You can probably bet from yesterday’s post that I do not take a very high view of atheism, mostly because it does not have the intellectual vigor it claims to have to for the conscious individual. Even though atheists/agnostics claim to have the ‘upper hand’ with intellectual arguments, I will show you how this is easily not the case. I have read Ashley’s post on ‘If I believe in God’ rant about how anti-intellectual Christians seem when it comes to proving the existence of God. Beside the usual ramblings about how factually objective the writer seems to be, let me begin by pointing out a couple of already refuted claims she makes on this blog.
“The geological and fossil record tells us that the earth was not created in seven days. There was no Garden of Eden filled with modern animals at the beginning of the Earth because modern animals came much later. And so forth.”
Clearly Ashley has not really read the Bible clearly; it states that the universe was created in six not seven days as she posits it. If one is ever going to make an assertion, at least get the facts straight. Apart from that, let me out something more important: the fossil records. Contrary to her claim, the fossil records have little or no evidence to show a contradiction in the existence for the Garden of Eden. At most, the records would count as proof of a universal flood as recorded in Genesis 6.
“In fact, almost every verse in the first chapters of Genesis is contradicted by easily observable reality. Even the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib cannot be true. That would make, Adam and Eve, and their descendants, us, be genetically identical. Obviously we are not.”
And here goes my challenge to Ashley’s claim: what observable realities does she talk about that contradict Genesis specifically? There really is no specific piece of evidences she cites that points to this contradiction. If she is going to say anything worthwhile, at least cite a proof here.
Regarding the creation of Eve, the implications can be easily proven by the general fact as shown by modern science that the human race is the most genetically related. This can be easily supported by both Christian and Secular sources.
“Others have listed the contradictions between the Bible and the real world. Google it. There are a plethora of web sites that describe the contradictions in exquisite detail. I will simply assert that either the Bible or the Earth is an error and leave it to you to read what others have written if you doubt me.”
There are probably a lot more sources that refute the alleged contradictions Atheists use when it comes to doing productive research. I can cite a few examples if needed.
“Why would God create a universe, write a Bible that described His universe incorrectly, and then give man more than enough intelligence to recognize the myriad falsehoods in the Bible? Is He a fool or a liar?”
Ashley needs to get her facts straight; God did not physically write the Bible. He inspired human beings to take put down his words onto paper to be passed on from generation to generation. If there was one other thing she misses throughout her understanding of science and religion in general it is this: the topic of evolution is not about science vs. religion, it’s about good philosophy vs. bad philosophy. Although she claims to understand the concept of science as a ‘faith,’ the truth of the matter is that she does not mentally comprehend the foundations which scientists use in their discipline. Were these to be understood in the concept of science then, I suppose the information she makes in this post would be more accurate.
Apart from the constant rambling that I find on this post, I would like to mention that there are some obvious things that she points out which are quite right.
“Some men will be especially eager to propagate the lie if it serves their purpose to do so. If a book helps convince ordinary people to tithe their money to support priests, then the priests will venerate that book. They will insist that every word is true. Even if those words contradict what we see in the real world all around us. Those priests will tell us to disbelieve what we see, have faith in their words, and keep doing as we are told.”
And this is exactly one of the dozens of reasons why miracles are necessary; to prove whether the things that were written as ‘God’s Word’ are lies or do they serve as facts. Unlike the other religions of the world, Christianity does have support written by eyewitnesses. It is usually tidbit facts like these that make this religion much more credible than other world religions like Islam and Buddhism. Unfortunately, the secular left seems to emphasize on the world similarities and not accepting the Bible’s keen differences.
“Believing in reality – accepting reality and believing that man can, with enough study, understand what he sees – is the most satisfying spiritual experience that I can imagine. If that means that I must dismiss the petty, foolish gods that religious men have invented, then I count that as a bonus. Seeing no one offering a reasonable God, I see no need to look for a better one myself. He would be superfluous.”
Again, Ashley is right in another sense, namely, that she is among the dozens of individuals who want to live in a world filled with spiritual experiences and everyday miracles. Ironically, the problem with this type of view is that it’s naïve and self-serving. Using her own admission, there is no compelling reason to believe in this God if it’s the same one she looks for: reasonable and superfluous. Among the other things I think she cannot accept is the God she expects to exist in the universe is the very same one that was created using the same methods by the religious men she criticizes: vain invention.
If anyone has ever criticized the God of the Bible, it’s usually because of this reason: because He does not conform to our image. The gods of this World unlike the one Christians have worshipped, do not formulate oneness; instead, the differences create friction and plenty of it.