Slashdot Mirror
Ask Dr. Robert Bakker About Dinosaurs and Merging Science and Religion
With his trademark hat and beard, Dr. Robert Bakker is one of the most recognized paleontologists working today. Bakker was among the advisers for the movie Jurassic Park, and the character Dr. Robert Burke in the film The Lost World: Jurassic Park is based on him. He was one of the first to put forth the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers and were warm-blooded, and is credited with initiating the ongoing "dinosaur renaissance" in paleontology. Bakker is currently the curator of paleontology for the Houston Museum of Natural Science and the Director of the Morrison Natural History Museum in Colorado. He is also a Christian minister, who contends that there is no real conflict between religion and science, citing the writings and views of Saint Augustine as a guide on melding the two. Dr. Bakker has agreed to take some time from his writing and digging in order to answer your questions. As usual, ask as many questions as you'd like, but please, one question per post.
Let the mud slinging BEGIN!
A central tenant of science is that you could be wrong, that seems to conflict with religion. Which is not to say you can't have faith and be a scientist. Just that you would have to keep a fair amount of mental separation between the two. I would even go so far as to say that to be a good scientist you would have to question your faith.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
So what is your take on the human footprint inside of the dinosaur footprint in the one creation museum near the Dinosaur Valley State Park in Texas?
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
It seems to me that a lot of the conflict in Christianity about whether evolution exists comes down to the official timeline of events. Evolutionary science claims it took millions (and billions, etc.) of years for changes to occur on our planet, particularly changes in plant and animal life forms to get us to where we are today. Christians can't accept those terms, either because of a preconceived age of the earth or because they feel the Bible asserts that creation occurred during the first week and that week only, and that none could occur at a later date - thus invalidating evolution. Do you feel that there is any way to reconcile the broader Christian theology with observed evolution, and if so, how?
As humans, we express wonder at certain arrangements of digits, 666, 3.14[3/14] (Pi day) 12/21/2012, etc. However all of these are base-10, the same as the number of fingers we have. (Though some tribes did use fingers as base-2 digits) Computers are base2, with hexadecimal being a convenient short hand. If divinity is universal, surely God has a universal number base. I would assume e. What do you think God uses, if he uses math at all?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Hello Dr. Bakker,
Has your thinking regarding mass extinctions, particularly the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, changed or evolved from the time of your writing THE DINOSAUR HERESIES?
Thanks sincerely -
There is a lot of speculation about dinosaur behavior. For example people talk about how velociraptors hunted in packs or how they hunted. When these things are discussed in the media the ideas are stated with a great deal of certainty. How do you react when these theories are stated as being definite facts? What do you, as a scientists, try to do to try to get reporters to understand the nature of science and the role of dialogue/debate and uncertainty within the scientific community?
Charles Darwin a life long student of nature very aptly commented concerning evolution "what a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature"
How can one reconcile the long suffering and blundering low and cruel works of nature with the notion of a powerful omniscient and omnibenevolent being?
It is my observation that reader comments on science article quickly follow a Godwin-like trajectory to a flame war between those who hold to religious (though many are scientists) beliefs and those who hold to scientific (usually atheist) beliefs. The two factions spew hate, obscenity, and generally impugn the intelligence of the other.
Question: What advice can you offer to help the readers, and thus the comment posters, to strike a balance? Can there be some kind of 'kumbaya manifesto' to skip the quarreling and get to the matter at hand? Climate change, dark matter, even human colonization need well-tempered minds, of all persuasions. How do we get there?
Dr. Bakker,
I'd just like to say thanks for the good childhood memories from your book, Raptor Red... I still have my signed copy of it, and should definitely re-read it some time.
I guess I should ask a question, too... If Raptor Red were being written today, are there any new discoveries in the last two decades that would neccessitate significant changes from how you wrote the original?
Christianity is very species centric. That is, according to Christian beliefs humans are allegedly the center of the universe and a focus of God's concern. With the modern realization that humans and the earth are not at the center of anything how does a Christian handle the obvious species centricity of Christianity.
"God of the Gaps" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)
Whether the Bible is or is not based on divine revelation, it was written by pre-industrial people for pre-industrial people.
The moon was many times more important to them than black holes.
And the Bible's purpose is moral, not to "advance medicine".
The purpose of the creation story in Genesis is to establish God's authority as creator and ruler of man, not to teach science.
Is it possible that they used tools like some mammals?
If humans are indeed the resultant work of an intelligent designer, then why do we need toilet paper?
How can a whole class evolve of animal evolve to another class so completely (reptile->bird)? What could have to changed in their DNA/lifestyle that would cause something so drastic?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I have a bunch, but yes, only one question per post. So:
Dr. Bakker, people are incredibly fascinated with dinosaurs, and with good reason. But there's a huge swath of very interesting creatures that lived life on earth prior to the end-Permian event. Lots of really interesting creatures like members of the labrynthodonts and sauropsids. Although children's imaginations and movies like Jurassic park focus on dinos and their immediate relatives, have you ever thought about promoting the diversity of creatures prior to the end-Permian in cultural ways? In other words, will we ever see a giant flesh-eating Anomalocaris in a movie? Can you make that happen please?
I am aware of many ideas that "young Earth believers" foster to explain the stratigraphy of fossils in a 6K-year old Earth.
Question: What explanations have you heard? What answer can you offer from the middle ground between a scientist (whose expertise relies on that stratigraphic record) and a man of faith who reads the same Bible that the "young Earth believers" do?
so you think the bible is supposed to be a non-fiction work, dictated by God to a bunch of writers? Maybe you need to put your thinking cap on. Mankind was on this planet for tens (hundreds even?) of thousands of years prior to the invention of writing. Think of the bible more as a collection of stories that were handed down from one generation to the next, in order to preserve bits of history, teachings, knowledge gleaned, morals, ethics, and laws. Now think about this: Of all the civilizations that have emerged on this planet, with all kinds of different teachings, knowledge, morals, ethics, and laws, the oldest surviving civilization is that which based their life upon the bible; namely, Judaism.
Of all the things to choose to study, you picked dinosaurs. What inspired you to go that route rather than something that could potentially be easier to merge with your religious beliefs?
The Bible lists a bunch of individuals who lived 900+ years. Do you take this literally? If not, how do you interpret this?
Just a thought... the moon controls tides. We have calendars based on it. Many real world applications of the moon, so to speak, exist. What's a real world application of a black hole? Does a black hole affect my daily life? Does it "govern" it in any way... like the moon does?
You are an expert in two fields: paleontology & theology; please compare and contrast the quality of the evidence that supports the theories in each field and how the theories are objectively and repeatably tested.
Please pay particular attention to: independent verifiabilty of evidence; tests that could be performed which would show these these theories to be false (and, presumably, how the theories have been found to surive such tests); how the theories have been modified over time in the light of new evidence that has been discovered; independent critical peer review of writings about each set of theories; how full evidence is widely and completely made available; objective comparisons with competing theories; how critical discussion of competing theories happens in a calm manner without ad-hominem attacks.
This may be slightly outside your field of expertise, but I'd like to ask anyways:
There's a huge argument right now about what caused the end-Permian event, with lots of scientists thinking it was the Siberian Traps as the main culprit. Even with the end-Cretaceous event being thought of as a result of of a bolide impact, there's some scientists who think that the Deccan traps had to play a role. Now, I've read a number of books, especially "When Life Almost Died" that shows what appears to me to be a fairly strong relationships between bolide impacts and extinctions, but which also show the great possibility of these large eruptions causing the extinctions. There are some scientists who think that there is an antipodal relationship between bolide impacts and "bulges" or "plumes" going through the earth and causing large eruptions on the other side of the planet over time, thus contributing to or causing extinctions. (I also find it very interesting that in general, when positing the Siberian traps as the cause of the end-Permian event, no one ever really talks about what might actually have caused such a massive series of eruptions..)
As far as I know, the research on this effect is pretty limited, but to me as a non-scientist, I can say the relationship appears to be more than coincidental. But a real scientist can't say that, of course.
1) What is your opinion on antipodal bolide events causing or contributing to mass extinctions?
2) Do you have any recent information on research that is being done in this area that you could point me to? Any links? Thanks.
My favorite explanation for this comes from Isaac Asimov: http://sumware.com/creation.html
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I am an atheist, but I will concede that science does not conflict with religion as a general idea (the belief in God, or things outside of science), but science often does conflict with specific religious beliefs.
My grandparents raised some of their children religious and some not religious. My parents are atheist but I have aunts and unlces who are missionaries and cousins who are young Earth creationists. They reject sciences like paleontology, geology, and astronomy as hoaxes because they all point to an Earth much older than their church tells them. Of course, they "know" evolution is wrong, though they have a weak grasp on what it actually is.
The question: how can the deeply religious be convinced (or reassured) that accepting what science teaches does not require rejecting their faith?
Part B: have you ever convinced someone to change their mind about accepting those sciences?
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Dr. Bakker, what is the current status of the digging going on in southern Utah...do you expect to see new species found soon, or are they finding mostly duplicates of known species? Specifically, I'm really interested in the ceratopsids. I am fascinated by weird ones like Medusaceratops, and so I'm wondering if you think that they will find additional new specimens similar or even weirder than that one. Also, tell the naming committee to keep naming dinosaurs with very cool names. Medusaceratops is fantastic. Maybe...Shoggotheratops or Balrogeratops for the next one? Just a suggestion.
Why do you assume that all Christians are Biblical literalists?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Whats your favorite personal discovery? /. interviews are more IT/CS/programmer types so I ask them for their favorite piece of code they personally wrote. /. if you fell in eternal love with the first trilobite fossil you ever saw, we're not gonna judge (well, not too much... mostly)
Usually
I guess for a paleontologist the comparison would be your favorite discovery.
Not one line, not a book, just a paragraph. No weasel words, no membership either as leader or distant drone, by direct personal discovery as in YOU found it.
I know there's more lab work in your field than most people think so a story not involving test tubes or whatever instead of swinging hammer is perfectly OK.
Also no "big project" allowed like a book. I'm looking for one individual personal precise discovery.
Insights or scientific papers are OK, doesn't have to be a physical thing.
As an example of what I'm looking for, if you have a PHD and it is your favorite thing in the world, go for it and gimmie a paragraph about it. If its not your favorite thing, well something you did similar that you actually happen to enjoy...
Don't be afraid to geek out, this is freaking
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Maybe because he realized that if he told us all these things there would be a lot of unemployed paleontologists and other scientists. Are you one of those people who needs to be spoon fed everything? It's often the the joy of discovery that makes the journey worth while.
Do they ask you to pick them up, Dr. Robert?
Or about drinking from your special cup, Dr. Robert?
Circumcision is child abuse.
Really, just look at the questions. Half of them are attempts to get you to say that Christianity is (in part or in whole) false, with the implication that if you say otherwise you are discrediting yourself as a paleontologist. Most of the readers of this forum have already decided their beliefs to the point where they believe that they do not have beliefs but are entirely guided by evidence, and will down-mod anyone who provides any counter-evidence.
You are aware that the so-called "bastardized american christianity" didn't even originate on this continent, right?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Christianity commands all Christians believe in monogenism. Everyone comes from Adam and Eve, because only through the story of their fall, do all humans acquire the stain of original sin. From original sin comes the need for redemption, which is only provided for by Jesus Christ. The question is: How do you rectify the conflict between religion and science when it comes to monogenism?
Why is Raptor Jesus "off topic"? The man is a world-class dinosaur scientist, and Christian minister to boot. You'd be hard pressed to find anybody on the surface of the Earth better qualified to discuss it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Even today, we have people like you who cannot come up with simple logical answers to your questions.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
if they are not literalists then they aren't true religionists, they are cherry picking people too scared to go the final step and admit god has no probability of existing. Fundementalists are the true christians whether you like it or not and they are nutjobs
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You try to second guess a bit too aggressively why the guy wakes up in the morning to do his job. Should a paleontologist be upset because he was inspired by scientifically inaccurate childhood stories, or because he still secretly hope to become a celebrity despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that that will not happen ? The real problem is that somehow, he needs to explain it and use his reputation to try to change the mentality in a country that shamed itself by giving too much political clouts and credibility to what should have been an extremist minority.
In the first world, "Reconciling" religion and science seems to be mainly a US-centric problem. Except for a few touch point (abortion, ...), other countries don't even seem to see the problem at all. Having the guy making an interview on /. is sad, really.
Why did God wipe out the dinosaurs?
Why did he create them if he was just going to wipe them out?
The science-religion dialog/debate/war is a confusing enterprise, largely because there are many different things called 'science', and many more different things called 'religion'. If science refers to our current best set of theories about the history and functioning of our universe, then religion can be roughly divided into two groups: (1) Those who embrace science and attempt to integrate their religious beliefs with our best scientific understanding. (2) Those who reject parts of science that don't match their religious traditions. Many are proclaiming harmony between science and religion of type (1). And they are right. But a large segment of religious believers on our planet fall into category (2), and this produces major problems. One specific instance is the large number of children being taught that some core scientific principles are dangerous, which creates in them an inoculation against scientific understanding that is difficult to overcome (at least it had that effect on me). I would like to know how Dr. Bakker interacts with religious believers of type (2) and how he recommends scientists should engage them.
Can you comment on the apparent irony that sauriscian dinosaurs like the theropods may have developed feathers before the ornithiscian?
You are aware that the so-called "bastardized american christianity" didn't even originate on this continent, right?
</flying red herring alert>
So what? How does that change anything? How does it alter anything that what the AC posted (re-quoted below):
You have a very narrow view of what constitutes religion. Not all religions have a rigid dogma, or even believe in a single God. The wacko bastardized American Christianity is not representative of global religions as a whole. Get out and travel the world before you spew such narrow-minded rhetoric.
It might not have originated here, but American (or I rather say, a section of America) has gone to bat for it (while the rest of the Christian world has to one degree or another moved away from it.)
By the numbers, Creationist Christian Fundamentalism has become a strictly American phenomenon to the point that it no longer matters where it originated (for our everlasting shame.)
I can assure you, that the "God" of the Hebrew Bible, is not one used to explain nature. The Hebrew Deity was about how to live life "correctly" and has a prescription about that. I can understand the modern rejection of those principles as being archaic, but the result is, IMHO, more uncivilized behavior. Action without consequences are impossible, yet that tends to be the modern Atheist's goal.
Here is but one example: "I want to fuck all the time, but don't want to deal with pregnancy". The consequences are wraped up in terms like "fetus" and "tissue" and discarded to the trashheap. Regardless of your views, I think that anytime one can dehumanize the smallest among us, we all lose. To me, it is no different than saying "Jews are monkeys" and "Blacks are Niggers" or terms like "faggot", "Dweeb", "Retard" any other term of dehumization we use.
Words have power that science can't measure.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
I can quote a few religious beliefs where the idea of a superhuman controlling power is absent or not required. Feel free to find a few as a homework for your own elucidation... or not, if you are the type to be content with spewing nonsense in the hopes of sounding avant garde.
Since there is no evidence gods exist and science is based on fact and evidence religion,
I like how you take the science banner while at the same time relying on a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (quoted in bold above).
by default, is bullshit and is therefore incompatible with religion.
That's an invective, not an argument. The nuisance is missed to most. I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong, but any truth values on your propositions are merely coincidental, and nothing to do with your actual understanding and application of the scientific method and the construction of logically-sound arguments.
My question to you: why do you come here, read and post to this 'shithole'?
St. Augustine's "Confessions" contains a large segment towards the end based around the Biblical creation account. In this, Augustine doesn't care the least bit about using the account as "a loose framework for what actually happened in the creation of where we are now." Instead, the creation story is re-worked into an extended metaphor using baptismal symbolism to describe a believer's "new creation" in Christ --- a personal/allegorical/spiritual interpretation that doesn't depend on, or care about, the paleontological accuracy of the creation story. Hard-headed insistence on the "scientific accuracy" of Biblical accounts is a much later heresy in the Western church, which only really arose alongside and in response to the development of scientific thought in the 18th century.
A/gnoscic and a/theist are orthogonal.
a/gnosticism is about knowledge (I don't know/I do know a fact about god)
a/theism is about belief (I do/do not have a belief in god)
An atheist doesn't ***believe there is no god***. They don't believe in one.
It is not a religion.
And if you don't believe in a god, then you're an atheist.
If you don't know there isn't one, you're agnostic atheist.
If you know there isn't one, you're gnostic atheist.
If you know there IS a god, you're a gnostic theist.
If you believe in one, but don't know that he does, then you're an agnostic theist.
Please, before you ***pretend*** to be so much higher and better than an atheist, realise this: YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.
Young Earth creationists have some rather incorrect beliefs regarding dinosaurs.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark
Do you see any to get them to accept the scientific consensus?
Hello again Dr. Bakker,
What do you make of efforts by Jack Horner and others to 'reverse-evolve' a dinosaur from chicken embryos?
Thanks -
"By the numbers", you say? Cite sources, please.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Please answer one question for me?
What is the end result of human evolution? (i.e. if humans continue to evolve for another million or more years what will we look like, what abilities will we have? Will we be powerful enough to create life in our own image? create a planet, galaxy, or universe of our own? manipulate matter with out minds? teleport? shed our physical bodies?)
I am interested in your thoughts on this and how it differs from Christians belief in a supreme being.
Egypt? Invaded by Alexander the Great and colonized. Later invaded by Rome and colonized. Invaded by Islam. Invaded by the Ottomans. The ancient civilization of Egypt did not survive. The descendants became part of the new culture that invaded. Central America? No Aztecs, no Mayans, no Mixtecs, no Totonecs. Which civilization survived in Central America?
What society has lasted longer?
When did I say Judaism is christianity? The bible is divided in to two parts: Old Testament, New Testament. The New Testament is christianity. The Old Testament is Judaism. I really don't understand your point, unless you're assuming I meant christianity is the modern version of Judaism? Well, I didn't. Judaism is still around today. That it gave birth to Christianity is a side note.
Science is the antithesis of religion... A central tenant of science is that you could be wrong, that seems to conflict with religion. Which is not to say you can't have faith and be a scientist. Just that you would have to keep a fair amount of mental separation between the two. I would even go so far as to say that to be a good scientist you would have to question your faith.
The Catholic church is fine with science. I believe they have officially stated that scientific discovery is not in conflict with faith, this includes evolution. The church operates an observatory and does real science and collaborates with various universities. The man who developed the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest in addition to being a cosmologist and physics professor. The scientific method was established in Western culture by medieval clergymen.
I believe various other Christian churches hold similar beliefs and attitudes towards science. Basically they accept scientific discovery as the explanation of the mechanics of God's universe. How things work from elementary particles to the cosmological. That science and religion address mutually exclusive fields, science the mechanics of the universe, religion the intentions and expectations of God.
If you could travel in time, would you rather visit an episode from the remote past of dinosaurs, or some episode from religious history? Which episode, and why?
Much of the commentary strikes me as theology for twelve year olds working it out for themselves. Hell, I'm not a Christian and I can answer most of the"gotchas" from a Christian point of view. Rather than just bitch about it, though, let me give one example.
In what way would a book written to be understood by those without the foundation for, say, modern chemistry or physics constitute "mere mortals" undo[ing] "an omnipotent and omniscient being's intent"? A Christian likely would say that God framed His words to be understood in a meaningful way by the people who were the audience of those words, knowing that those who followed after would understand that context, and be able to recontextualize the words to their own knowledge, abilities and experiences. The fact that you choose to be deliberately obtuse to this (in, ironically, much the same way that young Earth creationists are obtuse to it) says things about you, not the book or the mind(s) behind it. More directly, though, take a child of five and a forty year old physicist. It is not possible to describe physics precisely enough for the physicist yet comprehensible to the child. That is a human limitation not in the writing, but in the facility of understanding. It would be a much more reasonable argument to ask why there are no more modern prophets to give God's words modern form and meaning. The Mormons, at the very least, have an answer to that one. The Catholics and the Orthodox do as well, but their hierarchies and doctrines kind of get in the way of them actually realizing that.
Look, there are many ways of knowing something to be true enough given the venue. The rules of evidence in law are different from those in medicine, and different again from those in science, and different again from those in religion. As long as the rules of evidence in law are used in coming to a final judgment, rather than attempting to dictate, say, the value of pi, all is well. The rules of medicine are useful for determining a course of treatment, and knowing when that course needs to be changed. They would hardly be helpful in determining the rules of biochemistry on which the rules of medicine depend. Similarly, the rules of science work for those things which are natural, repeatable, measurable, objective and observable, but can say little about that which is not, say, observable. (For example, science takes as a fundamental assumption that the laws of science are true in every time and place. If that's not so, then much of our scientific reasoning is out the window.) Religion deals with morality, ethics, the nature of things beyond the boundaries of the universe and other concepts which are generally not objective, or not natural, or in some other way not within the realm of science. Certainly, there are places where different domains of knowledge and different ways of knowing overlap, and in those cases, we argue to an understanding. But to claim that any one way of seeing is the One True Way, and all others are heresies at best and infidel at worst, hardly seems likely to lead to valid understanding of what is true, and it's ironic that it more often comes from those who see Science as nearly a religion, than from those who actually are religious.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Will Pterosaurs ever be reclassified as Dinosaurs? They seem to far better fit as dinosaurs than reptiles yet a 100+ year classification seems to still lock them into being reptiles. The main argument I've heard was concerning hip rotation but that seems to be disputed. Is it really dogma keeping Pterosaurs classified as reptiles?
Science is the process of understanding, or at least generating workable knowledge, through observation, theorizing, and testing. The process of science is antithetical to faith since it requires that you test everything.
No. The scientific method was established in the west by medieval bishops. In more recent times the Catholic church has stated that scientific discoveries are not in conflict with faith, this includes evolution. Various other Christian churches hold similar beliefs. Basically that faith addresses areas that are beyond human observation and discovery, the intentions and expectations of God.
Which side do you find less open to considering the ideas of the other?
(Assuming there are two sides, of course.)
Tom Geller
I keep wondering if the bird/dinosaur connection is far more about parallel development than a direct tie? They've found feathered reptiles and Archaeopteryx was not a proto-bird but a failed evolutionary line. Tree up seems the likely path for bird evolution as opposed to ground up yet where are all the tree climbing dinosaurs? Feathered reptiles seemed to climb trees so they appear to be the more likely ancestors of birds than dinosaurs?
And the Bible's purpose is moral, not to "advance medicine".
You mean how it is moral to stone woman for adultery? Or how it is moral to commit genocide and keep the woman as spoils? Or how it is moral to mutilate the genitalia of newborns? Or how it is moral to kill witches? Or how it is moral to stone a man for collecting sticks on the Sabbath? Perhaps you meant the story of Lot, not Lot's wife, but how he thought it more moral to give his daughters to a narcissistic mob rather than let them have sex with his male guest. Or maybe it's the rest of Lot's story where his daughters get him drunk and rape him.
Maybe I'm just blind, but I don't quite see what the bible has to do with morality.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
Action without consequences are impossible, yet that tends to be the modern Atheist's goal.
Nice strawman. Please, tell me more about my goals. As for "uncivilized behaviors", I regard a proper mix of the gold/platinum rule that I try to live by (treat others how you want to be treated/how they want to be treated) as far more civilized than any "civilized" behaviors I see as the result of any major religion.
I've heard it said both that no dinosaurs survived the K/T event and that a handful survived for a few million years after the event. Which is it? Was it a sudden end or did they slowly die due to climate change?
Man evolved *and* there was an Adam: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0097454KQ
www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
So, I see you are coming at the issue with an open mind...
I think that the thing that bothers me about those who see Science (capitalized for a reason) as the only means of knowing things is the same thing that bothers me about young Earth creationists: the utter lack of humility.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Do you ever tire of all the stupid, inane questions (see above) about god and religion and whatnot that you get asked, solely by virtue of the fact that you identify ideologically as a Follower of Christ?
I've only been exposed to the questions asked of you on this thread, and I'm already tired of it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Nice reading comprehension. I said "Tends to be" not "always" and not "everyone".
And the "golden rule" is found in just about every religion, regardless of how often it is actually practiced.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Good grief. Christianity does not believe that "magic" defines the world. Christianity has believed since ancient times that the world operates according to strict laws that are immutable, and it names the underlying, latent principle that runs throughout those laws "God." By understanding the workings of those laws, and understanding the world, one understands God. For this reason, what became known as "science" today was once known as "natural theology."
Certainly, many religions did believe that the world was run by magic. And when they converted to Christianity (though admittedly, and to our shame, not always in the most Christian manner), they took a step from understanding of the world as run by "magical" ghosts and demons, towards an understanding of one run in an ordered, logical manner.
Don't be a Christian if you don't want to be. But don't call me mentally retarded simply because you have a different organizing principle to your life. Having a Comp Sci Ph.D. and a Yale J.D., I'll put my mental capacities against yours any day of the week.
12,500.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Dr. Bakker, What are your thoughts on the discoveries Dr. Mary Schweitzer has made of blood cells, intact proteins, and DNA in dinosaur bones vis-a-vis the claims of biochemists that even collagen completely breaks down in under 3Ma and DNA in a maximum of 6.83Ma?
The Catechism you reference explicitly says that genesis uses figurative language. The difference between science and faith seems to only be with respect to a "soul" not the material body.
...
"390 The account of the fall in Genesis uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1C.HTM
"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. Indeed, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, astronomer and physics professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the first to propose the theory of expansion of the universe, often incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble. Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago. The Vatican has no official teaching on this matter except for the special creation of the human soul"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Wow. You're thick. Just because the "land" is still there, doesn't mean the "civilization" is. Do you think the current residents of Egypt still worship Amun, Ra, and the other Egyptian gods? Do you think the people of Mexico still sacrifice the hearts of virgins to Quetzalcoatl?
And just FYI, they had their own state long before 1947. It was invaded over 2000 years ago, and the most of the population were dispersed. Yet they remained true to their civilization, and kept up with their traditions, beliefs, and teachings. So they are the longest lasting civilization.
I can't believe we get TWO FAMOUS PALEONTOLOGISTS IN TWO WEEKS.
On to my first question:
So, let's pretend the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs never happened and they somehow survived into the Holocene. How do you think that would have affected the world's ecology? How would dinosaur evolution have progressed? Assuming humans had still come onto the scene would we have driven the dinosaurs to extinction by now?
Let's say that various dinosaur populations were dropped into remote places in the modern world right now. How do you think they would do in today's ecology? Could they survive contact with modern humans? What other creatures do you think that dinosaurs themselves would drive to extinction?
As a minister _and_ a biologist, you must encounter all manner of young-earth creationists who are firmly dismissive of evolution. What approach do you take with them? Do you have a go-to response that you find successfully lowers their defenses and gets them to consider that there just _might_ be something to all this evolution nonsense?
I know this is not really your area, but what are your thoughts on the recent discovery that early humans interbred with at least Neanderthals and Denisovans? Do you think there will be further discoveries of different Homo species that our ancestors associated closely with?
There's a book I've found helpful regarding some of these -- and other -- issues: "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan.
No need to buy a book. "God", as described in "The Bible", is a mythological deity created by primitive people. The one in the Old Testament was indeed a moral monster. Then he was updated in the New Testament to be a nicer guy. Still a vain asshole, though.
The Dali Llama recently answered this question pretty succinctly -- ""If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview." I'd be really curious how other theists rationalize the existence of their various deities, given that the very definition of faith makes a mockery of the scientific method. Ontology is not the answer, btw -- god is not a falsifiable hypothesis, so the assumption that a deity must exist means that religious belief will never be compatible with the scientific method.
I understand that you reconcile your scientific and religious beliefs by not interpreting Genesis literally. However, as a minister I assume you take an essentially literal view of the New Testament (eg, that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, and rose from the dead). How do you justify that heterogeneity of approach?
."Just because the "land" is still there, doesn't mean the "civilization" is."
And what Jewish civilization still looks like the Old Testament? Who actually follows all the obviously primitive bullshit you can find in there?
Point (1) doesn't seem especially "good" or well through out; just a shallow propagandistic attack. If God exists (in any form vaguely like that proposed by major monotheistic religions), why would one expect that "billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars" would pose the tiniest managerial difficulty? Almost by definition, an omnipotent/omniscient being that speaks universes into being wouldn't be flummoxed by mere billions of billions of billions. Such an argument only contradicts particularly small and feeble-minded gods --- which are rarely the actual subject of theological debate.
Dr. Bakker, It seems to me that those Christians who reject evolution and dinosaurs are viewing God as some kind of puppeteer who guides every action and reaction in the universe. Applied to free will, that view basically means that we're little more than Calvinistic slot cars running around a track.
How involved do you think God has been in the evolution of life on Earth? Were the dinosaurs intentionally killed off or was it just one of many possible outcomes for them?
Thanks for doing what you do.
I just reviewed the common definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" which only confirmed that I have it right. Give me a reference that clearly explains your understanding of these concepts and I'll gladly educate myself. Until then I will assume that you're merely playing word games with a concept that you personally consider "too simplistic to be true".
FYI, most things in life ARE simplistic. And no, I don't pretend to be "better" than anyone, even those who try to tell ME what I'm thinking.
The problem with "common" definitions is that they do, with time, gravitate toward the simplistic, thus losing any fine distinctions, nuances and tomes that originally existed. When the original definition encompassed a broad range of meanings and depended on context for disambiguation, the "simplification" will most often drop all but one. Then, how would you communicate a concept when there are no longer words to describe it?
Regardless of what the words "atheist" and "agnostic" are currently accepted to mean, we still need a distinction among the various concepts, mainly because "lacking a belief in god(s)" is not the same as "believing there is/are no god(s)".
Good grief. Christianity does not believe that "magic" defines the world. Christianity has believed since ancient times that the world operates according to strict laws that are immutable, and it names the underlying, latent principle that runs throughout those laws "God."
But if these strict laws are immutable, what is the point of "praying for something" which "Christians" are wont to do for something as trivial as a football game, or as unlikely as world peace?
If God is only a latent principle of laws, immutable ones at that, prayer would seem to be beseeching these immutable laws to change themselves.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I was a velociraptor in a previous life.
The murderous chicken? Shoulda gone with the T-Rex... way scarier. :)
This is a great questions, and I hope he gets to answer it! Full disclosure: I *do* believe in original sin
Is there any fossil evidence for these 'humanoids'?
The only way you can reconcile faith (in anything, a god, your mother, a book) is to put artificial limitations on the applicable domain of science
Really. Suppose I tell you that I have faith that a scientific theory called Supersymmetry will be discovered at some point in the future. I accept that I could be wrong or that my current understanding of the concept of Supersymmetry might be flawed and will need to change when more data become available or may even possibly be ruled out altogether at some point (although really scientific theories are rarely every excluded they just get restricted to the point that they no longer solve the problem they were thought to). Is this faith in a scientific theory which has not yet been proven restricting science? If so I hoenstly cannot see why or how.
;-).
Now, why can't the same be true of religion. Why can't I treat it as a theory which has not yet been proven? I might need to adjust it as we collect more data and rule out certain things e.g. we know the world was not created in 6 days but dropping that literally hardly undermines the core of christianity and it is exactly what we do with scientific theories e.g. the Standard Model of particle physics was amended to include neutrino mixing with very little change to the overall theory.
Note that I did not say "scientific theory" because it is exceedingly hard to prove or disprove the claims of many religions so, in that respect, they are not scientific. Also this implies an acceptance that future evidence may prove your religious beliefs wrong - you might not believe that will happen but you have to accept it is a possibility. With those caveats where is the conflict? The last caveat might be wholly unacceptable to fundamentalists but if you are willing to accept this I don't see any conflict between science and religion: religion is just a theory which some believe to be true and others do not. The only significant difference is that there are no fundamentalist supersymmetrists who use violence against non-supersymmetrists (although I've been in one debate where it might have come close!
Although some subset of Christians seem to be very disturbed by the implications of the fossil record (and phylogenetics from DNA sequencing, if they pay attention), there is a good case to be made that these details of the history of life on earth are not wholly incompatible with the Christian world view.
However, recent findings in cognitive science and neuroscience are perhaps more directly challenging. Whether it is religious experiences induced by magnetic fields (or certain types of supposedly spiritual experiences seeming identical to certain types of epilepsy caused by defects in neuronal biochemistry), or the inseperable nature of mind and brain (as shown by reams of brain injury data, effects of psychoactive substances, fMRI imaging, sensory deprivation experiments, and so on), or the degree to which our morality and actions are instinctive and not necessarily fully within our control, scientific research seems to be painting a very different picture of man-the-sometimes-thinking-animal than has Christianity or other traditional religions. In particular, notions of will and soul that appear central to an understanding of Christianity seem increasingly at odds with neuroscience.
What is your opinion on the compatibility of Christinaity with cognitive science? Must one or the other adapt in order for the two to exist harmoniously, and if so, what form might that take?
the only means of knowing things
Religion is a way of feeling, not a way of knowing.
Instinct is an example of an alternative way of knowing, many religions simply document moral instincts and then claim to be the sole source of morality. Morals are as innate to humans as their physical senses, until very recently science had no idea (and no interest) as to where they came from, religion has always provided stories to fill that gap. Stories are more powerful than people assume, the mind of the worshiper creates a character called god based on the story, it then asks the character questions and favors. The practice of prayer simply reenforces the character by asking you to regularly converse with the character you have built. Now the real hook is when that prayer is "answered" your mind highlights it and attributes it to the god character, like gamblers who keep pulling the lever, worshipers will keep on praying every night.
God is not the only character in your head, it's just as easy to imagine yourself talking to Obama (re: Clint Eastwood and the empty chair). The conversation you have will be based on personality attributes you have assigned to him, some of those attributes might even match the real ones since Obama can be observed. Every human is born with a basic "theory of mind" that "explains" why things behave the way they do, it instinctively assigns personalities to everything both animate and inanimate. If you doubt that then listen to yourself the next time you try and explain to a mechanic what is wrong with your car, both of you will use words that describe the personality of your car, theory of mind is deeply embedded in our language because it's deeply embedded in humans.
Combine the "theory of mind" with he fact that human societies are always hierarchical and it's kind of obvious why humans tend to create a mother/father personality that oversees the entire universe. In the early days of human society that personality was obvious and real, it was simply the big ball of fire in the sky that from direct observation could be seen to regulate all life.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The irony here is that the GP's innate theory of mind is assigning attributes to you in the same way yours assigns attributes to Bugs Bunny, God, or any other character, regardless of whether the character is fictional or real.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
... to put forth the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers,
Then please inform us what life was really like back in the middle of the eighteen hundreds when the first feathered dinosaur was discovered? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
If you were able to teleport yourself back in time to say the the time of Jesus Christ, along with some of our modern technology, much if not all of that technology would be considered magic and you would be considered to be a sorcerer that needs to be burned at the stake or you would be considered a god to be worshiped. Jesus claimed to be God come to earth. He gave evidence of the truth of this claim by demonstrating knowledge and ability that goes far beyond even our present technology and knowledge.
He hated religion and was finally put to death at the instigation of the religious powers of the day. The ultimate and final demonstration of the truth of his claim to deity was that he did not stay dead. Someone who can no longer be killed, because he has conquered death, is more powerful than any other human power and all other human powers put together. None of this has anything to do with religion, but ultimate reality, which includes science but goes far beyond it. Science and the scientific method is only a small subset of feeble human efforts to determine what is real.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
You might have added that the laws that science studies come from the mind of an immutable and eternal God. Since you know something about law, you certainly understand that all laws originate in a mind of one or more persons. The “laws of nature” came from a supreme mind, the mind of God. Therefore God who is real must be a person and this is exactly what is taught in the Bible.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
God isn't the laws, but the maker of the laws, just like an earthly legislature isn't the law, but makes them. That is why there are lobbyists. Lobbying God is called prayer. Prayer, like lobbying works. The main difference is that God can't be bribed like our politicians.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
The second part of your subject line doesn't necessarily follow from the first part, but if it did, then the rest of your post would be a valid question.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
There is a basic conflict between science are religion. The basic mode of arriving at conclusions is entirely opposite.
In science, a theory is held to be good if it
Additionally, in science, questioning an established theory based on new information is an essential element of how science is done. Theories are often incomplete and are sometimes at odds with other accepted theories, but the inconsistency is at least recognized and regarded as a problem.
In religion, a belief is held to be true if it
In religion, there is no requirement that beliefs be consistent. Multiple inconsistent dogmas often exist in the same religion. This frequently goes unrecognized by adherents to the religion but is easily recognized by others familiar with the beliefs. Beliefs that are at odds with real data are not questioned on that basis. Beliefs are neither validated nor invalidated by facts
To even propose the phrase of 'merging science and religion' shows a lack of understand of the subjects or at least the relevant religions.
The first tenant of a religion is to bootstrap the meme with faith in the unknown. If you can believe that, your brain has been rooted and almost anything is possible. Science requires assertions, constraints, and verifications not required by religion and often in contradiction to their first tenant. Science also requires openness to the possibility that anything can be incorrect. From a religious perspective this is often blasphemous and might even get you killed if the religious are given their way.
TENET. The word is TENET. TENET TENET TENET! Not "tenant."
OK, I'm done ranting now.
But I am prepared to do it again.
I disagree. An omnipotent god would have thrown out all the dietary/hygiene rules in the OT and replaced it with "Boil your water, cook your food, wash your hands, shit downstream from where you live". These 4 simple instructions are VASTLY superior to all the rubbish that masquerades as "divinely inspired" nonsense in the OT. They are easier to remember, easier to do, and about 1000 times more effective. Why isn't that information in the Bible? Because the ignorant shepherds who wrote it didn't know about germ theory.
To paraphrase Sam Harris, imagine how incredible the Bible would be if it was actually written by an omnipotent being.
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
"By the numbers", you say? Cite sources, please.
Are you serious? How many other Christian countries other than the US have an Evangelical-based Creationist movement with such political influence as the one displayed here, with politicians openly question evolution? None. That's your prove. No citations necessary as this is common knowledge (or at least it should be in this era of widespread access to global information.)
And regardless, even if it this were not true, how does that change anything. Don't bother replying until you answer my original question, re-quoted below, which is the crux of the matter:
So what? How does that change anything?
As an aside, pretty much all offerings to god would end up with soap.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
The God of Richard Dawkin's imagination is way too small and puny. The God of the Bible is infinite and eternal, outside of time and space. To him, the universe with all its galaxies is like an aquarium might be to us. We humans live in that aquarium and that is all the knowledge we have. God is the keeper of this aquarium we find ourselves in. Unless this God chooses to communicate with us in some way, the only knowledge we can gain about him is the fact that this aquarium appears to be pretty fantastic and big to us little mortal humans. It turns out that God did communicate himself to us, by entering the aquarium, time and space, and becoming a human. This is the unique message of the Bible. Jesus Christ is God come to earth, and into our time dimension, dwelling in a mortal human body. He conquered death and invites those that believe in him, to join him in a new physical, immortal body he will place this into, outside of the aquarium, beyond time and space.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
The Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible and is therefore bogus and false!
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
indeed one cannot properly claim to be an educated westerner and NOT have read a Bible (given that it was one of the biggest influences in Western Civilization and without understanding it you cannot understand many of the characters and events of the past 2K years in the western hemisphere in their full context.)
You can't claim to be educated unless you know how to scuba dive.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Action without consequences are impossible, yet that tends to be the modern Atheist's goal.
Tends to be? Interesting. What would lead you to believe that?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Its ironic that the atheists( oddly anti-christian, rarely antisemitic, antimuslim ) are never heard to lambasting the Simulation Argument.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Hey - don't forget us ignostics! (Those for whom the term "god" remains insufficiently defined for there to be any sense in discussing existence or non-existence thereof. (And even if it were to be defined, most definitions would cause us to dismiss the concept as meaningless.))
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Dear Dr Bakker While we don't share concurrent personal convictions on the validity in taking a middle road regarding the use of science or religious teaching to explain the world around us, I have a deep respect for your approach. I am interested to know how it feels to see the works you've produced, which are themselves some of the foundational ideas in your field, get used on either side of the debate to debunk or challenge the strongly held beliefs of the other side? Here I'm referring to some of the conflicts where science observes things that conventional religions simply cannot or will not explain, with each side latching on to their view and discarding the evidence or convictions of the opposing view.
I wasn't a slashdotter, got to have sex, and not live in my parents basement, in a previous life!
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
There are different views on creation held by Christians. For each viewpoint, there are some good arguments for holding that belief and some less rational ones.
Some viewpoints include: Pure Evolution, Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, Old-Earth Creationism with old life, Old-Earth Creationism with young life, Young-Earth Creationism
Question: Can you suggest some good resources with some of the better arguments for some of these viewpoints (whether or not you hold that position)?
I would be interested in books, articles, lectures/debates (audio or videos), or web sites.
If any Slashdotters can provide some resources with a quick comment on whether they think they provided good arguments (whether or not they agree with them), please do so.
A couple things on that:
1. I have many times challenged anyone to provide any part of Thomas that I could not find multiple directly-equivalent verses for in the canonical scriptures. So far, nobody has succeeded.
2. The scope of the canon, therefore "the bible" does not have consensus even between the major branches of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Definitive inclusions we can fairly conclude by which books do have consensus, for those that don't, the criteria must be methodological rather than absolute. In that respect, I would consider the Eastern Orthodox church to have the most accurate conceptualization of what it means to be "canon", and Thomas would be a viable inclusion under their approach of going by praxis rather than historical fiat.
Of course, this being Slashdot, it's entirely possible your post was just a sarcastic quip. If so, disregard the foregoing.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Do you really believe in God, or is it just a good way of meeting girls?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I never meant to imply that it did change anything... and the OP said nothing about political influence. My remark was solely directed at the notion that the relatively widespread notion of Christianity that we have in the western hemisphere somehow evolved into what it is (with regards to its religious dogma and beliefs, not what it is poliitically), on this side of the globe. It didn't.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
25 percent of Israel.
Random conversations regarding ethics, with atheists. Atheists tend to be Pro Baby Killing, because they have dehumanized the "fetal tissue", making it much easier to ease their concience regarding killing for the sake of eliminating the consequences of random sex with people they are not committed to. They deny the biological purposes of sex because they are focusing upon the "if it feels good do it" mantra.
But that is just one example. The atheists I've discussed things with, have the most hypocritical ethics I've ever encountered. They love to impose their ethics on others, while rejecting the ethics that are different from them crying"don't tell me how to live". My question to them, which I have yet to have answered, "What makes your ethics better than mine that you feel that you can impose your ethics upon me, while rejecting the idea that I can impose mine on you?"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Read the link that you referred to, and answer my question again: "Who actually follows all the obviously primitive bullshit you can find in there?"
As in, for example, sentencing people to death for working on the Sabbath or adultery.
Your post is (deliberately?) obtuse.
Are you claiming that, with what we know now, that all of the dietary/hygienic instructions in Leviticus are:
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
Do you trust your 5 year old to wash his hands properly? We have bacterial soap(a modern stupidity) what did they have? Sure their fat offerings would end up with soap but did they use it?
How long did it take modern humans to not think believing in tiny invisible things that make you sick is looney? Do you know how many people still don't believe in germs? Stop using your modern viewpoint to judge past viewpoints, it doesn't work.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
What's funny is that this e-mail exhibits an effect of original sin- denial of authority.
To drag this back on topic though I'd like to ask Dr. Bakker what he thinks of the Pope's Proclamation on Reason and Creation yesterday.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Question:. . . How do we get there?
Answer
Adding A collapse Thread button in Slashcode would do wonders.
It only takes an astute reader seeing 5 or 6 posts before they realize that the current replay chain has gone hopelessly off the rails, with no hope of recovery.
It seems that so may stories on slashdot are hijacked in this way, more so than back in the day.... We need a tool to tell these kids to get off our lawn.
Failing that, give us a "Honey I shrunk the Kids" button, so they disappear into the grass.
Try clicking the subject line of the parent post, that works for me. If you're suggesting putting a button with similar function on every post (recursive collapse parent post?), I could get behind that, although I can see problems with it, too.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
If you believe in an everlasting, all wise and all-powerful God, then you should have no trouble believing that he can communicate with all humans. If you believe that the Bible is that communication, then the minimum content that ALL Christians embrace would be the only true word of God. This minimum content does not include the Apocrypha, the gospel of Thomas, the book of Enoch and other extraneous writings that have been at one time or another been claimed by various groups as being part of the Bible.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
And why should I give/allow authority to that nutjob? There are plenty of sane/rational people for that.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
You missed my point. There is no "the bible". What books are considered canonical, therefore part of "the bible" is a question which does not have consensus in Christianity, and it has that been that way going back all the way to the beginning.
From your tone, it seems that you are apparently member of one of the new splinter denominations of the many that have come into existence since the Protestant Reformation, and as such accept (and probably by default, having never asked yourself why) the correct books of the bible are what Martin Luther said they should be, rather than what they had been historically per the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church.
Since you likely also have formed your religious belief as simply whatever is in opposition to Catholicism (as being a "false church"), and the fact the exact same dilemma is posed to you by the history of the Orthodox Church has been evaded by those teaching you, allow me to ask...
Why is "the bible" the books Martin Luther said they are to be in the 1500's, in contradiction to Christian history?
I think, first of all, you should avoid the presumption of telling me what I must think in regard to the bible if I believe in God, given your alternative is hardly exhaustive, and secondly, gain both some historical knowledge and coherence to your stance on "the bible", as though it's the typical, say, Evangelical position--it is philosophically and historically incoherent as a theological position. And I say this as a (presumably fellow) Protestant, specifically a Lutheran, as it seems that we are actually realistically given the history that your denomination, though owing your existence entirely to us, are apparently kept in the dark about.
Should you choose, at some point, to make your perspective logically viable, I would suggest tempering your view with a perspective that could work as representing "the Word of God" throughout history, including the first centuries, as a simple factual matter of what the book could contain, and why. Your own appraisal that it should be the "minimum content agreed upon by all" works neither today, nor could it going back in time. Again, the Eastern Orthodox church would be a good resource for this on methodological appraisal of "the canon" is, and therefore what "the bible" is and how it relates to other documents. You may find it illustrative in terms of your Sola Scriptura viewpoint.
However, feel free not to accept Thomas' veracity, regardless of the fact you have provided no basis for any objection by reference to "the bible" you consider authoritative. It does not, ultimately, matter, as no human agency is ultimately the determinant of that, and your choice simply does not affect me, knowing what I do.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
But an inconceivably huge dick, which is a more interesting starting point for intellectual debate than Dawkin's straw-man tiny limp dick god.
If we would take the King James Bible as a reference point, what books would the Catholics and/or Eastern Orthodox Christians add to this? Which ones would they leave out? Do any of the added books that are not in the King James Bible contradict the ones that are? If so, does that change the overall message of the Bible? What do you consider to be that main message?
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox did not remove books from the King James Bible, the King James Bible removed books from what was previously accepted as "the bible", accepted as what the bible is/was by essentially the entirety of Christianity (the Catholics and Orthodox), other than the Protestants.
"They" didn't change what is in the bible, -you- did.
Some more background on the Protestant Reformation in general, or the table given here in particular...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible ...you may find informative.
Now, you could hold as your stance that King James had some particular dispensation from the Holy Spirit giving him the authority to do so (as I'm sure he wouldn't object, as it was basically the "Divine Right of Kings" on which the legitimacy of the whole Church of England hangs upon), and I would have a sympathetic ear to a line of argument like that. But changing the bible based on a stance of all authority being derived from "the Word of God", that is, the bible itself, is circular reasoning. Which bible is then the authoritative one, the 39-book-Old-Testament Protestant one, the 46-book Catholic one, or the 51-book Orthodox one? Whichever it is, it cannot simultaneously be the case that the Word of God was the version with different books, and being so was the sole justification for the "new" Word of God with a changed set of books.
The same dilemma occurs going back further in time. According to you, what was the "Word of God" before the King James Bible existed? What was it in the fifth century? There was no "Word of God" back then?
In short, Sola Scriptura (the bible as the only source of authority, the "Word of God") is not, alone, a workable stance, and requires much more nuance than that. But that's probably a topic for another day.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
As a Christian scientist (Engineer, so pardon if I make a mistake in the nomenclature), here is the question I would like to ask a Christian paleontologist: The Bible clearly distinguishes humans as spiritual beings from all other earthly beings, who cannot sin and do not need a saviour. Since our understanding of science has thinned out and almost extinguished the line between our species and other primates, both current and from the fossil record, do you think there remains any physical or biological distinctive feature that separates spiritual humans from non-spiritual primates or hominids?
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my disk?
Random conversations regarding ethics, with atheists.
Can't argue with that hard data. I wish that would've been made clear from the beginning.
Atheists tend to be Pro Baby Killing, because they have dehumanized the "fetal tissue", making it much easier to ease their concience regarding killing for the sake of eliminating the consequences of random sex with people they are not committed to.
I doubt it's that they are pro baby killing, but that they value a woman's rights more than the life of an underdeveloped baby (only because you insist) who's still living in said woman's body. Or maybe they are pro baby killing. How am I to know who you were arguing with?
My question to them, which I have yet to have answered, "What makes your ethics better than mine that you feel that you can impose your ethics upon me, while rejecting the idea that I can impose mine on you?"
Somehow that sounds like a straw man to begin with. Do they really believe that their ethics are better than yours? Well, I guess I wasn't present in your little arguments, so I don't know.
I've had random arguments with theists before. They were pompous imbeciles without a shred of intelligence (evidently because they said things I disagreed with). Therefore, theists tend to be that way. I'm sure that some atheists are idiots, but isn't that true of every group?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Serious question (honestly). Given that birds are descended from dinosaurs, would dinosaurs taste like chicken, (or possible more correctly, does chicken taste like dinosaur)?
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
I have summed this up as four principles:
God is a loving Parent to all humankind - and Who made the universe such that we could live in it.
God is Unique and is One, each human being is unique and different, and so humankind is diverse.
God is Perfect, we are imperfect - therefore God has made us diverse, so that, in our diversity, we can approach, but never reach, Perfection.
God has given us free will, and wants us to grow in understanding - to grow towards, even if we never reach, His Wisdom.
See http://www.godsgrownchildren.org/.
In a sense, ancient texts, including the Bible, are little-children's books that God inspired His Prophets to write for us, so that things will be explained to us. Even though the Biblical accounts of the Creation of the Universe are not scientific, they do contain moral lessons which we should still heed.
I'm sure I'm very ignorant on the topic of Dinosaurs, but I'm curious what caused a 'Renaissance'? During your work were there any interesting breakthroughs that opened the door? Did new tools become available or new methods for analyzing things? Was there some piece of information that changed how we understand things or just an "a-ha" idea that opened the door to better understanding things? Or is it just a case of increased interest and slow persistence?
"I doubt it's that they are pro baby killing, but that they value a woman's rights more than the life of an underdeveloped baby (only because you insist) who's still living in said woman's body. Or maybe they are pro baby killing. How am I to know who you were arguing with?"
Dehumanized, easier to kill. And we cant even discuss when a "fetus" becomes "human", because nobody knows exactly when that happens. So, abortion is legal all the way till full term, way beyond viability outside the womb. So, when does a fetus become a baby?
My point, is by using terms like "fetus" and "tissue" we have dehumanized the least among us, and that makes us ALL worse off.
"Do they really believe that their ethics are better than yours?"
Yes. Because my ethics are derived from my faith, while theirs are not. And their hypocrisy is allowed but religions is not. And while I can defend my positions without mentioning a diety, many atheists cannot attack my position without mentioning "invisible man in the sky" (or similar). My arguments are formed from the premise of a deity, but they are not dependant upon it.
"They were pompous imbeciles without a shred of intelligence (evidently because they said things I disagreed with). Therefore, theists tend to be that way. I'm sure that some atheists are idiots, but isn't that true of every group?"
Yeah, there are idiots in every group. But ascribing idiocy to the whole group (which I have not) is always wrong. I have had intelligent conversations with Atheist (this one, for example), but I can assure you, that this is a breath of fresh air compared to many others I've had. Thanks for being decent and not condecending.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
He's far more rational than any atheist I've ever met. The only people who don't think so are bigots who have never bothered to read his stuff on it's own merits.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
YOU refer to the link. It states quite clearly, orthodox Jews adhere to the Torah (aka Old Testament) as definitive Jewish Law. So if an orthodox Jew decided to work on the Sabbath, he would expect that his punishment be death. Can you find an example of an orthodox Jew who actually worked on the Sabbath, and wasn't put to death?
But ascribing idiocy to the whole group (which I have not) is always wrong.
"tends to be" made it sound like that's the norm to me. I just wanted to know why you thought that, but that's fine.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Can you find an example of an orthodox Jew who actually worked on the Sabbath, and wasn't put to death?
Can you find an example of any Orthodox Jew who was put to death for not following one of the laws, even though death is the punishment? It would seem quite remarkable that no Orthodox Jew was ever caught working on the Sabbath or committed adultery. Or for that matter, why do the Orthodox Jews not try to impose justice on the other 75% of Jews who are breaking the law according to their view?
YOU refer to the link. It states quite clearly, orthodox Jews adhere to the Torah (aka Old Testament) as definitive Jewish Law.
"Orthodox Judaism generally refers to Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism but can actually include a wide range of beliefs. [..] Hirsch held that Judaism demands an application of Torah thought to the entire realm of human experience--including the secular disciplines. His approach was termed the Torah im Derech Eretz approach, or "neo-Orthodoxy." While insisting on strict adherence to Jewish beliefs and practices, he held that Jews should attempt to engage and influence the modern world, and encouraged those secular studies compatible with Torah thought. [..] The neo-Orthodox movement holds that Hirsch's views are not accurately followed by Modern Orthodoxy. [..] In the 20th century, a segment of the Orthodox population (notably as represented by the World Agudath Israel movement formally established in 1912) disagreed with Modern Orthodoxy and took a stricter approach. Such rabbis viewed innovations and modifications within Jewish law and customs with extreme care and caution. Some observers and scholars refer to this form of Judaism as "Haredi Judaism", or "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism". The latter term is controversial, and some consider the label "ultra-Orthodox" pejorative."
First off. I'm a Catholic. That guy was not rational. Good examples of rational, sticking in the theistic realm, would be St. Francis of Assisi (a little odd, but rational) or Pope John Paul II.
You have manage to, ironically, make the first biggoted statement in this thread - and boy is it a doozy. I was only considering ONE individual as nuts, you just claimed a whole crowed. Admittedly most of them that I've seen are quite short sighted - not realizing their atheism is actually a religion even if it lacks a deity - and is not more or less rational than any deific belief system - since there's no proof either way. Then again, I've seen many sane and rational atheists too, not trying to push atheism on others, just arguing it is what they believe.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
I'm interested to hear how you reconcile Genesis with the fossil record - what view do you take on how what the Bible tells of creation, the Flood, etc fits in with the observable fossils and geological records (being that presumably you have belief in both the Bible and nature being sources of truth)? Additionally, do you think that young-earth creationism can fit with the fossil record?
P.S. I am a Christian myself - I am interested to hear what a real expert says on the topic, rather than second- or third-hand variations of the facts, or repetitions of uninformed bias (from various sides).
Dr. Bakker,
Are there any major (or even minor) changes you would like to see in the taxonomy system now generally accepted? Do you in any way feel the current system could be better organized to more accurately reflect those taxa of your expertise and their interrelationships?
Thanks -
Dear Dr. Bakker,
What is your opinion of the likelihood of the Amphicoelias Fragillimus (known only from a single, now lost holotype vertebra) actually having existed, and actually having originated from a roughly 60 meter specimen? What might have been the factors limiting the maximum size of land-dwelling dinosaurs?
Thanks sincerely-
DS