Is there any legitimacy to the claim that EC leads to atheism?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

If one starts from certainty in total darkness about reality that is not based on any of the laws of nature outside ones unknown (i.e. one isn’t aware of being in it) cave of unknowing and one lets in a glimmer of light, one can’t help but want more.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@gbob

This seems not to happen in theology where Genesis 1-11 can be false, the exodus can be false, the miracles can be false, yet somehow it is claimed that the resurrection is true. That seems utterly illogical to me.

The problem is NOT the Bible. The problem is not that the Old Testament/Covenant has been outdated by the New Testament. The problem is YEC theology is faulty, because it believes the Bible and not Jesus is God’s Word, and follows the false dualism of atheism.

The Gospel says In the Beginning was the Word, Jesus Christ. Salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and not through faith in the Bible. God created the universe through the rational Word/Jesus Christ, so the is no actual contradiction through good Christian theology and good science, including evolution.

YEC theology is not good Christian theology. Darwinian evolution is not good science, because it is based on Malthusian Survival of the fittest. We need to reconcile the two to make both whole, real, and good, which is why I wrote the book, Darwin’s MYTH, Malthus, Ecology, and the Meaning of Life.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Relates

The problem is NOT

…that @gbob is a YEC. He’s not.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@mitchellmckain

Hinduism is not a statement that can be assigned a true or false value. It is not only much more highly varied than Christianity (even including the pseudo-Christian groups) but it is so inclusive that it can and has to a large degree included Christianity.

I hope I’m not the only one who sees that as a strength rather than a weakness at least to some degree.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@jrod95

Hinduism is definitely polytheistic, but it isn’t inconsistent in the sense that it teaches “all religions lead to truth.” It’s not that each one is true because that’s impossible when many claim exclusivity.

Maybe the question shouldn’t be “are they true” but rather “are they effective?” If religion is basically relational and about creating a proper relationship between the individual and that which is both beyond and most essential about us, then perhaps the effectiveness of holding certain claims to be true is more important than whether they are true in any straight forward way.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Again that assumes that God the Son and the Son of God were coterminous and that has all the problems of particularity in the light of the practically infinite peopled universe of infinite from eternity which the NT writers could not have foreseen assuming they made that mapping. Despite their contemporary Philo seeing them.

[gbob]

Roger, a moderator moved my reply to your post to ‘another tangent thread.’ I suspect you hadn’t seen my response and now, you will have to go to that thread to see my response to your points. If I am to be isolated off in ‘tangent’ threads anytime I express my views when directly questioned, this place isn’t going to be any fun any more

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Klax

that has all the problems of particularity in the light of the practically infinite peopled universe of infinite from eternity

There is no evidence that the universe is infinite or eternal, but the evidence is to the opposite.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Relates

@Klax

that has all the problems of particularity in the light of the practically infinite peopled universe of infinite from eternity

There is no evidence that the universe is infinite or eternal, but the evidence is to the opposite.

Correct . .

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

Of course stars are not eternal either but that doesn’t mean we think they pop into existence from nothing. Apparently there have been generations of stars with materials being recycled. It isn’t known (and apparently it isn’t knowable) whether or not the material of this universe has been through other iterations of past big bang events. But so far as I know it can’t be ruled out either.

[NateH]

First time poster, long time lurker. I wanted to say one problem is people in evangelical circles (of which I am one) need to stop looking at the Bible as a single piece of literature. It needs to be acknowledged that it spans thousands of years, has multiple authors and editors, and has a variety of genres. I know we know this but when people say (not just here, I hear it at church a lot as well), “ if one thing is wrong or if Gen 1-11 isn’t literal then the resurrection isn’t literal,” I wonder if we really get the complexity of scripture. How ancient people talk about their history is not how moderns talk about our history. Modern christians and atheists like to smuggle modern expectations into and onto scripture all the time. We might not like the way ancients interacted or wrote their history, but we have to accept scripture for what it is and not what we what it to be.
Here are some resources and thoughts that have helped me on my journey:

1. Look to our Catholic brothers and sisters. I’m not saying become Catholic, but the Catholic Church has been building theological models around evolution for awhile. Also, they have embraced areas of science and scripture that Protestants haven’t ventured as much. On YouTube checkout society of Catholic scientist, has some interesting videos. Same with our Jewish neighbors, “ trouble with OT stuff,” yeah they have been wrestling with that for millenniums, literally.
2. Use Twitter to find people you wouldn’t normally find. I have enjoyed the podcast, onscript, which has faithful biblical scholars talking about their work and what it means for their faith, and if I liked the person I follow them on twitter and then twitter will start recommending others I might like to follow, and pretty soon you have a host of intelligent religious people you never knew existed and some idiots as well, but overall it has been positive and I have learned a lot that way.
3. You will be stumped by questions and ideas that are presented to you sometimes, but just about every question and objection you have heard has been raised before, keep searching for good answers, you will find them.
4. To go with 3, some (most?) Christians answers are not good, keep searching.
5. Don’t spend much time on message boards and YouTube comments, most people, present company included, don’t know as much as they think.
6. Most people think they are logical, however Christian and atheist arguments seem to be decided mostly with emotion. Arguments about hell and LGTBQ issues are rarely argued with cool logical heads.
7. Finally, does EC lead to atheism, nope, but unchecked presuppositions do. We all have them, and they paint us into intellectual corners we don’t even need to stand in.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Oh we can MarkD. The universe shows no sign of recycling or spawning whatsoever. Its expansion, driven by the expansion of space itself, is accelerating.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

Welcome to the forum, Nate! I second OnScript as a a great resource for current discussions in biblical scholarship.

[LM77 (Liam Maguire)]

Welcome @NateH. Thanks for your helpful contribution.

I completely agree about YouTube comments sections - abandon hope all ye who enter!

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@NateH

Use Twitter to find people you wouldn’t normally find.

Good post. Not sure I’m among the “intelligent religious people,” but find me @BecomingAdamCom.