Esquire Theme by Matthew Buchanan
Social icons by Tim van Damme

07

Jan

(Source: dorrismccomics)

07

Oct

No, you won’t find any science in the Bible. That’s because science was invented in the 1600’s.

You won’t find science in the Magna Carta, the American Constitution, your Maths textbook, nor in the records of World War I and the American Civil War. You won’t find any science in the Leviathan, the Odyssey, the works of Shakespeare, War and Peace, nor in Kafka’s novels. There is no science in your political representatives’ campaign leaflets.

Thousands of the most important books and knowledge throughout history (and still being written today) do not have a scrap of modern science. That doesn’t make them “false” or “irrational” or that they have no place in our society. 

Science does not set out to be the ultimate truth. Science does not hold the monopoly of rational thought. 

That’s like saying a pair of pliers is the only tool required and all others are petty and inferior. There is scientific knowledge, but there is also logic, history, mathematics, politics, ethics and philosophy. And yes, there is theology too. Sometimes you need a hammer and a saw too.

10

Sep

desertmanian said: The Revolutionary War is one reason we’re big on the right to bear arms haha

Makes sense, I suppose. However, I’d have no issue if someone wanted to own a 1700’s rifle. They take about 20 minutes to reload…! I don’t think the 2nd amendment is exactly relevant for today’s weapons :/

What about Iowa’s new ruling that blind people are allowed guns? I would say banning a blind person from having a gun is perfectly acceptable. Just as banning a blind person from driving is acceptable. I think there should/must always be restrictions for safety reasons when it comes to guns and cars and other very lethal things. In the UK, you can get a gun license and I know a fair few people who own hunting rifles. 

 

Guns

As a Brit, I reeeeeeally don’t understand gun culture or why Americans argue for the “right to bear arms”. I particularly disagree with “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. 

31,672 people were killed with firearms in America alone in 2010. That is a staggering number! According to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center a gun in the home is more likely to be used to commit suicide or to threaten or kill an intimate than used to deter an attacker. Each year in the USA, the average number of under 14 yr olds killed by guns is 72.

In America, there were 11 gun fatalities where a three to five year old pulled the trigger (from Jan. 1 to June 9, 2013). There were 10 non-fatal shootings by toddlers aged two to five years old. 

So is the only way to stop a bad toddler with a gun is…. what exactly?

Interested to hear some views on this controversial issue!

Predestination II — Problems

Continued from here.

1.  If God is determining every aspect of our lives, are we free and do we have free will?

Aha. Now here is where things get tricky. I have already established that the Bible states that God “determines” all things, and all things occur from His purpose. Here is what I reckon is going on.

Free will is the idea that when we do something (count to ten, blow a raspberry, commit fraud etc) we chose to do so because we have the power over our own actions and decisions. It is our choice, and not someone else’s. 

A robot does not have free will. If you don’t know anything about computer programming, don’t worry. The general idea is that computers follow the instructions “if…., then….” So the robot may be programmed: “if collision with wall, then reverse”. The robot does not choose. It responds. When I program the robot “if identify a bank, then rob the bank with deadly force” then the actions of the robot are my doing and I am to blame. In the same way, a knife or a gun is not responsible for murder — the wielder is. 

Imagine I hooked you up to a computer and programmed your nerves like the robot with the command — “if you see a policeman, then steal his hat”. In that case, I am at fault; you were merely following the electrical current travelling through your nerves.

But hang on. Every single action, thought and emotion we have are merely “electrical current travelling through nerves”. When you choose to throw a punch this is the result of neurons firing in your brain. Memory, emotion, thoughts, movement. Maybe you had a troubled childhood, maybe you were taught to punch well, maybe your history with the other person has made you really irrational. All these factors and so many more are the way you’d make “a free decision”. 

This is especially true if you believe in materialism. Materialism is the idea that the world is governed and constructed by physical matter and energy alone. This is the assumption we make when we’re doing science and the view atheists take (usually).

In that case, it is not just neurons firing that govern your decision, but on a smaller scale the movement of atoms and electrons and energy waves etc. One atom hit another and made it accelerate. Emotions, feelings, thoughts, memory.  An action you “freely made” is like the final domino falling after a long line of cause-and-effect. That line goes all the way back to the beginning of the Universe, when the first bit of matter got the first jolt of energy.

So hang on. (If we are still assuming materialism) a criminal is accountable when he commits a crime, but is not accountable if his brain was programmed to commit a crime by a crazy computer engineer. Surely all of it boils down to the movement of atoms. Where do we draw the line of accountability? 

This is a huge question for ethics. As a rule of thumb, a free decision governed by internal stuff (memory, thoughts, feelings, emotion, sensations). A decision governed by external stuff (a gun to your head, deceptive circumstances, electrodes in your brain) is not free. 

That’s when we assume materialism. What happens when we bring God into the picture? And as we said before, He determines all things.

So rather than the inevitable line of random atoms being in charge, God is in charge (and He uses atoms and energy to achieve this, in my opinion).

God knows everything. He can very literally see all the atoms moving around, right back from the start of time until the moment you put your head on the pillow tonight, and to the distant future. And just in that way, He has watched us make every decision and done every action. And He has designed the Universe to allow that to happen. The flow of atoms are His choice. He knew from the moment the atoms started moving that they would lead to your conception, your life, all your memories and emotions and all the decisions you will make as a result.

So you see, you are free. Your free decisions are based on your experience/thoughts. They are a knee-jerk response from your unique brain. God does not work against our wishes/choices, but still everything happens as he determined perfectly. Because He knew our wishes, how we would make the decision… everything. 

This is a very complicated argument, and I hope it in a small way make sense. I’ll pause here as this is already very long, but there will be another section that may clear things up further. 

Predestination.

Dedicated to donono, who asked about this very complex topic! 


As a short answer, I believe strongly in predestination. I believe God has determined every aspect of our lives, for both believers and non-believers. 

I make this assertion because the concept of predestination is repeated clearly in the New Testament. Here are some of the key words:

"πρόθεσιν" (prothesin) meaning "purpose" 

ἐξελέξατο (exelexato) meaning “chosen”

προορίσας (proorisas) meaning “predestined”

There are many verses, but here are two to consider:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Romans 8:28 ESV (bold added)

 

He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Saviour, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

2 Timothy 1:10 ESV (bold added)

 

Ephesians 1:4-14 is a nice reiteration.

 

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace  that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment — to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Seems like an open and shut case…. but some problems arise when predestination is in the picture. 

1. If God is determining every aspect of our lives, are we free and do we have free will?

2. If we don’t have free will, how can we be held accountable for our sins?

More soon!

08

Sep

The actions of Christians and the teachings of the Bible do not often correspond. People are imperfect, are selfish, are led astray, sin, and break the rules. Using law-breakers to demonstrate the weakness of the law is self-defeating.

That Tricky Word: “Faith”

What is faith according to the Bible? Hebrews 11:1 is an excellent verse but the limitations of the English words are masking the full statement.

“Now faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

What does “substance” mean? The Greek word is hypostatis, which can mean the substance or an entity, but it also means a setting under or support (foundation), confident expectation, an assured impression and a mental realizing.

Literally the Greek of Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is the reality of things being hoped for, the proof of things not being seen.” 

 Now, this is the kind of definition of the faith we use everyday. You get in the car and drive on faith. You don’t know if you”re going to make it to your destination alive or not, but you go. You have faith that the food you buy that is grown by strangers is not harmful, so you eat it. You have faith that the doctors you see are competent. So you put yourself in their hands. If you did not have faith, if you did not trust others you wouldn’t be able to drive, eat, or get help in times of sickness. Your life would be very difficult.

That’s not all. The Bible has lots to say about the results of faith. There’s the end result — salvation. However, there are also continuous results, which are also described. Here’s a selection of verses which talk about these.

Ephesians 2:8-9, We are saved by faith. — FINAL

 Rom. 1:17, We live by faith. — CONTINUOUS

 Rom. 4:13, We receive righteousness by faith. — BOTH

 Rom. 5:1, We are justified in Christ by faith — BOTH

 Rom. 5:2, We have access to God’s grace by faith. — BOTH

 2 Cor. 1:24, We stand firm in our belief by faith. — CONTINUOUS

 Gal. 3:14, We receive the promise of the Spirit by faith. — CONTINUOUS

1 Tim. 1:4, We do God’s work by faith. — CONTINUOUS

Gal. 5:5, We wait for the return of Christ by faith. — FINAL

Amongst many, many, many things, I’ve been to Singapore! There was a lovely polar bear in the zoo and they gave him a fish to hunt. It was rather blood-thirsty. RIP fish.

Amongst many, many, many things, I’ve been to Singapore! There was a lovely polar bear in the zoo and they gave him a fish to hunt. It was rather blood-thirsty. RIP fish.

*Sidles in*

Hello! Anyone want me to write about anything? Apologetics to life history update or my opinion on current affairs to film reviews…?

07

Sep

04

Jan

What has the Bible (and Qu’ran) ever done for us? (replying to deconversionmovement’s reblog)
Sorry this took me so long to reply! Life has been incredibly busy. 
Here I am disagreeing with Mr. Harris’ above statement that the Bible and Qu’ran are worthless ancient texts that have been thrown aside in the light of science and maths. deconversionmovement took the time to respond, which is linked to in the title. 

[Harris makes a mistake about dating the Bible and Qu’ran] “I guess we agree on that.”

Good, I’m glad we share common ground here at least. 

"This is where I begin to have problems.  If you want to say that without the Bible we wouldn’t have democracy, you must concede that the Bible was an indirect influence—and that’s only if (!) you’re speaking of democracy in the Western sense; in other words, the democracy founded in the US."

I’m not saying we wouldn’t have democracy without the Bible (for the basis of simplistic tribalism is mirrored with democracy and who knows, maybe that would have morphed into something) I’m saying we would not have the democracy we recognise without the Bible. 
Before I qualify this further as I had not gone into detail previously, please allow me to state my argument clearly. I disagree with Sam Harris’s opinion that all of Western brilliance (science, Law, ethics, democracy) is a result of overthrowing the values of the Bible and argue that all these values and institutions would not be possible without the Bible and the Qu’ran.
Firstly, please note I had not mentioned the United States anywhere in what I had written (and for the record I’m not an American citizen and have never lived there). As influential as North America is and has been, it has not been the founder of democracy. 
(I’ve studied Political Philosophy, but I can’t cite everything due to lack of resources, so apologies.) As you clearly state, democracy was founded in Ancient Greece 500 years before Christ. They invented the word, they started the whole voting thing, and set up things for the rest of us thousands of years later.
Unfortunately it’s not quite as clear cut as this. For the Athenians who coined the word “democracy” meaning “rule by the people”, they only defined “people” as free men over the age of 20, so 10% of their population. They were restricted by a group of elite who inherited the role (Areopagus) Much of their politics was defined by random lottery as well, (i.e. the Council and the dikasteria which had absolute power over the Assembly) so this is actually the purest form of democracy. The democracy we now use is very different to the Greek one. If you would like to read more, I recommend the Britannica encyclopedia: http://goo.gl/6Stia
The Greek’s democracy did not last long at all. Reason? Without authoritarian governing, it was extremely vulnerable and unprotected. It’s essentially a society ripe for invasion. Anarchism has the same problem. And so the Spartans invaded, snuffed it out and placed an oligarchy instead. The Athenians’ democracy as a pure system is utterly vulnerable and can never be established on its own. Ever.
Plato and Aristotle immortalised political philosophy and wrote huge amounts on autocracy/tyranny versus democracy/polity. They referred to democracy as rule by the mob, and were the most influential power in its decline.
And the greatest difference between the Greek democracy and our own is the word “right”, for which there is no Greek word. More on this later.
Authoritarianism is the stronghold of politics for the vast majority of human history, and this is due to human warfare. It is easier to win a war against an enemy in when you can force your subjects to fight, and without needing to convince them. To get power, you need warfare. To keep power, you need warfare. To win warfare, you need power. This is a self-perpetuating circle which leads to tribal chiefs, kings, emperors, caesars, sultans and so on. It is the default position due to its efficiency and affair with human anger/revenge/violence/love of power.
The Roman republic, came next, though it was not a democracy but a republic. However, it sustained the ideas behind the Athenian democracy alive for a long while, and should not be forgotten. Famously, the Roman Republic was turbulent and often overthrown by tyrants in the face of warfare and disaster. This ultimately resulted in the Roman Empire, ruled by an Emperor and the republic was lost for good. 
Constantine was then the first Emperor to legalise Christianity by allowing it to coexist alongside the paganism norms. From there you get a very complicated and ultimately disastrous Byzantine Empire… And for the Medieval period a huge array of monarchs across Europe.
Where am I going with this? Well, ultimately democracy as a pure influential idea and as a practical political form did not last. What then allowed it to reign supreme in the 21st century?
The answer is:
a) The Magna Carta.
This is a Christian document written in 1215, inspired directly from the Bible, which and legally limits the monarch in favour of the liberty of the people (but only noblemen). It was preceded by the Charter of Liberties in 1110. It is essentially a legal document that states the rights of all people. It later formed the foundation of many constitutions, including the American.
b) Certain people.
This includes Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Calvin, John Locke, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, David Hume, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, George Berkeley, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Pierre Bayle, Isaac Newton, Francis Hutcheson, William Thomson, Blaise Pascal.
The combination of these philosophers resulted in empiricism (aka science and the scientific method) ethics (and therefore our laws), modern mathematics, as well as democracy. Between them they inspired many social uprisings including the French Revolution, the Industrial revolution, Civil War in Britain, and the American Revolution, invented Parliament and Constitutional Monarchy, and later Parliamentary Democracy. Through them we have suffrage, but the most important part of modern democracy of all — rights for all people. And because of that we have women’s rights and suffrage and the abolition of slavery, and in the UK at least, the abolition of the death penalty.
This group of people have heralded every part of what we call modern development, in which each and every person is valuable and free. They even led to the beginnings of modern atheism. This is not something borne of the Greek philosophies, great as they were. Every one of them were outspoken and influential Christian theologians. Their works were directly influenced by the Bible. Some are Catholic, some are protestant, some are highly unorthodox, but all of them used the Bible directly for their works. 
You see, the Bible gave us the idea that each and every one of us has rights. This is utterly unique in human history, and an incredibly powerful idea at that.
—
You quote Georges Cuvier, who was also a devout Christian and was a Professor of Theology, and even harmonised punctuated equilibrium with the Bible. While the Bible probably did not influence his scientific findings, it formed the science that allowed him to do so. 
As for the separation of Church and State, for the record I clamour for such a thing in my country. It’s a wholly irrelevant point.
—-
You then list many things that are supposedly anti-science in the Bible, but that is not really what I am arguing here. If you want me to discuss them, please say. Regardless of the truth of the Bible, whether God exists or anything, whether it has an ounce of scientific worth or not, this document has triggered everything we define modern. Including science itself. Most importantly, the idea that all human beings have rights and worth. That the poor and helpless should be aided. It is not the witterings of barbarians, but has real wisdom that now affect you and me every single day.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 ESV



"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:16-17 ESV



"Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." John 13:16 ESV

And yes, even in the Old Testament:

"Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."  Proverbs 31:8-9 ESV



"Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause." Isaiah 1:17 ESV


—
The Greeks provided a foundation of mathematics, yes, and the other cultures, but it did not result in anywhere near what we use today. After all, numerals and characters are not sufficient for algebra  equations and complex sums. As a simplistic example, the Greeks did discover irrational numbers but ignored them. The Muslim Abū Kāmil Shujāʿ ibn Aslam was the first mathematician to use them as solutions, and inspired Fibonacci (who invented numbers). Modern mathematics was defined by the group of people I listed previously, especially Pascal. So while the Greeks and Romans had a firm grip on geometry and practical maths, the beauty and intricacy of theoretical maths, algebra, probability and other such advanced subjects were only explored because it was seen as a form of worship of God. And I need not tell you that such mathematics has led to computers. Without such motivation, no other culture or person has got very far (that we know of).
—
Yes, other cultures had laws, but not ones used worldwide today. The Laws that have stuck and spread have been inspired directly by the Bible, or the Qu’ran depending on where you are. 
The ethics that you recognise as commons sense that you have been raised with and work by is from the Bible and from philosophy derived directly from the Bible. 
As for the lists of people who used forms of empiricism, it has not formed the basis of modern science nor the scientific method. They are sadly irrelevent as a result. If we did use the Babylonian way to work out our chemistry and particle physics, there is a brilliant example of a non-Biblically inspired philosophy knowledge, but sadly we do not. 
Islam provided Abu Rayhan al-Biruni the scope of knowledge for his works. As Islam spread, so ideas from across all of Asia were brought together. Other Ancient Empires had done similar sweeps, but not so successfully kept this knowledge and it has not affected our modern predicament. Islam had also merged many ideas with Christianity (particularly in mathematics and science) and such knowledge spread worldwide. 
So no, Galileo did not find a list of instructions as to the scientific method in the Bible, but his work was directly influenced by and intertwined with the Bible. How? His work was about looking for Laws of the Universe, something which the scientific method still includes today. And such Laws were assumed because the Bible states that God is the Lawgiver of the Universe. His discoveries are the reason his is the Father of modern science, not because he first thought it up, but because he was one of the giants our science stands on. The others who got there first were lost to history and time. 
You then go on to state:

"Science, like mathematics, philosophy and law, developed over time and many people—from different regions of the world and different religious backgrounds—contributed to its development.  What was that about people talking about matters they’re ignorant of?  Take your own advice."

Well, having studied this for several years, and as a scientist, I have some claim of knowledge about this subject.
There have been many cultural influences for science, the law, ethics, mathematics, but the foundation and over-ruling inspiration for what we recognise of these today is the Bible and the Qu’ran. That does not mean their claims are true, that God exists, that our ethics/law/science/democracy is the best, or anything else, but merely that this is an extraordinary phenomenon for a couple of ancient texts. Sam Harris is wrong to have ignored this. 
—-
You then list some of the barbaric things in the Bible, but to summarise briefly, you should not mistake “present in the Bible” as “condoned by the Bible and God”. I can look at these individually if you like, but for now I will move on. I cannot speak for the Qur’an as I do not know it well enough. I also did not discuss it in this part of my argument. 
—-
You then inform me I’m using the Argument from Distinction, but nowhere have I tried to argue that this means God is real and the Bible is true. I have argued why it has founded the “Western Way”, that is all. 
—-
Perhaps Sam Harris has changed his mind, then, or I horribly misunderstood his two books, “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values” and “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason”. Probably my fault.
—
In summary, it seems you think I’m trying to tell you that the Bible and Qu’ran laid out in bullet points the scientific method, democracy, ethics and so on. This is not the case, I am saying the Bible and the Qu’ran provided the philosophy, inspiration, motivation and foundation for our modern establishments. While we may not agree with these texts, we should not deny the weight of this contribution out of spite, as Mr Harris appears to. As a result I might argue that these books are almost unbelievably influential for their humble origins, but that is probably a matter of opinion. Perhaps any old book would have done the same, it was just a matter of coincidence and timing.  

What has the Bible (and Qu’ran) ever done for us? (replying to deconversionmovement’s reblog)

Sorry this took me so long to reply! Life has been incredibly busy. 

Here I am disagreeing with Mr. Harris’ above statement that the Bible and Qu’ran are worthless ancient texts that have been thrown aside in the light of science and maths. deconversionmovement took the time to respond, which is linked to in the title. 

[Harris makes a mistake about dating the Bible and Qu’ran]
“I guess we agree on that.”

Good, I’m glad we share common ground here at least. 

"This is where I begin to have problems.  If you want to say that without the Bible we wouldn’t have democracy, you must concede that the Bible was an indirect influence—and that’s only if (!) you’re speaking of democracy in the Western sense; in other words, the democracy founded in the US."

I’m not saying we wouldn’t have democracy without the Bible (for the basis of simplistic tribalism is mirrored with democracy and who knows, maybe that would have morphed into something) I’m saying we would not have the democracy we recognise without the Bible. 

Before I qualify this further as I had not gone into detail previously, please allow me to state my argument clearly. I disagree with Sam Harris’s opinion that all of Western brilliance (science, Law, ethics, democracy) is a result of overthrowing the values of the Bible and argue that all these values and institutions would not be possible without the Bible and the Qu’ran.

Firstly, please note I had not mentioned the United States anywhere in what I had written (and for the record I’m not an American citizen and have never lived there). As influential as North America is and has been, it has not been the founder of democracy. 

(I’ve studied Political Philosophy, but I can’t cite everything due to lack of resources, so apologies.) As you clearly state, democracy was founded in Ancient Greece 500 years before Christ. They invented the word, they started the whole voting thing, and set up things for the rest of us thousands of years later.

Unfortunately it’s not quite as clear cut as this. For the Athenians who coined the word “democracy” meaning “rule by the people”, they only defined “people” as free men over the age of 20, so 10% of their population. They were restricted by a group of elite who inherited the role (Areopagus) Much of their politics was defined by random lottery as well, (i.e. the Council and the dikasteria which had absolute power over the Assembly) so this is actually the purest form of democracy. The democracy we now use is very different to the Greek one. If you would like to read more, I recommend the Britannica encyclopedia: http://goo.gl/6Stia

The Greek’s democracy did not last long at all. Reason? Without authoritarian governing, it was extremely vulnerable and unprotected. It’s essentially a society ripe for invasion. Anarchism has the same problem. And so the Spartans invaded, snuffed it out and placed an oligarchy instead. The Athenians’ democracy as a pure system is utterly vulnerable and can never be established on its own. Ever.

Plato and Aristotle immortalised political philosophy and wrote huge amounts on autocracy/tyranny versus democracy/polity. They referred to democracy as rule by the mob, and were the most influential power in its decline.

And the greatest difference between the Greek democracy and our own is the word “right”, for which there is no Greek word. More on this later.

Authoritarianism is the stronghold of politics for the vast majority of human history, and this is due to human warfare. It is easier to win a war against an enemy in when you can force your subjects to fight, and without needing to convince them. To get power, you need warfare. To keep power, you need warfare. To win warfare, you need power. This is a self-perpetuating circle which leads to tribal chiefs, kings, emperors, caesars, sultans and so on. It is the default position due to its efficiency and affair with human anger/revenge/violence/love of power.

The Roman republic, came next, though it was not a democracy but a republic. However, it sustained the ideas behind the Athenian democracy alive for a long while, and should not be forgotten. Famously, the Roman Republic was turbulent and often overthrown by tyrants in the face of warfare and disaster. This ultimately resulted in the Roman Empire, ruled by an Emperor and the republic was lost for good. 

Constantine was then the first Emperor to legalise Christianity by allowing it to coexist alongside the paganism norms. From there you get a very complicated and ultimately disastrous Byzantine Empire… And for the Medieval period a huge array of monarchs across Europe.

Where am I going with this? Well, ultimately democracy as a pure influential idea and as a practical political form did not last. What then allowed it to reign supreme in the 21st century?

The answer is:

a) The Magna Carta.

This is a Christian document written in 1215, inspired directly from the Bible, which and legally limits the monarch in favour of the liberty of the people (but only noblemen). It was preceded by the Charter of Liberties in 1110. It is essentially a legal document that states the rights of all people. It later formed the foundation of many constitutions, including the American.

b) Certain people.

This includes Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Calvin, John Locke, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, David Hume, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, George Berkeley, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Pierre Bayle, Isaac Newton, Francis Hutcheson, William Thomson, Blaise Pascal.

The combination of these philosophers resulted in empiricism (aka science and the scientific method) ethics (and therefore our laws), modern mathematics, as well as democracy. Between them they inspired many social uprisings including the French Revolution, the Industrial revolution, Civil War in Britain, and the American Revolution, invented Parliament and Constitutional Monarchy, and later Parliamentary Democracy. Through them we have suffrage, but the most important part of modern democracy of all — rights for all people. And because of that we have women’s rights and suffrage and the abolition of slavery, and in the UK at least, the abolition of the death penalty.

This group of people have heralded every part of what we call modern development, in which each and every person is valuable and free. They even led to the beginnings of modern atheism. This is not something borne of the Greek philosophies, great as they were. Every one of them were outspoken and influential Christian theologians. Their works were directly influenced by the Bible. Some are Catholic, some are protestant, some are highly unorthodox, but all of them used the Bible directly for their works. 

You see, the Bible gave us the idea that each and every one of us has rights. This is utterly unique in human history, and an incredibly powerful idea at that.

You quote Georges Cuvier, who was also a devout Christian and was a Professor of Theology, and even harmonised punctuated equilibrium with the Bible. While the Bible probably did not influence his scientific findings, it formed the science that allowed him to do so. 

As for the separation of Church and State, for the record I clamour for such a thing in my country. It’s a wholly irrelevant point.

—-

You then list many things that are supposedly anti-science in the Bible, but that is not really what I am arguing here. If you want me to discuss them, please say. Regardless of the truth of the Bible, whether God exists or anything, whether it has an ounce of scientific worth or not, this document has triggered everything we define modern. Including science itself. Most importantly, the idea that all human beings have rights and worth. That the poor and helpless should be aided. It is not the witterings of barbarians, but has real wisdom that now affect you and me every single day.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 ESV

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:16-17 ESV

"Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." John 13:16 ESV

And yes, even in the Old Testament:

"Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."  Proverbs 31:8-9 ESV

"Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause." Isaiah 1:17 ESV

The Greeks provided a foundation of mathematics, yes, and the other cultures, but it did not result in anywhere near what we use today. After all, numerals and characters are not sufficient for algebra  equations and complex sums. As a simplistic example, the Greeks did discover irrational numbers but ignored them. The Muslim Abū Kāmil Shujāʿ ibn Aslam was the first mathematician to use them as solutions, and inspired Fibonacci (who invented numbers). Modern mathematics was defined by the group of people I listed previously, especially Pascal. So while the Greeks and Romans had a firm grip on geometry and practical maths, the beauty and intricacy of theoretical maths, algebra, probability and other such advanced subjects were only explored because it was seen as a form of worship of God. And I need not tell you that such mathematics has led to computers. Without such motivation, no other culture or person has got very far (that we know of).

Yes, other cultures had laws, but not ones used worldwide today. The Laws that have stuck and spread have been inspired directly by the Bible, or the Qu’ran depending on where you are. 

The ethics that you recognise as commons sense that you have been raised with and work by is from the Bible and from philosophy derived directly from the Bible. 

As for the lists of people who used forms of empiricism, it has not formed the basis of modern science nor the scientific method. They are sadly irrelevent as a result. If we did use the Babylonian way to work out our chemistry and particle physics, there is a brilliant example of a non-Biblically inspired philosophy knowledge, but sadly we do not. 

Islam provided Abu Rayhan al-Biruni the scope of knowledge for his works. As Islam spread, so ideas from across all of Asia were brought together. Other Ancient Empires had done similar sweeps, but not so successfully kept this knowledge and it has not affected our modern predicament. Islam had also merged many ideas with Christianity (particularly in mathematics and science) and such knowledge spread worldwide. 

So no, Galileo did not find a list of instructions as to the scientific method in the Bible, but his work was directly influenced by and intertwined with the Bible. How? His work was about looking for Laws of the Universe, something which the scientific method still includes today. And such Laws were assumed because the Bible states that God is the Lawgiver of the Universe. His discoveries are the reason his is the Father of modern science, not because he first thought it up, but because he was one of the giants our science stands on. The others who got there first were lost to history and time. 

You then go on to state:

"Science, like mathematics, philosophy and law, developed over time and many people—from different regions of the world and different religious backgrounds—contributed to its development.  What was that about people talking about matters they’re ignorant of?  Take your own advice."

Well, having studied this for several years, and as a scientist, I have some claim of knowledge about this subject.

There have been many cultural influences for science, the law, ethics, mathematics, but the foundation and over-ruling inspiration for what we recognise of these today is the Bible and the Qu’ran. That does not mean their claims are true, that God exists, that our ethics/law/science/democracy is the best, or anything else, but merely that this is an extraordinary phenomenon for a couple of ancient texts. Sam Harris is wrong to have ignored this. 

—-

You then list some of the barbaric things in the Bible, but to summarise briefly, you should not mistake “present in the Bible” as “condoned by the Bible and God”. I can look at these individually if you like, but for now I will move on. I cannot speak for the Qur’an as I do not know it well enough. I also did not discuss it in this part of my argument. 

—-

You then inform me I’m using the Argument from Distinction, but nowhere have I tried to argue that this means God is real and the Bible is true. I have argued why it has founded the “Western Way”, that is all. 

—-

Perhaps Sam Harris has changed his mind, then, or I horribly misunderstood his two books, “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values” and “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason”. Probably my fault.

In summary, it seems you think I’m trying to tell you that the Bible and Qu’ran laid out in bullet points the scientific method, democracy, ethics and so on. This is not the case, I am saying the Bible and the Qu’ran provided the philosophy, inspiration, motivation and foundation for our modern establishments. While we may not agree with these texts, we should not deny the weight of this contribution out of spite, as Mr Harris appears to. As a result I might argue that these books are almost unbelievably influential for their humble origins, but that is probably a matter of opinion. Perhaps any old book would have done the same, it was just a matter of coincidence and timing.  

23

Sep

bearyourcrocs asked: The thing about that verse is, if you compare it with other instances in scripture, it doesn't really say what you may originally think. For example, the passage in Matthew 7 about those who say "lord lord" not entering the kingdom of heaven says that those very same people prophesied in his name and performed great works. I believe the Holy Spirit can use someone who is not saved to achieve his purposes. Judas went out and healed many when Jesus sent out the twelve. But That doesn’t

mean that that Judas was saved. Balaam was a pagan, but he was also a Prophet of God. God can use non-believers to do supernatural things through the Holy Spirit. But yes, ‘tasted’ is the key word, because people like that have ‘tasted’ the Holy Spirit and the Heavenly Gifts, but they have not ‘received’ the Holy Spirit. There is a page on my blog titled Christian Topics, and I believe I have a post in there called “Those who fall away” I recommend you read it. “


20

Sep

bearyourcrocs asked: From a purely logical point of view it is impossible. God lives outside of time and therefore does not see someone as "was saved" and then "not saved" but rather, he sees the end result, and that is what he considers them to be. If the end result is hell, then God has always seen them as damned, but if the end result is heaven, he has always seen them as saved. He does not view it as we do. So if God sees you as saved, then you have always been saved, and if he doesn't, then you never were.

Yes, excellent point.

I personally believe that salvation cannot be lost.

Buuuuuut Hebrews 6:4-6 does look like a open and shut case….

Is “tasted” the key bit?

(The question was: can a Christian lose their salvation?)

So we have some differences in opinion from the looks of things! 

(The question was: can a Christian lose their salvation?)

So we have some differences in opinion from the looks of things!