OCF: I'm not aware I've posted anything that could be understood to mean the words above.>

Sorry, I thought you had argued that the the prevailing views of cosmology (old earth) and biology (evolution) were contrary to the Bible, and that science itself is biased against the Bible because it only considers natural explanations, to the exclusion of miraculous explanations.

~~~~

<<YouRang: BUT I WOULD SAY THIS: If you are going to make an accusation, you had better be prepared to defend it. And you better have more to offer than knowledge of secret of evil motives, bald assertions, strawman arguments, and the assumption that you are right just because you're a Bible believer.>

OCF: Because that is what defines the word "judge" as the Bible uses it. Got it.>

Where did I say that I was offering this as a definition of "judge" as the Bible uses it?

If there is some part of my statement that you disagree with, why not just say what it is and why you disagree?

~~~~

<OCF: Yes or no. If I refer to unbelievers in an analgous way with Satan, will you claim I have judged them?

<YouRang: In an *analogous* way, no. >

OCF: And I thought it couldn't get any worse.>

Ah, so that's your objection.

I was going to dispute your objection, but then I decided that it didn't really make a difference to the point I was making, so I'll go ahead and revise the comment I made to <playground player>:

< -- REVISED --
Well, you may have noticed that I have not defending scientists who make claims that the <prevailing views of modern science> disproves religion (and I think there are very few that do this). In fact, I've said that they're just as wrong as Christians who claim that religion disproves the <prevailing views of modern science>.

Honestly, I don't presume to know what the reason is for the correlation. I think it's clear that there won't be just one reason. But this is really getting beside the point: you argued against my statement that <Science is not a moral code, nor does it say anything about the existence of God> on the basis of a correlation between occupation and religious beliefs. As you now openly admit, such a correlation is open to many interpretations. So getting back to the point, which part of my statement do you actually disagree with? Do you think that:

(a) Science *is* a moral code,

or

(b) Science rules out the existence of God,

or both?

<Arrogant. And you're the one assigning yourself to the independent thinker group?>

Might you point to the quote? Or is this another unfounded accusation?

<As for your suggestion, I found truth. I don't apologize for that.>

You might at least be open to the possibility that you are wrong. As I said, there are many people around the world of other faiths who are equally convinced that *they* have found the truth and that *you're* dead wrong. The belief that you are infallibly correct and your tendency to judge others on that basis is what leads people to find you arrogant.

<<If you were born in Iran, you would almost certainly not be a Christian today. >

You're wrong.>

Sure. I mean, only 2% of people living in Iran are Christian, only 0.3% of those in Bangladesh, and only 0.1% of those in Afghanistan. But I'm sure that's just because they aren't capable of independent thought like you are. God gifted you with one of the world's only inquiring minds. Which is kind of funny, because he's now going to send all the others to hell for not being inquiring enough.

<I say to them <God, who made the world and everything in it ... blah-di-blah-di-blah ... He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.">

What makes me so sure I'm right is in fact my determination that God has given assurance of those things by raising Jesus from the dead.>

You insist that I accuse scientists in general of being liars. How many times do I have to say I don't? I do think they couldn't be more wrong about the spontaneous generation of life from non-life, and evolution. I believe they are totally wrong. And I also believe, based on comments made during the past 200 years or so, that the motivation for such beliefs is to get God out of human life. I don't see how you can interpret T.H. Huxley any other way.

Very well, I apologise for associating you with OCF's stance, I do recall that you've differed from that approach.

This is the thing: I sense (perhaps wrongly) that there is some sort of criticism of my position lurking within your posts, and I think it goes deeper than just our disagreement regarding acceptance of scientific theories. And yet I don't quite know what that criticism is.

- In your last post your said <this is where we differ>, and then talked about the church trying to win the world's approval. Is this a statement about my position?

- Later you referred to scientists as <so-called scientists>, which I understood to be a derogatory reference, suggesting that they are not *really* practicing science. If that's the case, then we differ there.

- Even in your most recent post, you mention <pseudoscience found in textbooks>, even though (according to your previous post) that "pseudoscience" is <scientific errors--discovered and corrected by scientists>. Calling it "pseudoscience" strikes me as an unjustly accusatory and unforgiving attitude toward honest mistakes made within the exceedingly difficult discipline of science.

It is these sorts of comments that lead me to associate your views with those held by OCF.

No, I don't see it *necessarily* as an "axe to grind", and even if it is, adopting an adversarial attitude serves no good purpose, IMO.

Obviously, there are millions of people who call themselves "humanists", and they represent a vast and wide range of views. About the only thing that they have in common is that they don't think there is any "higher authority" over humanity that will judge humanity.

They didn't necessarily arrive at that conclusion by being stupid. They didn't necessarily arrive there by being dishonest. They arrived there for any multitude of reasons. Those reasons, from their perspective in life, caused the humanist view to make sense to them.

There are a number of manifestos written by humanists. The fact that some of them write manifestos and others endorse manifestos written by others only shows that humanists are people who seek an understanding and purpose in life beyond the mere biological fact of our existence. They are seeking a philosophy that explains our consciousness, our sense that some things are good and other things are bad, and our desire to have principles by which to guide our lives.

In other words, these manifestos show that they are seeking something *like* a Bible.

Will they ever find and accept the Christian Bible? I think the answer is that some will forcefully reject it, some won't even know about it, but some may be open to it and at some point accept it.

I cannot explain these different responses from God's perspective, and thankfully, the Bible does not hold me responsible for explaining that. The Bible also does not hold me responsible for figuring out ahead of time which humanists will be open to the Bible and which ones will not.

The Bible only holds me responsible for being a representative of Christ, and this includes demonstrating things like love, kindness, respect, and forgiveness. I think the idea is that Christians who truly represent Christ will in some way be a positive influence to those who are open to the Bible.

(a) Science *is* a moral code,
or (b) Science rules out the existence of God,
or both? >

<whatthefat: You might at least be open to the possibility that you are wrong. As I said, there are many people around the world of other faiths who are equally convinced that *they* have found the truth and that *you're* dead wrong. The belief that you are infallibly correct and your tendency to judge others on that basis is what leads people to find you arrogant.>

I can live with that. Anyway, here's a couple of other things I've said on this forum.

<I realize in the realm of humanity, there's always some doubt.>

<OCF: You're wrong.>

<what: Sure. I mean, only 2% of people living in Iran are Christian, only 0.3% of those in Bangladesh, and only 0.1% of those in Afghanistan. But I'm sure that's just because they aren't capable of independent thought like you are. God gifted you with one of the world's only inquiring minds. Which is kind of funny, because he's now going to send all the others to hell for not being inquiring enough.>

Maybe this is a better answer: You're almost certainly wrong.

<I say to them <God, who made the world and everything in it ... blah-di-blah-di-blah ... He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.">

What makes me so sure I'm right is in fact my determination that God has given assurance of those things by raising Jesus from the dead.>

<what: Oh of course. All those poor Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc. Why doesn't somebody just tell them about Jesus rising>

There would be 3 responses, just as there was to Paul in Acts 17:

1. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked,

2. while others said, "We will hear you again on this [matter]."

So you are saying that Science rules out the existence of God? I thought we'd discussed many times that the existence of God is not a question that science can address or even attempts to address, and you had even agreed with this, so what am I missing?

<I can live with that. Anyway, here's a couple of other things I've said on this forum.

<I realize in the realm of humanity, there's always some doubt.>>

Okay, but I fail to understand how comments like that are consistent with comments like <I found truth> and <What makes me so sure I'm right is...>

How so? The odds are strongly against anyone being born in Iran ending up Christian, and probably even more so if they are born into a Muslim family. What makes you think you'd be somehow shielded from that effect? And do you think people born into Christian families are more deserving of salvation?

<There would be 3 responses, just as there was to Paul in Acts 17:

1. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked,

2. while others said, "We will hear you again on this [matter]."

3. However, some men joined him and believed,>

You're not getting my point, so let me try to clarify.

<whatthefat: So you are saying that Science rules out the existence of God? I thought we'd discussed many times that the existence of God is not a question that science can address or even attempts to address, and you had even agreed with this, so what am I missing>

I am saying there is some propensity for those in the realm of science to not only be unchristian, but to be antichristian. I am saying there is an obvious agenda of pursuing hypotheses that are antibible. I am saying the sheer magnitude of atheists/agnostics in the realm of science is far beyond any other plausible explanation than that science itself, as it exists in 2010, to a large degree is decidedly antireligion.

<How can you be so sure you've found the truth that you are willing to judge the majority of other people on Earth (even including most other Christians who have slightly different interpretations of the Bible), yet claim you are open to doubt?>

<whatthefat: How so? The odds are strongly against anyone being born in Iran ending up Christian, and probably even more so if they are born into a Muslim family. >

I wanted to couch my answer in the same terms you asked the question. I knew you'd recognize that. I hope it gave you a moment's reflection that you were charging me with arrogance about being sure of something when you'd been "almost certainly" sure of something.

<What makes you think you'd be somehow shielded from that effect? >

I was open to truth when it came to my attention. I guess neither of us is going to be too satisfied by me trying to play What If so I'll let that suffice.

<And do you think people born into Christian families are more deserving of salvation?>

No, but I do think that there is something of a reward to those who find the truth of Christianity that involves blessings upon their posterity. I've had that discussion before, it's not really all that exciting, it's full of guesses, it appeals to Scripture in a somewhat general way about a specific matter etc, but if you wish to hear my take, I could do so.

So really you are talking about Christianity, not the existence of God. This is a very different matter - one that the NAS statistics really say nothing about whatsoever.

<I am saying there is an obvious agenda of pursuing hypotheses that are antibible.>

Well, this is where I feel you leave the road of common sense and start sounding paranoid. Scientific theories based not on fact but on prejudice and opinion do not survive; that is the whole objective of the scientific method. That you can still think that such a conspiracy could be orchestrated within such a framework boggles the mind. For one thing, why would science be anti-Christian and not anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu instead? What a self-centered view of the world to have - truly, you almost never hear these crazy conspiracy theories coming from people outside of America.

<I am saying the sheer magnitude of atheists/agnostics in the realm of science is far beyond any other plausible explanation than that science itself, as it exists in 2010, to a large degree is decidedly antireligion.>

Why are scientists largely not subscribed to organized religions? Well, I can speak from my own experience. Scientists are trained to develop opinions based on evidence, and develop an understanding of the physical world based on that evidence. Using this method, many apparently supernatural events and phenomena are easily explained in terms of probability and the natural laws of science, respectively. Similarly, when subjected to rigorous investigation, no supernatural phenomena (e.g., mind reading, levitation, etc.) have ever been confirmed. Furthermore, scientific theories are so successful in describing the world around us that we are able to develop highly sophisticated technologies and make accurate predictions of many systems (both simple and complex).

Given the success of these methods, let's now apply them to the world of religion. First off, we have many different holy texts from a wide range of different cultures. But none of them agree with each other. Furthermore, the actual *interpretations* of these texts undergo constant revisions by successive generations; in the case of Catholicism we are even to believe that God has a representative on Earth who is able to communicate these changes, even when these changes are clearly politically-motivated. Most of them also contain accounts of events that defy basic laws of science (e.g., transformations, reincarnations, spontaneous generation, people living hundreds of years). The date of the texts also suggest they weren't written by somebody who actually observed these events. They also share common characteristics that suggest human rather than divine invention, including common mythologies, values that reflect the age in which they were written, and the extensive role of 'prophets'.

On top of all this, despite many prominent scientists across history having been religious, the Church has openly attacked them in cases where scientific findings have not agreed with the in vogue Biblical interpretation. In each case, when the scientific evidence has become overwhelming, the Church has revised its stance.

This is a very brief introduction to the barriers - things get more difficult to reconcile from here. Worst of all, if you choose to believe religion A, then those of religions B, C, D, E, etc. (plus those of A1, A2, A3, etc.) will outright attack you and tell you that you are immoral and doomed in the afterlife. If we suppose then that A is indeed the right religion, then many children raised in other religions who may never have even come in contact with religion A are automatically doomed. Frankly, if this is the work of God then it looks a bloody mess alongside the beauty of the laws of nature.

<Is that really so outrageous?>

<whatthefat: And you think that was an inherent trait that you were born with which would persist even if you had been born into a different family in a different country?>

Yes. I'll keep answering, but I am not optimistic this What If scenario is going to play out to a conclusion you're satisfied with.

<OCF: I wanted to couch my answer in the same terms you asked the question. I knew you'd recognize that. I hope it gave you a moment's reflection that you were charging me with arrogance about being sure of something when you'd been "almost certainly" sure of something.>

<whatthefat: Almost certain is not certain, I think my wording was fine. If you think "almost certain" is an inappropriate way to describe the likelihood of an event that is 98% probable then that is fine.>

<YouRang: In an *analogous* way, no. >

OCF: That is very hard for me to accept at face value. Perhaps I have not pursued the matter far enough. Would you say I was acting in an unchristian manner if I were to refer to an unbeliever in an analgous way with Satan?>

I don't see why that should be hard.

But anyway, my answer is the same:

<In an *analogous* way, no.

I can't quite feel positive that you and I would agree on what "analogous" means in this context (not that you by any means answer to *me*).>

Back to square one. Maybe you should agree to disagree, there will never be a "winner" in this debate.

When you start calling people who don't agree with you intellectually inferior for not accepting theories predicated on an unproveable foundation, then I think there's a problem.