in December 1974 I was assigned a patrolman ... person ... who was female, not even 4'11", weighed less than 80 lbs, and couldn't lift a 1911 out of the holster. We had to scrounge up a helicopter flyboys' 38 Smith revolver for her. She only lasted a couple of months. When I first took over the desk, I had patrolmen on my shift who were drafted medical students, farmers, etc. Normal guys who, like me, had no ambitions for becoming policemen. Just wanted to do our time, get an honorable discharge, and move on. Hardly fathead material.

 

[sambarhunter]

This has to be a visiting space ship of sorts.

Exodus 19:16-18
On the third day, when morning came, there was thunder and lightning. A thick cloud was upon the mountain, and a very loud blast of the ram’s horn went out, so that all the people in the camp trembled. / Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. / Mount Sinai was completely enveloped in smoke, because the LORD had descended on it in fire. And the smoke rose like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently.

 

[Josh P]

This is a topic that encompasses a lot of core interests of mine, but is better suited over some good pipe tobacco in some recliners than it is to this forum.

Where do I start?

…I don’t know jack. After years and years of study and research, I know that I don’t know half of what I thought there was to know in the beginning.

Ok, no amount of ardent belief equates to comprehensive understanding. Luckily for us, we are called to believe first (in Christ) and understand later. Unfortunately, some of us get stuck on the first part and never grow into the second part because we conflate the later with the former. That’s not good to do.

As with all abbreviated communication, forum posts absolutely included, nuance is a thing.

“In this general approach to the subject of science and religion, the writer does not wish to be misleading. There will continue to be conflict in the minds of those who give earnest thought to both fields. Now and then one may have to choose between the two fields. However, much of the conflict is unnecessary and can be resolved… if he will follow the wisdom of Aristotle’s thought, ‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it’ (or rejecting it, one might add).”

“It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.”

Chuck Missler gave me one of my favorite quotes for studying scripture. “When asked if I take the Bible literally, my answer is that I take it seriously.” (Paraphrased)

The Bible uses a multitude of forms of speech. It uses metaphor, it uses illustrations, parables, etc. Some of these are literally lost in translation. Hebrew writers used intellectually vague words with two possible meanings to imply two actual meanings. That doesn’t translate to a western modern mind in English. The Bible isn’t intended as a scientific text. (Related to this threads topic, look to Paul addressing readers about their conduct “for the sake of the angels”, and how a contextual understanding of their contemporary view of the science of reproduction involved the pubic hair being responsible for the drawing in of semen for conception. A scientific “falsehood” does not diminish the validity of the why behind the nuts and bolts (pun intended) how.)

If two given parties of a conversation are of opposing opinions on sola scriptura/holy tradition, to say nothing of when they lack even the awareness of the two viewpoints, the middle ground where civil discourse can take place may be tenuous at best. Seek first to understand, then to be understood, if you will.

That understanding will ease the parties into a more comfortable footing for discussing the historical and cultural contextual value provided by “extra biblical”, apocryphal, and even secular writings pertaining to the given subject. There need not be a derailing argument about a work’s standing as inspired text in order to glean value as a contextual guide rail.

Understanding these concepts can take a lot of time. At one time in my own life I was unable to engage in meaningful discourse because I lacked an awareness of nuance. I believed things, but couldn’t articulate why, sometimes even to myself. I had no place imposing my beliefs on others. Even with a sliver of understanding above what I had then, I still lack the authority to impose. I do like a good discourse though.

Ok…now that’s out of the way.

Angel just means messenger. There are instances in the Old Testament of Christ being referred to as angel. There are different “classes” or “ranks”, some might say “species”, but that, just in my opinion, is grasping to fit something we don’t fully understand into a box that we do, of angels. Think cherubim, seraphim, etc. I don’t see any reason why what is contemporarily referred to as aliens could not be a manifestation of either the heavenly beings, their fallen counterparts, or both…or neither. I don’t have solid evidence to stand on fact, even though I have an opinion, which I may just save for that pipe tobacco and recliner talk.

The Bible is a message about Jesus Christ, all the way through. Keeping that as central, the existence of other life in the universe, trans dimensional entities good or bad, the physical literal age of the earth…just don’t matter as it pertains to salvation, deification (being made more like Christ, not the pseudo-Mormon sense), and obedience to Christ. I believe that the Creator of the universe loves me, loves everyone on this forum, and because He desires that none should perish, but that all would come to Him, He became made flesh, was crucified, proclaimed the gospel to hades/death, and after taking the keys thereof was resurrected, and ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father. Is it that big of a challenge to my faith that something, anything, is flying around in a saucer or tictac? Absolutely not.

This topic goes even further. Certain views, while strengthening belief, also make it apparent there is much going on beyond what we pick up in our normal sensory perception range. Bigfoot, giants, aliens, fairies, etc. are all fair game for non-fantasy topics.

Thank you for allowing me to indulge in my Ted Tal...ahem, ramble. My Ted Ramble.

“…Sir, this is a Wendy’s…”

 

[Ray B]

I'm confused by all of the doubt regarding aliens coming to Earth from a planet far away. one needs look no further than the US Congress, several state congresses and several governors to see absolute proof that there are aliens among us.

 

[RLD]

I'm confused by all of the doubt regarding aliens coming to Earth from a planet far away. one needs look no further than the US Congress, several state congresses and several governors to see absolute proof that there are aliens among us.

I am afraid that would be evidence that there is no intelligent life out there.