Hitchens writes about his cancer

Perham1, Cain and Abel is a story about the proper worship of God. In the story there only being one. It doesn't get into details but apparently Abel worshipped correctly and Cain did not. Out of jealousy due to a spiritual issue Cain murders Abel instead of following the model Cain had in Abel. The story is all about religion/morality. Family is just the backdrop.
 
Can you explain it please?
_________________________________________________

My point is that based upon science and the theory of our origin, that somehow a chemical reaction occurred from non-living matter forming a peptide which then grew to a single cell organism and then all of the species on earth is as rediculous a theory as a being created the earth in 6 days. The spontaneous "evolution" theory sounds real neat and scientific but it doesnt hold up under any scrutiny. The universe is a vast, unexplored, unexplained and mysterious place from which if you truly understood it, your head would probably explode. Regardless of your spiritual, religious, or scientific beliefs, an honest analysis would conclude that this planet got some help from somewhere or something getting started.
 
It is possible that a supreme being did start it all.

But then what makes you think that supreme being is the same one mentioned in the Christian bible? Because the Christian bible says so?
 
Dismissed it? No.

But then if you had an answer I assume you would have given it.

There can probably be other reasons: social, psychological, peer pressure (social), family preference (social), tle, etc., but I don't really care why Mr. X is a Christian or Mr. Y is a Muslim. Even less so when Mr. X was raised in a Christian environment and Mr. Y in a Muslim one.
 
Erich Auerbach makes the pitch far better than I can for a rationalist approach to biblical veracity. He doesn't exactly argue that the bible is true, but he does argue, and in my opinion with profound effect, that the writer of Genesis apparently had a maniacal commitment to the truth--to the exclusion of all other considerations.

I give you Odysseus' Scar.

I hope that you will read it.
 
Erich Auerbach makes the pitch far better than I can for a rationalist approach to biblical veracity. He doesn't exactly argue that the bible is true, but he does argue, and in my opinion with profound effect, that the writer of Genesis apparently had a maniacal commitment to the truth--to the exclusion of all other considerations.


Thanks for the link.

Not to pick nits, but the more credible scholars tend to say that Genesis had more than one writer, which explains the two differing creation stories.

But a ratlionalist approach to religion can only get you so far, and imo not far enough when it comes to religion. The basis of religion, imo, transcends the rational. Where religion gets into trouble with me is when people try to supplant areas of science with religion.
 
The creation of life and the theory of evolution are not connected. I do not know why evolution foes always confuse the two although maybe this is because evolution challenges the claim that everything just popped into existence. My wife confuses the two and I have given up talking to her about the subject because she does not have the scientific background or ability to understand the robust fossil and biochemical evidence for evolution.

My ten year old daughter on the other hand just gets it. We look at skeletons and embryos and she just gets that there was almost certainly a common ancestor between all animals. You can look at the bone structure and embryonic development and just tell.

The whale is the most interesting one because the bone structure especially of the upper body is not that different from our bone structure. Why does a whale have five finger bones?
 
Doesn't the origin of life have to be explained by evolutionary processes in the naturalist model? I don't see a great disconnect between the two. There are different processes at work maybe but they are still natural, evolutionary processes.
 
The original of life was not by evolution or related to evolution.

The scientific theory for the potential origin of life primarily relies upon self-replication by various methods (nucleic acids or proteins - I think). It is mainly based on biochemistry which means I am close or at the limits of my knowledge and will defer to someone more knowledgeable. I do know that the primordial earth when bombarded with radiation (like it was) creates the proteins needed for life. I am not sure we can or could ever get closer than this "proof" given the time frame needed (and that passed) for life to emerge.

I do know that it is not really connected with evolution beyond being the potential starting point.
 
Doesn't the origin of life have to be explained by evolutionary processes in the naturalist model?

Simply put: no.
 
If not evolotionary, then revolutionary? Are we talking huge leaps of development? When I used the term evolutionary, I mean step by step, slow moving processes regardless of whether chemical or biological. Am I wrong? This is how I hear you all describing it.
 
Monahorns,

No one knows the details of the transition from non-living to living. One fascinating hypothesis is the RNA transition.

Micheal Yaris produced a very readable book called the RNA World -The Link .

RNA is a simpler and more stable chemical than DNA. It has the potential (in some configurations) to act as a template for protein synthesis and, again in some configurations under some conditions, can be self-replicating.

many biochemists believe that RNA may have been the first 'life', the first self-replicating molecule upon which selection could work to bring about the evolution of more complex molecules and then cells.

texasflag.gif
 
Isn't RNA used within the cell for building activities? It is copied from the DNA and then shuttled off to be used like a blueprint.
 
In my 28 hours of biology and 16 hours of chemistry in college, I do not remember the origin of life ever being discussed. I think I learned what little that I know about the theories from Isaac Asimov. I remember evolution being discussed innumerable times in biology and organic chemistry classes.
 
Did you read it? I understand that it is long, but it will more than repay you with its insight and wisdom, whether you're religious or not.

You mentioned many things that you didn't care about that people might use to justify their particular faith. You did not mention, among those things, the practice of textual analysis. But now, when a tool of rationalism, such as textual analysis, is invoked, you dismiss it as not being adequate to the religious task. So if we cannot use irrationalism, and if we cannot use rationalism, then where else can we turn?

Didn't mean to ignore you. I did read that piece, and some others about Auerbach's piece. I haven't yet synthesized that with this topic, though. It seems Auerbach's article is one of literary criticism, with an emphasis on realism, and while there is textual analysis being done it's being done in a literary fashion. And while literary analysis can, of course, be rational it's not, for lack of a better term, scientific.

Anything can be used to justify one's faith. Heartburn, migraines, gas, death of a loved one, recovering from cancer. My problems arise when people try to use their holy text as either a history book or a science book (geology, astronomy, biology, etc.). The earth isn't 10,000 years old just because the Christian bible says so; the earth wasn't covered with water just because the bible says so. For that matter, Jesus didn't walk on water or come back from the dead or will save you from your sins just because the bible says so. That last item is pure theology, though, so you're free to believe if you want.
 
Auerbach's piece of literary criticism doesn't supply the same answers to me that it does to you regarding the reason for one's faith in the Christian god.

And given that we don't have the original "autographs" of the books of the bible (merely copies, sometimes made centuries after the fact), basing one's view on "how" it was written doesn't seem to be that strong of an argument.

Just my opinion.

The bible is a book, written by man. If that works for you, then great.
 
I apologize if I'm missing something, but it seems that you're still just using the text in the fashion that I claimed: belief in the Christian god exists because it says so in the Christian bible.

Well, to answer your original question, I don’t believe in the Christian God (or the Judeo-Christian God) merely because of what the bible says, but also because of what it does not say, and also because of how it says the things it says.

How it says what it says is not really different from just "what it says", from our perspective. Now, from a literary criticism point of view it may make a large difference. But that the biblical God was a different concept, or that the writers (or copiers) were skilled at their craft, it really still just comes down to believing in that particular version of God because your holy book says so.
 
It's important to remember that Auerbach was not offering a literary criticism of the stories of the patriarchs or of anything else.

That could well be, but from what I've read (article in London Review of Books) Auerbach was speaking about literary realism very definitely in a literary criticism perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top