“The creation accounts in Genesis 1/2 seem to be describing what the author(s) believed to be actual events. Throughout the Bible and early Church history (pre-Enlightenment) they were referred to as such.”
The fact that Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4 to the end of the chapter were put together, despite their many differences, strongly suggests that they were not conceived of as modern-style historical or scientific reporting. The claim that thinking was uniform pre-Enlightenment is an Enlightenment lie. In reality, a variety of views on just what components in the Genesis accounts of creation were more figurative existed from the early church throughout medieval time. Excesses of inventing figurative meanings led to a more literalistic attitude in the Reformation and counter-Reformation time frame. On the Edge of Eternity: The Antiquity of the Earth in Medieval and Early Modern Europe by Ivano Dal Prete goes into much detail on this. Pop atheism, like Dawkins or Sagan, tends to be highly inaccurate in its historical claims.
“naivety of atheism is its dubious application of methodological naturalism to questions of origins — the Universe’s origin (if it had one), the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, etc. It seems laughable to argue that the origin of the Universe can be solely attributed to an inevitable consequence of scientific law, that only “natural” causes are valid causes of the first life, etc.”
“Methodological naturalism” is a problematic term. Science does not have the capacity to address non-physical causes and processes, so it is limited to “natural” – “under the sun” in the phrase of Ecclesiastes. Thus, it cannot directly address where the “natural” ultimately comes from, nor non-physical questions such as ethics, aesthetics, theology, etc. But natural methods in no way imply philosophical naturalism; that is an atheistic error that is widely repeated by ID and YEC advocates. Driving to church instead of assuming that God will miraculously transport me there is using natural methods but does not imply a naturalistic worldview.
“The Bible, to which Christians refer to as justification for their beliefs, is obviously a product of human thought.”
If the Bible is merely a product of human thought, without any divine inspiration, then indeed there is not good reason for Christianity. But if the Bible is inspired by God, there isn’t any way for Him to communicate without making use of human thought. How can one test whether there is divine inspiration behind the human thought? Either proving or disproving that is not easy.
“There is no rational reason to suppose that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.”
There are quite a few rational reasons to suppose that. We have the historical records of the gospel accounts, and evidence of the influence of Christianity from the mid-first century on. Hostile authorities were not able to provide evidence against the claim. One might also consider the impact that belief has had on people as evidence. Considering those is not irrational. Whether one judges them to outweigh rational reasons to suppose that He didn’t, or whether one relies on irrational reasons to judge either way, are other questions.
“The purpose of a god is usually to explain things that we don’t fully understand.”
That’s another Enlightenment myth. Some stories relating to deities do appear to be explanations of the unknown (the story that Pan transformed while jumping in the water and thus became a half-goat, half-fish that got made into a constellation sounds rather like the Greeks had learned of the constellation without the explanation), but that is not at all the focus of the Bible.
“There isn’t a shred of empirical evidence for a god. One must infer a god. The evidence is interpreted in a manner that supports a god, and the god is used to explain the evidence.”
There isn’t a shred of empirical evidence against a god. One must assume a lack of gods. The evidence is interpreted in a manner that supports the non-existence of gods, and the non-existence of gods is used to explain the evidence. Be careful to consider how an argument can cut against your position, before treating it as a great argument against another position. What constitutes empirical evidence?
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
As usual, Dawkins displays philosophical incompetence when talking about such matters. How has he determined what properties a universe should or should not have if it is indifferent or not? And if there is no evil or good, then it is not wrong to claim that God exists when he doesn’t; Dawkins’ whole goal in writing is invalidated by his own premises.
“Which is more reasonable: Christ supernaturally rose from the dead, or early Christians enthusiastically stretched the truth concerning this undeniably charismatic figure? I think the latter is the more rational assumption: it is natural, and we even can observe this tendency throughout early Church history. One must also remember that Christianity didn’t really begin to explode until after Constantine made it the official state religion. Joseph Smith claimed to have received tablets of gold, and lots of people believed him. A few blokes claimed they saw Jesus after he was crucified, and lots of people believed them.”
Judging which is more reasonable will reflect the particular presuppositions that you bring. The assertion of the first Christians was that God had worked contrary to the well-known laws of nature that are involved in the fact that dead people stay dead. This is agreeing with science. Christianity grew quite explosively in the first century, though Constantine’s legalizing of Christianity certainly promoted greater spread. Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion but did not forbid paganism.
What is so “good” about faith?<
“Faith” is a term abused in pop atheism. Realistically, it means putting trust in something. Reasons behind that trust may be good or bad, and one might have a bad reason for trusting something that actually is trustworthy. Faith may be good or bad.
“’Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.’
he can study them as long as he likes but he isn’t going to convince me they are the product of chance or random deviations.”
Chance and random need to be clearly defined. Certain aspects of biological change are well-described by a probabilistic mathematical model, and many others are not humanly predictable. In those senses, we can say that biological organisms are the product of chance. But there are many non-random factors as well. And none of that tells us whether there might be an intelligent agent working out a goal by use of these “random” processes.
