Morality without Religion… Is it even possible?
May 19, 2007 by Brad
This post stems from discussion from the last one, but is a sufficiently “heavy” topic to warrant it’s own post. A fraternity brother and good friend of mine posted the following on facebook in response to my last post:
(Quoting me)
“Americans United for Separation of Church and State” is outraged that moral and religious values are incorporated into the daily functioning of society as a whole, yet wonder why more grade schoolers are sleeping with each other, and school violence is on the rise (again or still, I can’t tell anymore).”(Him)
Let’s not throw the baby out w/ the bathwater here. There is a difference between morality and religion. I’m an atheist and like to believe “moral” as well. Religion is great and teaches morals, but the two can be exclusive. If you want to focus on “morals,” write a blog about the problems of bad parenting/social apathy/capitalism/etc. They are far more detrimental than the lack of religion in government.
I think he has a good point that needs some clarification on my part. The following was my response:
Agreed, in part. The reality of those with faith also following the morals inherent to their faith does not necessarily line up. However, morality is undeniably linked to religion and faith (which I see as two different things). Atheism, it has been said, is just a religion of non-religion, so the argument can stand. If you want to say that it is possible to have morals and not believe in a God, that’s fine. But believing that God does not exist is just as much religion as believing that one does is religion.
Now, I still stand by this, but I think it only starts to scratch the surface in understanding the real issue. To elaborate, consider some of the thoughts that have been nagging me for a few days:
- Having a sense of morals requires a standard for them. What standard does one appeal to? Christians appeal to the conscience (which is the internal voice of the Holy Spirit, or, to quote C.S. Lewis, “God’s law inscribed upon our hearts.”), and the Bible. In today’s postmodern era, many appeal to reason, nature, and the self for discernment of right and wrong. It seems to me that some kind of universal standard or objective truth in the matter is necessary to have any sense of harmony. Subjective morality is just too unstable and individualistic to facilitate harmony (hence why we are a nation governed by law).
- I hate using “religion” in reference to Christianity. Many would say that “religion “has acquired a legalistic definition, but I would argue that. Jesus spoke out against the religiousness of the Pharisees at every opportunity, instead supporting the transformation of the heart and relationship with God the Father. The law is still necessary, however, our role in following it is not one of absolute perfect adherence, but one of sincere attempt and repentance when (not if) we fail, knowing we are not and cannot be perfect. Theologically, the law was given to humanity to illustrate the need for Christ, who was the only one to ever follow it in full, rather than provide a functional salvation. Christians are called to perfection, but we are not meant to attain it. When we live and act as if we have when we have not, and then expect others to do as well, we miss the whole point. We judge our neighbors harshly. We look down on and devalue friends, family, strangers, and enemies. This is the bad witness cited against Christianity in history, but it is a result of Christians, not the faith as it is meant to be or God Himself.
- Most self proclaimed “moral atheists” seem to derive their standards where Christians have failed in living their Christian faith. For example, being a good husband or father, working hard at your job, being honest and upright, telling the truth, loving and respecting others, and fighting for justice are all tenets of the Christian faith. So where then does atheism derive its morality? From the self? Even that is cited in the first chapter of Genesis as coming from God, as we are created in God’s image. Can atheism honestly claim to have not been influenced by Christian morals when they are foundation of most of what we call “good” in our culture?
It seems to me that any basic morality is derived from, or a reaction to the bad practicing of, faith. So what do you guys think, can morality be exclusive from religion (or rather, “true faith”)? It is tragic that the perception of the Christian faith is so contradictory to what it truly is. The blame lies on both sides of the line, but discussions like this hopefully resolve some of the misconception and blur the line of division.
I think one can be moral without faith, but as you say, that morality is derived from either the message of religion (though not necessarily Christianity) or natural law. Ultimately, I’d argue the basic morality of any group outside of Christianity is derived from natural law. One can reject this, but I think Lewis is right when he notes that one then cannot really judge many of the evils of the world as immoral, since there is not an objective standard.
One could operate morality solely on an arbitrary form of utilitarianism, but most people do not like where utilitarianism must necessarily led when reason following utilitarianism’s basic propositions trumps our preconceived notions. Following the idea of maximizing happiness or pleasure or freedom for the most people will inevitably have unfortunate effects for a certain amount of people who get in the way of the majority’s desires. Peter Singer works this out fairly well, but many atheists would probably be uncomfortable with Singer, who is quite interesting for how logically consistent he is in his utilitarianism.
Pretty much any relativistic system leaves open the question, “why do you make whatever basic assumption you start from?” Why should people be happy? Why should there be justice? Why shouldn’t every one just call me High and Mighty Tim, Ruler of All and follow what I say?
Eh, well, I guess, in other words, I could have just said, “I agree.”
Dang. Your blog. It is bookmarked.
My mind goes abuzz with concerns over vocabulary here. Faith means…? Are we just talking normal dictionary faith, like I can have faith in the educational system or I can have faith in how fast the subway will move? Or are we talking spiritual faith in a big something, be that Chaos or Shiva or Christ?
On a slightly different but related note, I think it is not only possible but OKAY for atheists or agnostics (though, for obvious reasons, it is more acceptable for agnostics) to derive their morals from religious teachings. I am agnostic/borderline atheist, but I find many of the stories, teachings, and philosophies of the Quran, the Torah, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and others to be interesting, truthful, and inspiring. There are few stories about sacrifice as grandiose and as interesting as that of Jesus Christ. There are few stories (to me) about inner-strength and quiet power as moving as that of Abinadai from the Book of Mormon (I have come close, myself to saying, “Touch me not, for if you do, you shall die!”). But admiring these stories or making their teachings a part of my life does not mean I believe/know they actually happened.
And I do not find value in these morals BECAUSE of the stories. I find values in these religious stories because of the morals, you know? for me the morals are the chicken, and religion (or faith) is the egg.
does that make sense?
OK, deeeeeep breath…. There is a ton to unpack here and reply to. I’m going to do so in two parts because there were a few responses via facebook as well that I want to include.
Tim:
I can (somewhat) see where you are going with unitarianism, but I am not that smart so I will have to take about 25% of what you say for your word!
“I agree” is just as good, bro.
Kyle:
First, let me talk a little about faith. My own definition is gradually evolving anyway,
so there is much ground for your confusion. For a very thorough explanation, check out the page on my blog labeled “Some of my Work” and check out the first Word file. It is a paper I wrote that details a rather lengthy and painful spiritual journey over the last few months that has greatly increased my understanding of what true faith (and true truth) looks like.
“For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” (James 2:26)
Faith is not just a logical or causal belief. It is a condition of the heart that bears fruit as you live your life. It is belief, yes, but it is also active trust that is tested, grown, and yet continues to withstand trial after trial. I am probably talking about faith in a “big something” (namely Christ), but the same principle can be applied on the smaller scale. For example, one can believe in the educational system, but is not putting their faith in it until they take their kids out of private school and enroll them in it. That would be the “fruit” of their faith. On the Christian level, if we hate our neighbor, and see no fault in that attitude, then our faith in Christ is in serious doubt:
“Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.” (I John 2:9)
Does that clarify a little more? There cannot be a sole focus on the fruit, and their cannot be a sole focus on a tree (faith) that bears no fruit. An apple tree that never grows any apples cannot be an apple tree (shhh!!! Don’t tell too many Christians!)
OK, now for the derivation of morals… man this is good stuff, Kyle. I totally see where you are coming from in that the value of the stories is derived from the morals they express/teach. There is no doubt that value is to be derived in this way, but (as I write extensively in my paper), the ultimate source of their value is in their truthfulness. If Jesus were only a great teacher who lived and died as we should, for each other, what is the point? Ghandi lived (for the most part) a model life of selfless suffering, but we do not worship him.
It is much like the age old question of “At what point does a good person who sometimes does bad things become a bad person (who may or may not do some good things)?” In living out faith in Jesus Christ, we bear the fruit of a 3-fold truth:
is given to us out of love, and the retarded things we still do no longer have any effect on our “status.”
1.) We suck. We sin. We are far from perfect. Who’s surprised?
2.) Because He did what we couldn’t (be perfect in every way), and yet suffered and sacrificed FOR US,
3.) Our (active, fruit-bearing) faith in Him fundamentally changes us. His status as a “good person” (the theological term is, “imputation of righteousness”
Therefore, in answer to the question, we are NEVER a “bad person” who may or may not do good things. While we may still do some bad things as a good person, forgiveness for those bad things enables and empowers us to “bear fruit” and derive the value from the stories as you say. This truth, this forgiveness, is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for our ability to LIVE the morals of the stories. Trust me, I’ve tried to live righteously, I’ve tried to be a “good person” on my own, and I have yet to see a more failed attempt. Once I stopped trying to do so on my own power, my life bore more fruit than I thought were even possible, not because of me or my efforts, but because of my faith in the one real truth.
Man, I may have seriously strayed from your thought-line and questioning, but I felt it was incredibly relevant and may help you see more from where I’m coming from. As I said Kyle, I can totally see and understand what you are saying. I completely agree that faith is the egg (tree) and morals are the chicken (fruit). But (at least in this case), I would insist that the egg must come first.
“… I think it is not only possible but OKAY for atheists or agnostics… to derive their morals from religious teachings.”
- I agree, and I honestly don’t see any alternative. But I think that (in light of what I wrote above) it seems many agnostics and atheists try to deny where the chicken came from. Without the truthfulness of these stories/teachings/values, they will not survive their testing. Without objective truth, and thus some kind of universal standard, how does one qualify or quantify value?
Great comments. Killer discussion. I love it.
I would still challenge and question, however, as I don’t think the heart of the question has yet been answered: Where does one derive and effective, fruit-bearing morality?
Within that central question, a variety of others also beg answering:
Is personal subjectivity enough?
Will it stand the test of time?
Can it stand the test of brokenness/trial/suffering?
Does relativistic (personally unique) definitions of morality do more to undermine harmony more than facilitate it?
From Chris Radigan via Facebook:
“That’s a well thought, constructive post. Here’s my two cents on it.
(Disclaimer: this might make me sound a little too altruistic, and that is not on purpose. I obviously fall short of most of my goals as a human being, but this is my ideology)
I actually had this discussion w/ my girlfriend the other day. As an atheist (maybe more agnostic?), people find it hard to believe that I have morals and actually give a damn about this world and the people in it. Many believe that because I don’t belief in a final judgement, heaven and hell, etc. that I won’t be held down by rules or “morals” because, why should I? If I don’t get punished for being a greedy prick, why shouldn’t I be? If there’s no afterlife, why not enjoy this life as much as possible (be “sinful” if you will”).
I look at it differently I suppose. If there is no afterlife and this is our one life to live, then I want to help as many people make this ONE life as good as possible. Because I don’t believe that the meek will inheret the earth, I want to try and better as many lives as possible because this is all we get.
Now where does this stem from? I was raised in a very Catholic home and I’m sure it had an effect on me. But I guess I would say that my parents teaching me to try and be humble and appreciate what a lucky draw I got was more important to me than mass every sunday.
I don’t know, that didn’t really go anywhere. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think morality absolutely can be exclusive from “religion.” I like to think I’m a pretty moral guy, and I wouldn’t consider myself religious or faithful at all. Maybe, as a borderline socialist and future social worker, i’m a little biased, but i think religion does more harm than good in society (not a shot)
But that’s a whole other topic and I have to go. I’m interested to hear your opinions.”
My Response:
Chris,
Dude. The motivations you cite (judgment, heaven and hell) are the WRONG motivations IF THEY WERE MEANT TO STAND ALONE. They are undeniable aspects of the Christian faith, no doubt, but that is not to be the sole motivator. The Bible (as a whole) DOES NOT use threats, but LOVE.
“If there is no afterlife and this is our one life to live, then I want to help as many people make this ONE life as good as possible. Because I don’t believe that the meek will inheret the earth, I want to try and better as many lives as possible because this is all we get.” -DUDE! THAT IS THE GOSPEL! THAT’S IT! God’s love (as I wrote above) is our primary motivator to do THIS, NOT Hell. Hehe, you are halfway there.
“I was raised in a very Catholic home and I’m sure it had an effect on me. But I guess I would say that my parents teaching me to try and be humble and appreciate what a lucky draw I got was more important to me than mass every sunday.” - And that does explain a lot. The Catholic church often uses Hell or judgment as a motivator. Hell is a consequence, but avoiding it is not why (and should not be why) we love our neighbor as ourselves.
In response to the question, “What is the greatest commandment?”:
29 Jesus answered, The most important is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these. 32 And the scribe said to him, You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, You are not far from the kingdom of God.
“i’m a little biased, but i think religion does more harm than good in society (not a shot)” - Not taken as one. History is your witness. Agreed. But sadly, it is people who are guilty, not the Bible. It is our “sinfulness”/selfishness/jacked-up-ness/whatever you want to call it that bears the guilt. Nothing in scripture, NOTHING, agrees with the crimes committed in its name. My question for you, however, is where lies the blame for those who commit similar and worse crimes without the “aid” of religion? If religion is the cause, what is the cause for judgmentalism, bigotry, prejudice, close-mindedness, legalism, betrayal, etc. for the rest of humanity?
Thanks for the response bro, as always. You contributed greatly!
Posted by Adam King via Facebook:
“I’ve got a few thoughts on this issue, kind of a “chicken or the egg” take on the whole thing.
I don’t believe that morals stem from any sort of religious doctrines. Maybe I’m a little optimistic here, but I think that everyone has an innate sense of what is wrong versus what is right, at least as far as a few basic standards go. The more complicated the issue, the more twisted things become, but simple things like murder, no one, atheist nor christian nor any thing else, can even begin to see as right. To me it’s as simple as the old “golden rule”. If you wouldn’t want it to happen to you or your loved ones, it probably doesn’t belong in the “right” category. There’s no simpler way to put it than that.
However…
While I don’t see religion as a basis for morals, I do see it the other way around. Basic human morals, in my opinion, are the basis for religion. Any religion can be boiled down to stories that, when followed, lead people to live a good life. While everyone knows what is wrong and what is right, what’s right isn’t always easy and what’s easy usually isn’t right. Religion serves to lay down rules based upon these innate principles of right and wrong, and uses promises of rewards or threats of punishment to help give people a reason to do the right thing, even though it’s tough
So basically, I morals exist independently of religion, but religion only exists because of these values.”
My response:
Adam,
I think this one is going to boil down to simple disagreement on what came first, the Chicken or the Egg. C.S. Lewis, in his book “Mere Christianity”, talks about the “shreds of truth” of the gospel that are inherent in various religions and cultures across the world. It does seem as if there is a common, universal standard that we all appeal to (your example of murder is case in point, although how you define and/or justify it will vary greatly), most of humanity seems to have some form of conscience.
However, I think I just want to challenge your assumption that religion only exists because of moral values.
There is a correlation, to be sure, but I can’t think of anything that even remotely nails it down as causal in the direction you propose.
If religion were just a systematic way of explaining and teaching morals, why the appeal? Why are we not all Confucionists (the only philosophy created for the express purpose of systematizing morality)? It just doesn’t seem to add up.
your definition of faith makes complete sense. Me being a writer, actor, and director, I consider myself a good study on why people do the things they do, and a lot of that is related to a lot of this. Obviously.
“the ultimate source of their value is in their truthfulness” - I’ve reread your comments regarding the value of the story itself (and thus the value of the lesson/moral learned or gleaned) comes from the truthfulness of the story. I’ve not read your works (as up for perusal here at your blog), but am I to understand your definition of truthfulness meaning the actual factual historical truth or the general human truth? (for example: the reason certain stories resonate with us so strongly being that they exhibit certain undeniable human truths with which all of us, as humans, can sympathize and empathize) Because if you mean the actual historical truth, I would say that this is not accurate. But I think maybe you are talking about a broader thing even still…spiritual, faith-based truth. Truth of existence? I just wound myself into a tight spot.
As for the Ghandi/Christ comparison, I got all rumpled but then realized that when you say “us” and “we,” you are mostly referring to Christians or people with a sense of conviction in faith.
gahhhh. I have to stop now or I will implode.
I would say that I am referring primarily to actual historical truth. I am not saying this exclusively, as I’d be ignoring the “shreds of truth” that are found in all cultures.
You are right to say that by “us” and “we” I was referring to Christians. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear!
OK, going back to truth…. let me get a little theological for a second, but I think it will help me communicate what I’m trying to say.
Jonathan Edwards wrote about how he noticed that the “Indicatives” (promises from God fulfilled and yet to come) of scripture empower the “Imperatives” of scripture (commands, moral law, etc.). He noticed (probably not the first to do so) that every command of God was preceded or in a causal relationship with something that God has already done for us. Examples:
Luke 6:36 “Be merciful (Imperative), just as your Father is merciful (to you) (Indicative).”
John 13:13-17 “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.”
John 15:12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you.”
And there are many other Old and New Testament examples. The key here is that if God has not been merciful (or forgiving) to us, being merciful (or forgiving) to others is a lot harder. Why? Because if God has forgiven us (as in the example cited in Luke 6:36), and we know how jacked up we are, how can we NOT forgive others?
Without the actual historical factuality of the indicative, it will not truly help us with the imperative. For whatever reason, the words are not coming so well to me now, but I wrote the following in my paper and may help explain it some:
“God knows that, in large part due to our sinful and fallen nature, we cannot keep His law. We cannot follow His instructions simply because we “should” (the result of this emphasis on the imperatives at the neglect of the indicatives results in legalism)…. To help us with this, God gives us incentive. He gives us promises, incentives, and comforts whose truth empowers us and gives us the necessary strength to complete the tasks given to us. Conversely, if we “believe” the indicatives without trusting in them through obedience to God’s will, then we have a faith that is dead and incomplete (and this results in theological liberalism and license).
If truth were dependent on belief for it’s truthfulness, our “burden of proof” would be too great for our sinful hearts and minds to handle. Indeed, objective truth is critical for us to be able to put faith and trust into it. If faith without works is dead, then we certainly need a stable, eternal, and unchanging foundation to work from! Continuing the construction analogy, our maturing faith built up by works will only withstand foul weather (suffering, tragedy, crises) if it is built upon a solid foundation. I would far rather put my faith and trust into the God who was powerful enough to create the universe than in myself, or in my rather shaky and inconsistent belief. Only objective truth (or, a truth that is true whether I believe it or not) will provide the stability and constancy needed for a relationship with God that withstands the corruption caused by sin and an unredeemed world (Luke 6:48).”
I’m not sure if that is helpful to your question or not, but I guess I’m taking the fire hydrant approach and covering as many bases as I can in an attempt to explain.
Does that all make sense? Why do you disagree with the “actual historical truth”? And what do you mean by faith-based truth and truth of existence?
I was fairly vague with my thoughts regarding truth, so the fire-hydrant approach is a good one. You answered my questions regarding truth very well. And the exploration of imperative/indicative you detail is helpful.
the stuff about God giving us examples, incentives, and so on makes a great deal of sense, too, and covering this in a theological (rather than straight logical) way is something I’d not considered. I think people call fault to the Bible because it may seem often that mankind is being asked to follow a law because God just says to OR because there is great reward. I’ve never heard these two arguments connected. God says mankind should, but God knows that is not enough for us, and so God offers more and explains more.
“Why do you disagree with the ‘actual historical truth’?” Just making the point that a story having actual historical truth does not necessarily make it true or valuable. This is especially true (HAH) for me in my art. Most theatre (especially traditional theatre) combines a great many lies to tell several great human truths. Stories based entirely in actual historical truth (or based partially therein) are not, by default, the most valuable. A point that seems obvious, now that I write it….
“And what do you mean by faith-based truth and truth of existence?” Truth concerning morals and values, truth that is not discerned via scientific or historic data.
Wow… very interesting.
“I think people call fault to the Bible because it may seem often that mankind is being asked to follow a law because God just says to OR because there is great reward.”
-Welcome to the catastrophic consequence of “imperative driven” preaching/ministry. MANY (oh so many) churches have shot themselves in the foot with this by focusing on them to the expense of the “indicatives” or promises of God (again, fulfilled or yet to come).
“God says mankind should, but God knows that is not enough for us, and so God offers more and explains more.”
- So unbelievably huge, man. I can’t actually think of a single time in scripture where God has not acted first or empowered those He calls on. To say that God loves us, and not understand our inability to comply simply because we “should,” is very ontradictory.
On your theatre/art perspective….
Very interesting. I can very much see that historical truth does not automatically imply human truth or value. “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” - John 21:25. It seems that John, at least, would agree with you and was intentional to write about those things that had the most value or human truth. Stories are just awesome. God is the ultimate playwright, and it is fascinating to see how the “stories” of scripture are masterfully written in history to have both truths. C.S. Lewis, in particular, had a huge appreciation for this. Being a writer himself, and a life long atheist until Tolkein challenged him to disprove the existence of God, he had huge appreciate for what he called the “one, true fairy tale.”
“Truth concerning morals and values, truth that is not discerned via scientific or historic data.” *smiles* Now THERE is truth! Isn’t it ironic that the “Enlightenment” seems not to do humanity the justice necessary to explain… well… just about anything meaningful?
Awesome.
[...] an earlier post, I had an excellent dialog with Kyle Kratky about Jonathan Edwards’ discussion of the [...]
i’m only a fourteen year old boy living in florida and i thank all of you for the information and opinion you have provided in the above literature. but i have to say i believe morals were believed to be derived with religon because they were the first two things the human race could understand. think about it, at the beginning of the hman races conception (i wont go into that because i’m too lazy to type that much) early homo sapiens prayed to fire and water, and beliveved that rivers could actually make or break a crop season (and not the weather) they believed that the sun had moods and when you pleased it the sun came back up (i wonder how suprised theyd be when they found out that it was just a large, reletively lazy ball of gas hehe) because was man eager to believe in somthing so quick, to believe in a benevolant shephard to take care of thier souls, and coupled with the fear of death, they created religon. only when science appeared did religon have to put up an early defence. that defence was complexity. they believed that the pox was an incurable plauge caused by god when the egyptians angered him, now we know that it is simply a deisese, very curable. and science has been disproving the claims of a belief for centuries. the suns personal traits, disproved, the sea being a god, highly unlikely, the world bieng a disk, also disproved. i could name hundreds and an informed person could name thousands. religon was created at a time when man was thirsty to understand somthing and the simplest thing to understand was a thing man himslef created. morals are not how we act because of gods influence, morals are another way of saying that the human race, homo sapien. is not a violent animal. do monkeys have morals, in the sense of the word,yes. do they have a religon. i stronly doubt. people do not go around raping and pillaging for a reason. not because they’ll go to hell. simply because it is genetically dangerous. your bound to get killed if you kill another person and that hardly promotes reproductive security, wich is exactly what evolution is all about (sorry i just jumped topics bad) do you know why cobras are violent, because thier small and it doesent take much to kill them so its easier to kill all in sight then to brave the elements, thier bodies couldnt take it. we however can survive everything (nowadays) all we did was take our basic nature given to us by heredity (i’m not counting all the psycopaths and cerial killers, thier an anomoly, it happens) and applied it to a god. a religon. of course thier seperate. i’m not religos in the least bit and i dont go around killing anyone or beating small children, however i do have a slightly dry sense of humor and when people get hit in the balls, i laugh. simple enough lol. sorry for wasting your time, talk to ya later!
Jalen Dixon
i guess in hiensight i did type a lot. whoops
Jalen,
First of all, welcome to the blog! You are definitely not wasting anyone’s time, and you are welcome to comment or ask questions as much as you want.
In response to your comment… This article deals specifically with Christianity (and thus Judaism), and how it has influenced much of what we believe to be “right” and “wrong.” Because the faith stretches back (literally) thousands of years, and has been the basis for many civilizations since the conversion of the Roman empire.
There are many things in the realm of superstition that have been debunked (as you rightly point out), but not one of the ones you have mentioned were put forth by the Bible. By Christians? Yes, the Catholic church persecuted Galileo for just that reason. But not in any way, shape, or form, is that stemming from scripture…. Mostly because scripture is not at all concerned with those questions. Does that make sense?
Thanks again for stopping by, I look forward to your comments…
Okay, but, Brad, he has a point, and I would not agree that nothing in the bible has been debunked………well, okay, maybe nothing has……….erm………..
How about I’ll say that, according to science, I’m pretty sure the earth being created in seven days has been debunked. According to science.
I think the strongest argument in response to this is that God is capable of many things, and his ways baffle laws of science. (best explanation I can think of right now?) But, I guess we could still say the sun and moon do actually have attitudes. And if I’m going to play the “supernatural” card, I could say that any one of the Greek or Roman gods do exist, that the sun is truly a chariot racing across the sky, but even our knowledge of science doesn’t allow us to see it. Or maybe Phoebus/Apollo died when the greek ideas of him passed on. Maybe there did actually used to be a giant man guiding a blazing chariot.
I’m not trying to belittle anyone’s religion, but you can’t say nothing has been debunked………because I could say that about the flying spaghetti monster. In fact, that even have charts to prove that the decrease of his followers (pirates) directly relates to the rise in climate change.
Kyle,
you bring up a good point about science and Christianity. personally, i love physics. i read books on string theory and quantum mechanics, special relativity and black holes. why? i am a nerd. but beyond that, because i love to learn about the world God created. what i have learned while at seminary is that many Christians portray scripture as having vastly different claims than those of science. the problem is that their reading of scripture is aimed at answering questions that the author never intended. so as a result some pretty wild-eyed theories have developed. however, there is very good scholarship out there that shows that the Bible doesnt have to contradict the findings of science. two really good books on the issue are Science and Faith and Genesis 1-4, both by C. John Collins. alas, we are off topic of the original post. but if there is interest, we could always start a new thread on this.