Alex Berezow and Stephen Meyer talk about God and Evolution on the Michael Medved Show | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
71

@loujost

Forgive me. I thought that you were responding to my statement of how to disprove and falsify my statement that God is Good.

Now if you do not believe that life is not worthwhile, I fail to understand how you can argue that a good God did not create it.

Now you did say that you felt the universe was oblivious to our suffering and our motives.

First of all the universe is not personal, so it cannot personally respond to us. When I talk to God on the other hand, God does respond to suffering and my motives with encouragement and support. You should try it sometime.

Second, when we are suffering, the universe does provide physical help and healing. I like to think although maybe it cannot be proven that a person who is doing something for the right reason to help himself and others is more effective than someone who seeks to hurt. Maybe this is needed, because it is more difficult to build than to tear down.

Third, people have argued the universe is hostile or neutral to life on earth and human beings. That Is hard to believe when one looks at all the factors that had to go exactly right for first life and then humanity to emerge on our planet. The earth is our mother and if our mother did not care and love us, we would not exist.

Fourth, your argument seems to be that the universe does not love humans enough. Love is not altruism, where we give others whatever they want. Love is giving people what they need. The universe has put humanity is a position superior to other forms of life, so it seems hard to believe that whatever pain we suffer is a sign of indifference.

72

@loujost

Do you attribute any authority to the text in Genesis re the fall and its byproducts?

73

Forgive me. I thought that you were responding to my statement of how to disprove and falsify my statement that God is Good.

Roger, yes, I was responding to that statement. I was hoping you would tell me what kinds of injustices would convince you that the world is not just.

Now if you do not believe that life is not worthwhile, I fail to understand how you can argue that a good God did not create it.

A god has nothing to do with making life worthwhile. Life can be worthwhile with or without a god. I think it is even more worthwhile without a god, because then one’s actions can make a real difference to the only reality, the one we all live in.

Now you did say that you felt the universe was oblivious to our suffering and our motives.

Yes, that’s right. You then make a version of the fine-tuning argument to say how nicely the universe is designed for us, but in fact in most parts of the universe we would die instantly. That’s true even on earth.

You say " the universe is not personal, so it cannot personally respond to us" and then you say “The earth is our mother and if our mother did not care and love us, we would not exist.” Those are not consistent. I agree with the first statement. You should agree with your first statement too.

74

Piopio, I think the Fall is one of the silliest parts of the Christian religion. How is it just or fair for one person’s error to hurt everyone else’s lives? And the belief (held by some fundamentalist Christians) that life on earth was different before the Fall, with no death, etc, is demonstrably false.

75

Good loujost.

So, may I conclude that you invariably believe ONLY in things that are demonstrably true? Or can you reserve for yourself some “silly” exceptions.

76

Piopio, much is uncertain, and we all believe some things that cannot be demonstrated to be true. But I try not to believe things that are demonstrably false.

77

Loustrong text: Roger, yes, I was responding to that statement. I was hoping you would tell me what kinds of injustices would convince you that the world is not just.

Roger:strong text I told you what kind of injustices would convince me that the world is unjust, the injustices of no hope, meaning, and purpose. So is that the world you believe in or not?

Rogerstrong text: You consistently misunderstand what I mean by God. What I am talking about is the Logos, which originally was a philosophical term for “Rational Meaning or Purpose.”

Now let me put it this way. Do you find that life has intrinsic Meaning and Purpose that we can share with others, or that humans are forced to live their lives in their own subjective bubble?

Or another way, How does one live a rational, purposeful life if life is without Logos, or rationality and meaning?

To say that we all live in one reality does not seem to be objectively true. Everyone seems to live in their own niche, comfort zone, unable or unwilling to explore bridges of understanding and cooperation with others.

My God, my Logos informs me that this is Wrong. Other people who also say they believe in God seem to disagree. What do you think?

Loustrong text: You then make a version of the fine-tuning argument to say how nicely the universe is designed for us, but in fact in most parts of the universe we would die instantly. That’s true even on earth.

Rogerstrong text: Lou, I thought you were an ecologist, but it seems that you do not think like one. Humans are able to live in different “hostile” parts of the biosphere because they take their ecological niche with them. They travel the sea boats and ships of many kinds, including submarines. They also travel in the air and even into space without dying instantly.

Humans are able to live relatively freely in the universe because we understand the Logos of the universe, the rational way that the universe works. We are can explore the universe without leaving earth by using telescopes of different kinds, including Hubble.

Loustrong text: You say " the universe is not personal, so it cannot personally respond to us" and then you say “The earth is our mother and if our mother did not care and love us, we would not exist.” Those are not consistent. I agree with the first statement. You should agree with your first statement too.

strong textRoger: Ecologists understands that the ecology is organic, but not personal. Humans, as well as other for a and fauna, interact with the ecology, but do not converse with the ecology.

If the ecology had not been structured to produce humans, they would not have been produced. That does not mean that it was automatic or predestined, but the ecology made it possible for humanity to exist and in that real sense the earth is our mother










79

While I think you consistently overestimate the separation between “ID” and the DI-based ID movement, here I must agree with your criticism of Berezow. I would go a step further and say that I thought his 3 main points were very weak. The third one, where you focus, is the worst by far – I frankly can’t see how this theological issue is relevant to an argument about design. To non-believers like me, “theology” isn’t even real, and the possibility that a deity is a malevolent cretin is just as reasonable as any other. It may be that some ID people are advancing ideas that would arouse concern amongst various inquisitions, but that is hardly an “issue” for the concept of design.

81

While I agree with Bren that you have raised a good point, I do not agree with the absoluteness of this above statement. Rather than “without suffering there is not pleasure”, I would say that without suffering, the full sense and understanding of pleasure might not be realized. However, even someone who has never starved can still enjoy the pleasure of eating. Someone who has not died is still alive… so to say without death there is no life does refer to our human transition from earthly life to eternal life, but life existed in the garden of eden before there was death. Still, in the larger picture, outside of our human understanding, it might be that if there is a purpose for evil, it is that God might be glorified in the good. But it is not really something that humans are justified trying to put into words.

1 Like
82

Well, in some manner we are in the same page. There’s a bunch of things that I also consider demonstrably false. You and I run risks by believing or not in topics that other consider demonstrably false. But you are not commanded as I am, to have faith, because “without faith it is impossible to please him…” Or… aren’t you commanded too?

83

piopio, no, I am definitely not hearing commands from on high.

84

@Martin_Mayberry

It would be possible to make your theological point about the devil not being a robot programmed by God to wreak havoc without throwing an unnecessary jab in there directed at people you disagree with.

1 Like
85

Attributing negative motives to people you disagree with is also not really an argument or a contribution to the discussion.

1 Like
86

Whether the appearance of design indicates real design, or not, has always been a valid scientific question, and it was the central question Darwin addressed. Like you, I can’t understand why some Christians would criticize ID merely for trying to re-open that question. If IDers are to be criticized, it should be for their poor methods and low quality of their research, not for their daring to ask the question.

87

@loujost
I know you are responding to Roger, but I don’t think it is really the typical Christian position that life is just. God is just. That can be hard to defend at times. But the fact that life is unjust and we naturally long for an end to injustice in our messed up world is the at heart of the Christian gospel.

2 Likes
88

Thanks Christy. I am curious why Christians do universally seem to think their god is just. The idea of original sin contaminating all descendants, including innocents, doesn’t seem just.

89

@loujost
Not everyone takes it so literally. I see it as a picture to describe the human condition. As a group, we are fundamentally messed up and destined to bequeath our dysfunction to future generations.

90

Yes Lou, original sin is not just, no more than that alcoholic parents being more likely to have alcoholic children than the average parent. Just as untrained children suffer unjustly from the lack of parental training. But God did not sin against himself; man sinned against God. That is the injustice that God provided redemption for, through Jesus Christ His Son. It was not just that God should suffer for the sins of man, yet he chose to do so, showing that forgiveness goes beyond mere justice, even while God’s sacrifice provided the just payment required, as paid by another, other than the one who should have paid it. God gave men the right to choose, and retained the right to choose himself how the debt of sin would be paid. We can give thanks for that.