Between Migdol and the Sea: book review

Posted 14 January 2015 by Matt Young

The subtitle of this book by frequent PT commenter Carl Drews is "Crossing the Red Sea with faith and science." Mr. Drews achieved a modicum of fame a few years ago for his master's thesis, in which he speculated that Moses and his followers had crossed the Sea of Reeds during a wind setdown, that is, an event where the wind blows so hard on a body of water that the water level on the windward side drops, sometimes to 0. It is in some sense the opposite of a storm surge. Judging by the book, it was a splendid master's thesis indeed! Mr. Drews carefully evaluated possible locations, chose one, and modeled it, showing that the wind setdown could plausibly have occurred for a plausible wind velocity. See here for Mr. Drews's own brief description of his work. Sorry, Cecil B. DeMille, no walls of water! I thought the book went downhill from here. Mr. Drews, though he denies it, is virtually a biblical literalist. To be sure, he is far more sophisticated than, say, Ken Ham or even Hugh Ross. He knows that the parts of the Bible that so bemuse Mr. Ham are poetry and not to be taken seriously. But he states flatly that he believes in the miracles that Jesus of Nazareth purportedly performed and thinks that they were a suspension of natural law. And he believes firmly that the Exodus happened as described in the Bible, so he looks for evidence how it happened, rather than whether it happened. A wind setdown is certainly plausible but has little more hard evidence to support it than the idea that the plagues were caused by the eruption of the Thera volcano. Now I am sympathetic with the position that many of the stories in the Bible are based on fact, and I liked Mr. Drews's discussion of minimalism -- the concept that, if it is not in the archaeological record, then it did not happen. I have often used a similar argument to one of Mr. Drews: If the stories are not true, then why are the heroes often flawed? Even Moses, the greatest man who ever lived (up till that time, anyway) is a stutterer. No one wrote novels in those days; the characters are flawed because the stories are true. OK, more or less true. But Mr. Drews, to my mind, goes a step too far: He writes, "As a lifelong Christian, I believed that the [Exodus] story had happened -- somehow. But I didn't know how." It is hard not to infer that he presumes the Exodus story to be true and then seeks to support that contention (I almost said hypothesis, but that is the point; for Mr. Drews the truth of the Bible is not a hypothesis, even when he thinks he is wearing his "scientific hat"). Not that there is no evidence: there is certainly evidence, but nothing outside the Bible to suggest the departure of thousands of Hebrews and the complete annihilation of an Egyptian army. The book spends far too much time with back-of-the-envelope calculations to establish that the Exodus took place during the reign of Rameses II. For example, Mr. Drews notes that a generation in the Bible is 40 years. That is too long for the conclusion he wants to draw, so he defines a generation as the age of a man when he has his first child. His estimate of 25 years seems far too old, unless the ancient Hebrews had perfected some long lost method of birth control. His estimate of the number of people who left with Moses, approximately 36,000, is based solely on scripture and seems far too high to me, but it is nowhere near the (absurd) biblical number of 600,000 men. I found the chapter, "Faith and science in harmony," to be completely unconvincing. The question really is whether a specific religious belief is in harmony with science; most readers will agree, for example, that young-earth creationism is not in harmony with science. The question, then, is not whether faith and science are in harmony, but rather whether specific religious beliefs conflict with scientific reality. The belief that Jesus (or God) suspended natural law, even occasionally, is not, I think, in harmony with science. Additionally, I do not think that Mr. Drews understands the God-of-the-gaps fallacy: It is that, if science cannot explain something, then God did it. Contrary to Mr. Drews, the converse is not part of the fallacy; we do not deny the existence of God just because we think we understand something. I infer from Mr. Drews's discussion of scientific ethics in the same chapter that he thinks that morality (not to mention civility) comes from God. If so, then I suggest that he read up on the Euthyphro dilemma, which as far as I know is still not solved. There is, in any case, no evidence that believers are more motivated, more honest, or less inclined to "cut corners in research," and the suggestion is frankly offensive. The book is self-published and shows what is good about self-publishing and also what is bad about self-publishing. The paper and quality are good. The book is well and clearly written, though the going is tough at times, as when Mr. Drews describes the wind setdown or his conclusions as to the route through the desert and the actual location of Mount Sinai. I thought there was considerably too much anecdote and personal history, but that may be a matter of taste. In other respects, the book is very amateurish, not least the first two chapters, which are the script of a short play depicting the hours before and during the crossing of the Sea of Reeds. The book, unfortunately, looks like it came straight out of LibreOffice, untouched by human hands. Most seriously, the author did not worry about locating figures properly on a page, and often, when a figure did not fit, it is preceded by a large white space on the preceding page. In other places the caption of a figure bleeds over onto the next page and looks exactly like text, without even a double space to separate the caption from the text. The index should have subentries when the number of pages in a given entry is too large, more than perhaps 5 or 6. The important archaeologists Kathleen Kenyon and William Dever are not found in the index at all, though they are cited in the chapter discussing the chronology of the Exodus. Some of the figures must have originally been in color, but now they are black and white; the caption, however, refers to color, and color is critical to understanding the figure. Least important, I suppose, compositors generally use italics, not boldface for emphasis. Much of this book is carefully thought out. It should have been the kind of book I wanted to read, a book that tries to dope out what truly happened during the Exodus, with no preconceptions. The wind setdown hypothesis was well worth pursuing, but thereafter the book became tedious and even perhaps a bit tendentious; more than once the author shows that something is plausible and then smugly proclaims science and religion to be in harmony. Perhaps, but he needs to be much more convincing. ------ Acknowledgment. Carl Drews generously agreed to review this manuscript and made several helpful suggestions.

133 Comments

Carl Drews · 14 January 2015

I thank Prof. Young for the time he spent reading Between Migdol and the Sea and preparing his post. Although I will pay attention to blog comments at Panda's Thumb, for various reasons I'll have to wait until the end of the day to post my own comments. Color Figures: Some of the illustrations in Between Migdol and the Sea are best viewed in color. Color is becoming increasingly important in scientific illustration, as shown by the decline of black-and-white print journals and the rise of online-only journals like PLOS ONE. For book readers who want to see the figures in color, there are three options:

Purchase the Kindle version instead of the print version. Some of the e-book illustrations are in color where I judged it important to convey the information.
If you prefer print books, Amazon's MatchBook program allows you to purchase the print and Kindle versions for $3 more than the print version alone. This is a good choice for scholars who want to study the material in depth.
Migdol has a book web site: migdolbook.com. The Related Publications section provides links to the published papers on which Between Migdol and the Sea is based. Those papers are Open Access, meaning that anyone can view them for free. For example, Figure 5-4 from the book is Dynamics of Wind Setdown, Figure 8. I posted Figure 11-1 on my blog back in November 2014, in color: Kindle e-book: Between Migdol and the Sea

Mr. Drews, though he would doubtless deny it, is a biblical literalist.

In fact, I denied this very claim in my book - twice! - on pages 94 and 199. The direct quotations are:

"I am not a biblical literalist." (Between Migdol and the Sea, page 94) "Since I am not a biblical literalist, I am free to look deeply into the text and seek understanding beyond the plain meaning of the English words." (Migdol, page 199)

In my study of the Exodus, I have concluded that:

a. The Israelites did not cross the modern Red Sea.
b. There were no stationary vertical walls of water during the crossing.
c. There were not 600,000 adult Hebrew men who departed from Egypt.

Even without theistic-evolution.com, those three conclusions alone would exempt me from any reasonable definition of the term "biblical literalist." Yes, Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and rose from the dead.

And he believes firmly that the Exodus happened as described in the Bible, so he looks for evidence how it happened, rather than whether it happened.

Between Migdol and the Sea includes an entire Chapter 10 Did the Exodus Really Happen? That chapter examines whether the Exodus happened at all, and presents evidence that the Exodus did indeed happen. There is nothing unscientific about concluding that the Exodus could not have happened in some ways (600k men), and is plausible in other ways (wind setdown). One tricky aspect of the Exodus narrative is in figuring out exactly what is described by the ancient text. Generations: The figure of 25 years per generation is a rough estimate in Migdol Chapter 5 on page 96. In Chapter 11 (page 281) I used additional information to conclude that Moses was 40 years old when he confronted Pharaoh, which means that the revised figure is about 20 years for one generation. Note that the first-born child won't necessarily be a son. In the Old Testament way of thinking, a generation is the time span from first-born son to first-born son. Faith and Science in Harmony: If Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson, and I have our way, there will be a whole lot less interference with teaching science in public schools. I say that result would be a good thing. Between Migdol and the Sea uses the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt as a less contentious example of how that goal might be accomplished with biology and evolution. Religion-based opposition to science is a serious problem for America. I am happy with my profession, and proud of the advances made by my fellow scientific colleagues in the search for greater knowledge. Engineering applies those discoveries in the service of society. Jesus also labored in service to His society. Here I am hanging out my research and ideas in front of the assembled Pandati, like David Starling MacMillan did one year ago. If this book and this exercise somehow lead even a few girls and boys to take an interest in science and engineering, if some young creationists decide that they don't need to accept all that YEC stuff to be a Christian, then any criticism here will be a very small price to pay.

phhht · 14 January 2015

Carl Drews said: Here I am hanging out my research and ideas in front of the assembled Pandati, like David Starling MacMillan did one year ago.

I'll ask you what I asked David Starling MacMillan: What is it that makes you think gods are real?

gdavidson418 · 14 January 2015

If the stories are not true, then why are the heroes often flawed? Even Moses, the greatest man who ever lived (up till that time, anyway) is a stutterer.

I don't know. Hephaestus was a maimed Greek god, and it's hard to suppose that it means that he was real somehow. Homer was blind, and if that may well have been real, people wonder if that's more of a tradition of blind bards than necessarily true of the great poet. Greek heroes often have rather serious character flaws--think of Achilles' rage and later obsession to keep degrading Hector's body. Tragic flaws and all of that. Moses may be more like a saint, who sometimes has some problems that have to be overcome, often via miracle. And clearly many Bible figures do not have any physical flaw like stuttering, Abraham, Jacob, etc. A physical flaw might "explain" a question that one may have, like why Moses the Israelite hero ignores the suffering of the Hebrews through much of his life (actually, there seem to be two "explanations," stuttering and the killing of the Egyptian overseer, and I wonder if either is true of some seminal Hebrew leader). Then too, where did the stuttering go later on? It seems not to impair speeches and chastisement of the Hebrews during the exodus, rather he seems able to say anything he wants, without any aid from Aaron. Of course it can disappear, but is it at all likely in a rather older man who stutters, without any expert help? Glen Davidson

gdavidson418 · 14 January 2015

But Mr. Drews, to my mind, goes a step too far: He writes, âAs a lifelong Christian, I believed that the [Exodus] story had happened â somehow. But I didnât know how.â

That's really the problem, which only solid evidence in favor of the exodus could fix. Plausibility (and do we even get to that, really?) is no substitute for lack of evidence that specifically points to the exodus being fact. And no, the Bible is not that evidence, especially since it's so clearly fabulistic in Exodus. Glen Davidson

Dave Luckett · 14 January 2015

Then there are the disciples, as the Gospels show them. It puzzled and dismayed many commentators from the Middle Ages on, that the disciples are so often described and depicted in the Gospels as obtuse, quarrelsome, divided, fearful and lacking in faith. How could such deeply flawed people have founded and advanced Christianity?

The obvious reason is that the Evangelists were implying that the power of God upheld vessels even as imperfect as these. How else could the Church have prospered so, given the manifest inadequacy of its apostles?

The same motive might be assigned to the author of Exodus on the character of Moses. God prevailed despite Moses, not because of him - an effective use of character, and a very writerly source of conflict to increase dramatic tension and further the plot. Just because people didn't write modern novels then does not mean that they weren't familiar with the conventions and implications of narrative. In fact, I think they were more alive to them than most people are today.

Mickey Mortimer · 15 January 2015

I'm no biblical scholar, but from what I know of the field, non-fundamentalist scholars would disagree that-

"No one wrote novels in those days; the characters are flawed because the stories are true. OK, more or less true."

An easy counter-example is Noah, who becomes a drunkard at the end of his story, yet the Noachic Flood isn't even more or less true, being based on earlier flood myths that also have no evidence. Or there's Eve, with her flaw of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge despite El's/Yahweh's warning, but no non-fundamentalist scientist believes her and Adam were anything but allegory. Outside the Bible, you have the Norse and Greek gods with flaws. Etc., etc.. The books of the Old and New Testaments aren't novels, but they contain stories, and characters in stories are often given flaws to make them more interesting or progress plot points.

"Not that there is no evidence: there is certainly evidence, but nothing outside the Bible to suggest the departure of thousands of Hebrews and the complete annihilation of an Egyptian army."

The non-fundamentalist position is that the Exodus never occurred. It's not just a lack of evidence, it's evidence of several varieties that anything close to what's described in Exodus did not occur, evidence for a different origin for the Isrealites, and evidence the story itself includes concepts that wouldn't exist until much later. Wikipedia actually has a very good article on it under "The Exodus".

Not that this should necessarily matter for Drews of course, since he believes "Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and rose from the dead." It's far FAR more likely that somehow all of the evidence against an exodus of Isrealites from Egypt has been misinterpreted than it is that a human died and resurrected three days later, let alone performed miracles. Which is honestly why I don't see the point of this kind of analysis- finding natural explanations for supernatural stories. If Drews believes God exists and can perform miracles anyway, what's one more miracle of a parting Red Sea or Sea of Reeds added to that? Similarly, a naturalist reader isn't going to find the exodus story more believable due to the sea crossing being scientifically plausible under the right conditions when it's part of a volume containing talking bushes, sorcerers, magic food, a ton of basically impossibly targeted plagues, etc. that non-fundamentalist Biblical scholarship says was cobbled together from multiple sources in sixth century BCE Babylon.

phhht · 15 January 2015

I read a lot of fiction, particularly crime fiction, and I notice that almost without fail, an author gives his protagonist some uniquely personal flaw. This one is blind. That one has only one hand. Still another is addicted to cocaine in a seven percent solution.
I imagine that this practice, let's call it the Plausible Stutterer effect, is as old as story-telling - and hardly a trustworthy marker of factual narrative.

ksplawn · 15 January 2015

Carl Drews said: If this book and this exercise somehow lead even a few girls and boys to take an interest in science and engineering, if some young creationists decide that they don't need to accept all that YEC stuff to be a Christian, then any criticism here will be a very small price to pay.

If it turns out that you're promoting yet another variety of magical thinking and justifying deviation from the scientific method or critical skepticism when it's needed most, to challenge assumptions somebody holds dear enough that it interferes with their acceptance of reality... are you really improving the situation? Or are you merely repeating the trick of all those classic YECs in using your credentials and technical confabulation to build up a sciency-sounding rationalization for their non-scientific beliefs? Let's remember that Henry Morris probably believed his own "hydrological sorting" faffery, at least in the beginning.

Rolf · 15 January 2015

Carl Drews wrote:

A wind setdown is certainly plausible but has little more hard evidence to support it than the idea that the plagues were caused by the eruption of the Thera volcano.

I have read "The Parting of the Sea" by Barbara J. Sivertsen and it struck me as somewhat more than just an "idea"?

Joe Felsenstein · 15 January 2015

ksplawn said: If it turns out that you're promoting yet another variety of magical thinking and justifying deviation from the scientific method or critical skepticism when it's needed most, to challenge assumptions somebody holds dear enough that it interferes with their acceptance of reality... are you really improving the situation? ...

An interesting feature of ksplawn's objection is that it cuts the other way too. Though not intended to, it can equally well be taken as urging wavering YECs who are on the edge of abandoning their biblical literalism to be consistent and go back to being YECs.

eric · 15 January 2015

Matt:

I have often used a similar argument to one of Mr. Drews: If the stories are not true, then why are the heroes often flawed? Even Moses, the greatest man who ever lived (up till that time, anyway) is a stutterer. No one wrote novels in those days; the characters are flawed because the stories are true. OK, more or less true.

I think this (a) runs contra to literary evidence and (b) makes the mistake of implying that bronze age humans were not as socially sophisticated as us more moderns. The oldest preserved written bible is dated from the third or fourth century BC, making it far younger as a text than, say, Homer's Odyssey (expected date eigth cent. BC). Yet most if not all of the heros in that story have flaws. The Epic of Gilgamesh is older (as a text) than either; 2,000s BC. Yet Gilgamesh falls easily into the classic category of a 'tragic hero.' He is cruel, for example. He is given the chance to achieve immortality if he goes without sleep for a week...and then he falls asleep immediately. Now, I'm not saying that the biblical stories are only 2,400 years old. They could easily be much older. But I am saying that there is pretty clear literary evidince that the people who lived at the time the Torah was being told as an oral tradition and started being put down "on paper," wrote stories of flawed heros. Some of those stories are so fantastical that I think the 'flawed, therefore based on fact' logic simply cannot be sustained. Given the Epic of Gilgamesh, then we can say that 4,000 years ago, the people of the early bronze age had a rich storytelling tradition of flawed gods, monsters, and men. Final note: all of this ignores China, because I know basically nothing about their storytelling traditions. But I would bet money that they had flawed heros in their early bronze age stories, too.

harold · 15 January 2015

Yes, Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and rose from the dead.

While I don't believe this, it's standard Christianity. It's probably what Ken Miller believes. Saying that this is Biblical literalism is like saying that someone who believes the Buddha attained nirvana is a "Pali Canon literalist" or saying that any Jewish person who keeps kosher is a "Torah literalist". That's why I don't call myself a Christian, even though my ethics are intensely influenced by my Christian cultural background. I don't believe in the magic parts. I don't like that nasty parts of the Bible either, but if I believed in the magic parts, I'd be a nice, theologically liberal Christian going to a church that performs gay marriages and so on. My views on Christianity are surprisingly similar to those espoused by people like Benjamin Franklin. As for the quest to argue that the events in Exodus are somewhat but not completely symbolic, that is of mild interest to theologians, and historians of Egypt, I suppose. It is odd that Jewish tradition would contain this huge, important part about things happening in Egypt, for which there is no Egyptian record. It is especially odd given that many other even more obscure parts of the Old Testament have some historical basis. In the end, popular history books arguing "this may have happened and you can't prove it didn't" are a common genre. Geoffrey Chaucer may have been murdered due to his close association with Richard II, after Richard II was deposed, for example. That's the theme of a major popular history book by one of the members of Monty Python (who writes serious popular history books). There's no particular evidence Geoffrey Chaucer was murdered, and his son did extremely well in politics under the new regime. But Chaucer did die around the time that Richard II was permanently deposed. This kind of "could have happened", plausible fantasy that can't be disproven writing is very common. Carl Drews seems to indulge, and so be it. None of this makes Carl Drews a denier of actual established science. It does make him one who indulges in speculation beyond what would be acceptable in a purely scientific field, but that is a far more common thing than outright science denial.

eric · 15 January 2015

As for Carl's book...Carl, it's a shame you couldn't find a publishing house to work with. From Matt's review it sounds like a professional editor could've really helped you polish your idea(s) and presentation. In that one way (at least), writing is like science: we all need independent feedback on our ideas, because we all have problems seeing the flaws in our own stuff. I once had a junior scientist who worked for me who was affronted by the idea that someone would edit her work. As I told her: even Stephen King has an editor. And you're no Stephen King. Having said that, if writing books is something you plan on continuing to do in the future, best of luck.

harold · 15 January 2015

âflawed, therefore based on factâ logic simply cannot be sustained

I can't think of an example of a character other than Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed who isn't depicted as flawed. There is no basis whatsoever to argue that a flawed character can't be fictional.

TomS · 15 January 2015

eric said: As for Carl's book...Carl, it's a shame you couldn't find a publishing house to work with. From Matt's review it sounds like a professional editor could've really helped you polish your idea(s) and presentation. In that one way (at least), writing is like science: we all need independent feedback on our ideas, because we all have problems seeing the flaws in our own stuff. I once had a junior scientist who worked for me who was affronted by the idea that someone would edit her work. As I told her: even Stephen King has an editor. And you're no Stephen King. Having said that, if writing books is something you plan on continuing to do in the future, best of luck.

I have a "friend of a friend" story of someone who has published several scholarly books and then decided to write a different sort of book, couldn't interest a publisher, so went the self-publishing way. The book, I am told, suffers from the lack of an editor. This

DS · 15 January 2015

I have never seen the point of trying to find rational explanations if supernatural interventions are assumed to occur. If one miracle is possible, why not a dozen or a million? What is gained by trying to reduce the number of miracles required? Science should be about challenging your preconceptions, not trying to rationalize them.

Matt Young · 15 January 2015

Just for the record, what I wrote in the final version was, "Mr. Drews, though he denies it, is virtually a biblical literalist." Then I went on to explain why I thought so. Mr. Drews commented on an early draft that I had sent him, not on what I actually posted.

eric · 15 January 2015

DS said: I have never seen the point of trying to find rational explanations if supernatural interventions are assumed to occur.

In general, it's good (IMO) to figure out whether some claim is a new unexplained phenomena that science may want to investigate, or whether it's a confabulation. In this particular case, I think it makes for an interesting question as to whether wind setdowns were common enough (wherever the ancient Hebrews lived) to spawn legends, or whether the story was made up whole cloth. Keeping in mind that 'common enough' might only need to be once every human lifetime. It wasn't until the 1800s, remember, that scientists accepted that meteorites came from space. Before that, the stories were dismissed. Its a shame: that was a lot of research opportunity lost. Rocks falling from the sky? Don't be ridiculous! Or in the apocryphal words of Thomas Jefferson: "I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven."

DS · 15 January 2015

eric said:
DS said: I have never seen the point of trying to find rational explanations if supernatural interventions are assumed to occur.
In general, it's good (IMO) to figure out whether some claim is a new unexplained phenomena that science may want to investigate, or whether it's a confabulation. In this particular case, I think it makes for an interesting question as to whether wind setdowns were common enough (wherever the ancient Hebrews lived) to spawn legends, or whether the story was made up whole cloth. Keeping in mind that 'common enough' might only need to be once every human lifetime. It wasn't until the 1800s, remember, that scientists accepted that meteorites came from space. Before that, the stories were dismissed. Its a shame: that was a lot of research opportunity lost. Rocks falling from the sky? Don't be ridiculous! Or in the apocryphal words of Thomas Jefferson: "I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven."

Well sure there are good reasons for finding rational explanations for supposed events if you don't assume that supernatural interventions occur. But if you do make that assumption, it seems to me you have no motivation for trying to prove that something that is claimed to have a supernatural cause would be possible without one. In the case of the Red Sea crossing, it is assumed to be a miracle caused by god in order to keep his promise to his chosen people. Providing a natural explanation would just mean that no action by god was necessary. The Isrealites just got lucky, one less miracle for god to have to perform. But if you assume that intervention by a supernatural agent never occurs, you would have no need to provide a natural explanation for something that might not have ever happened. If you thought it did happen in some way, then you might want to find a natural explanation in order to demonstrate that supernatural intervention was not required. But that would hardly be a motivation for someone who assumed that such things did indeed occur.

Mike Elzinga · 15 January 2015

eric said: As for Carl's book...Carl, it's a shame you couldn't find a publishing house to work with. From Matt's review it sounds like a professional editor could've really helped you polish your idea(s) and presentation. In that one way (at least), writing is like science: we all need independent feedback on our ideas, because we all have problems seeing the flaws in our own stuff. I once had a junior scientist who worked for me who was affronted by the idea that someone would edit her work. As I told her: even Stephen King has an editor. And you're no Stephen King. Having said that, if writing books is something you plan on continuing to do in the future, best of luck.

That was excellent advice given in a memorable way. We all need editors when we write for public consumption. Most people have little awareness of the idiosyncratic ways they express themselves; and if we write in the way we think we are being clear, we often confuse everyone else. Just keeping journals of one's own work can be very revealing. When returning to work I have recorded a number of years ago, I sometimes can't even understand myself.

phhht · 15 January 2015

phhht said:
Carl Drews said: Here I am hanging out my research and ideas in front of the assembled Pandati, like David Starling MacMillan did one year ago.
I'll ask you what I asked David Starling MacMillan: What is it that makes you think gods are real?

Carl Drews said: If this book and this exercise somehow lead even a few girls and boys to take an interest in science and engineering, if some young creationists decide that they donât need to accept all that YEC stuff to be a Christian, then any criticism here will be a very small price to pay.

Surely it would be of benefit, not only to boys and girls, but also to atheist grown-ups, if you could say what makes you think gods are real. David MacMillan's reason to believe that gods are real came down to the fact that he finds god stories to be plausible. Is that your reason as well? Do you have other reasons? Do you have any articulable reasons at all?

FL · 15 January 2015

Matt Young pointed out:

(Carl Drews) knows that the parts of the Bible that so bemuse Mr. Ham are poetry and not to be taken seriously. But he states flatly that he believes in the miracles that Jesus of Nazareth purportedly performed and thinks that they were a suspension of natural law.

And of course, Drews himself clearly affirmed in his post:

Yes, Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and rose from the dead.

Which is a very good affirmation, of course. I'd never criticize THAT one. But check this fact out: Some of those same Jesus miracles CLEARLY involved direct Ex Nihilo Creation, the same as Genesis creation of humans, plus a way-too-fast time element that precludes any evolutionary or naturalistic explanation. (Notice Jesus' healing of the man's withered hand, for example, involving immediate Ex Nihilo Creation of brand new tissue, nerves, cells, systems to make brand new functioning hand. Totally Impossible time frame for Evolution to originate this object.) Such ENC miracles of Jesus, are permanently incompatible with the both the theory of evolution and it's necessary component of "deep time." **** So here's your question, Pandas: Exactly how can ANY evolutionist rationally accept Jesus's miracles as literal and historically accurate as described, WITHOUT also rationally accepting the Genesis miracles (the creation of humans, specifically) with the very same literalness and historical accuracy, and with the very same "Ex Nihilo Creation" plus the way-too-fast time element? FL

gdavidson418 · 15 January 2015

Such ENC miracles of Jesus, are permanently incompatible with the both the theory of evolution and itâs necessary component of âdeep time.â

The honest statement would be the "empirically-determined component of deep time." Why is honesty so dispensable to most YECs encountered on the net? I guess the miracles of Jesus are also permanently incompatible with non-poof meteorology and ballistics as well. Apparently you have to deny nearly all human knowledge to save your idiotic religion--or you're simply lying about evolution (you usually do, but it rarely ends there). Glen Davidson

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM · 15 January 2015

If one is going to be a Biblical literalist, shouldn't that be in terms of the original language? When I was a college freshman, about 45 years ago, the professor of religion class explained that "Red Sea" should have properly been translated as "Reed Sea," along with other considerations of text and language. Does anyone (with sufficient education) believe the Red Sea was crossed?
If the exodus was a defining event for the Jews, then it's quite possible that a number of Hebrews left Egypt--but perhaps with little notice from the pharaoh and other Egyptians.

gdavidson418 · 15 January 2015

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: If one is going to be a Biblical literalist, shouldn't that be in terms of the original language? When I was a college freshman, about 45 years ago, the professor of religion class explained that "Red Sea" should have properly been translated as "Reed Sea," along with other considerations of text and language. Does anyone (with sufficient education) believe the Red Sea was crossed? If the exodus was a defining event for the Jews, then it's quite possible that a number of Hebrews left Egypt--but perhaps with little notice from the pharaoh and other Egyptians.

Carl wrote:

In my study of the Exodus, I have concluded that: a. The Israelites did not cross the modern Red Sea.

Exactly what he thinks they did cross I don't know, but I don't think he's a true literalist at all. I don't know why Matt Young bothers with "virtually a biblical literalist," because while I think yYoung makes very good points in backing it up, I just don't think these get to "virtual biblical literalist," whatever that is. It's something else, IMO, something that I don't think is or can (given the present state of evidence) be well-founded, but I think that "biblical literalist," even with modifiers, properly relates Carl's position on the Bible. Glen Davidson

Malcolm · 15 January 2015

FL said: So here's your question, Pandas: Exactly how can ANY evolutionist rationally accept Jesus's miracles as literal and historically accurate as described, WITHOUT also rationally accepting the Genesis miracles (the creation of humans, specifically) with the very same literalness and historical accuracy, and with the very same "Ex Nihilo Creation" plus the way-too-fast time element?

Once again, Floyd encourages people to abandon Christianity in favour of reality.

gdavidson418 · 15 January 2015

Oops, was supposed to be: "...but I don't think that âbiblical literalist,â even with modifiers, properly relates Carlâs position on the Bible.

Glen Davidson

eric · 15 January 2015

FL said: Such ENC [ex-nihilo creation] miracles of Jesus, are permanently incompatible with the both the theory of evolution and it's necessary component of "deep time."

Um, no. They are certainly incompatible with laws of physics, chemistry, etc. writ large, but one person healing someone's hand 'ex-nihilo' 2,000 years ago says nothing about whether species arose via descent with modification. You're confusing the claim "a miracle happened here" with the claim "all miracles happened exactly as described." As far as I can tell, Carl is in the former camp; you are in the latter.

Exactly how can ANY evolutionist rationally accept Jesus's miracles as literal and historically accurate as described, WITHOUT also rationally accepting the Genesis miracles (the creation of humans, specifically) with the very same literalness and historical accuracy, and with the very same "Ex Nihilo Creation" plus the way-too-fast time element?

They do it by saying some of the miracles described in the bible happened - some parts of the account are literally true - but not others. Humans often read a book and accept some of what it says to be true, but not all of it. I don't find that answer particularly compelling. Neither do you. I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue mircales from the true ones? But at the same time, I have to say that there is nothing logically incompatible in the position "Jesus worked miracles, but Genesis is nonliteral." That's kinda like saying you believe a Greek named Odysseus visited a sorceress named Circe, but those Scylla and Charybdis monsters aren't real. Yeah, its wierd. But in theory one vignette could be true without the other being true.

gdavidson418 · 15 January 2015

eric said:
FL said: Such ENC [ex-nihilo creation] miracles of Jesus, are permanently incompatible with the both the theory of evolution and it's necessary component of "deep time."
Um, no. They are certainly incompatible with laws of physics, chemistry, etc. writ large, but one person healing someone's hand 'ex-nihilo' 2,000 years ago says nothing about whether species arose via descent with modification. You're confusing the claim "a miracle happened here" with the claim "all miracles happened exactly as described." As far as I can tell, Carl is in the former camp; you are in the latter.
Exactly how can ANY evolutionist rationally accept Jesus's miracles as literal and historically accurate as described, WITHOUT also rationally accepting the Genesis miracles (the creation of humans, specifically) with the very same literalness and historical accuracy, and with the very same "Ex Nihilo Creation" plus the way-too-fast time element?
They do it by saying some of the miracles described in the bible happened - some parts of the account are literally true - but not others. Humans often read a book and accept some of what it says to be true, but not all of it. I don't find that answer particularly compelling. Neither do you. I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue mircales from the true ones? But at the same time, I have to say that there is nothing logically incompatible in the position "Jesus worked miracles, but Genesis is nonliteral." That's kinda like saying you believe a Greek named Odysseus visited a sorceress named Circe, but those Scylla and Charybdis monsters aren't real. Yeah, its wierd. But in theory one vignette could be true without the other being true.

It's worse than that, though, because FL conflates quite different genera. Genesis is mythical (talking snake, weird by comparison with later miracles), the Gospels purport to be kinds of histories, if hardly "objective history." FL can throw out the basically flat-earth perspective and (probably) the bizarre claim that four rivers came out of the one river watering Eden, including the Tigris and Euphrates--before the flood that deposited the sediments upon which these rivers flow--while the talking snake and the inconsistencies of the two creation accounts all have to be literally true. They all pick and choose, FL is just the less principled in doing so. Glen Davidson

eric · 15 January 2015

gdavidson418 said: It's worse than that, though, because FL conflates quite different genera. Genesis is mythical (talking snake, weird by comparison with later miracles)

Well, except for the talking ass. But I guess that isn't that wierd since we have one of those ourselves. :)

DS · 15 January 2015

FL said: So here's your question, Pandas: Exactly how can ANY evolutionist rationally accept Jesus's miracles as literal and historically accurate as described, WITHOUT also rationally accepting the Genesis miracles (the creation of humans, specifically) with the very same literalness and historical accuracy, and with the very same "Ex Nihilo Creation" plus the way-too-fast time element? FL

So here's your question, Floyd: Exactly how can ANY creationist rationally accept Jesus's miracles as literal and historically accurate as described? Obviously you cannot rationally accept the Genesis miracles (the creation of humans, specifically) with the very same literalness and historical accuracy, and with the very same "Ex Nihilo Creation" plus the way-too-fast time element. Those are all clearly contradicted by all of the evidence. So, in the complete absence of any evidence, why assume that any of the other stuff is true either? And why would anyone who does believe one of those fairy tales have to come up with a natural explanation for any other supposedly supernatural phenomena? If one miracle can happen, why not dozens?

harold · 15 January 2015

eric said:
FL said: Such ENC [ex-nihilo creation] miracles of Jesus, are permanently incompatible with the both the theory of evolution and it's necessary component of "deep time."
Um, no. They are certainly incompatible with laws of physics, chemistry, etc. writ large, but one person healing someone's hand 'ex-nihilo' 2,000 years ago says nothing about whether species arose via descent with modification. You're confusing the claim "a miracle happened here" with the claim "all miracles happened exactly as described." As far as I can tell, Carl is in the former camp; you are in the latter.
Exactly how can ANY evolutionist rationally accept Jesus's miracles as literal and historically accurate as described, WITHOUT also rationally accepting the Genesis miracles (the creation of humans, specifically) with the very same literalness and historical accuracy, and with the very same "Ex Nihilo Creation" plus the way-too-fast time element?
They do it by saying some of the miracles described in the bible happened - some parts of the account are literally true - but not others. Humans often read a book and accept some of what it says to be true, but not all of it. I don't find that answer particularly compelling. Neither do you. I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue mircales from the true ones? But at the same time, I have to say that there is nothing logically incompatible in the position "Jesus worked miracles, but Genesis is nonliteral." That's kinda like saying you believe a Greek named Odysseus visited a sorceress named Circe, but those Scylla and Charybdis monsters aren't real. Yeah, its wierd. But in theory one vignette could be true without the other being true.

In addition to these excellent points, I can't think of any possible way to measure someone's expertise as a theologian than by their formal training. By that standard, Carl Drews has documented expertise as a theologian. FL doesn't. Also, of course, someone who thinks that evolution and Christianity are incompatible should stop being a Christian, since it's very clear that biological evolution occurs. It's obvious that Christianity isn't. FL has to make non-sequitur extrapolations to say that it is. But if he was right, it would be like saying "The sun rising in the east is incompatible with X". While, the sun does rise in the east.

TomS · 15 January 2015

eric said:
FL said: Such ENC [ex-nihilo creation] miracles of Jesus, are permanently incompatible with the both the theory of evolution and it's necessary component of "deep time."
Um, no. They are certainly incompatible with laws of physics, chemistry, etc. writ large, but one person healing someone's hand 'ex-nihilo' 2,000 years ago says nothing about whether species arose via descent with modification. You're confusing the claim "a miracle happened here" with the claim "all miracles happened exactly as described." As far as I can tell, Carl is in the former camp; you are in the latter.
Exactly how can ANY evolutionist rationally accept Jesus's miracles as literal and historically accurate as described, WITHOUT also rationally accepting the Genesis miracles (the creation of humans, specifically) with the very same literalness and historical accuracy, and with the very same "Ex Nihilo Creation" plus the way-too-fast time element?
They do it by saying some of the miracles described in the bible happened - some parts of the account are literally true - but not others. Humans often read a book and accept some of what it says to be true, but not all of it. I don't find that answer particularly compelling. Neither do you. I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue mircales from the true ones? But at the same time, I have to say that there is nothing logically incompatible in the position "Jesus worked miracles, but Genesis is nonliteral." That's kinda like saying you believe a Greek named Odysseus visited a sorceress named Circe, but those Scylla and Charybdis monsters aren't real. Yeah, its wierd. But in theory one vignette could be true without the other being true.

As far as I can recall, the Bible does not have an example of anything happening ex nihilo. Genesis has God dividing day from night, water from land, animals and plants arising from the waters and the land, the Sun, Moon and stars being placed in the firmament. The various miracles that people perform use material. As far as I know, there are few people today who accept the strict literal interpretation of the Sun and Moon standing still for Joshua. Is there anything inconsistent about saying that that was a less than factual historical account while accepting, oh say that there was a earthquake while Paul was in prison as something that really happened?

FL · 15 January 2015

Eric wrote:

I donât find that answer particularly compelling. Neither do you. I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue mircales from the true ones?

That IS a good question, yes. So let's put that question on the table, for Carl and also for any interested Pandas. Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesus's miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation? **** Eric also wrote:

Youâre confusing the claim âa miracle happened hereâ with the claim âall miracles happened exactly as described.â As far as I can tell, Carl is in the former camp; you are in the latter.

But exactly how can you tell, Eric? After all, Carl's own response on page 1, clearly did NOT deny that any of Jesus's miracles and Resurrection "happened exactly as described." Unless he gives specific denials on specific Jesus miracles, perhaps he may be in the latter camp, hmm? FL

phhht · 15 January 2015

FL said: Eric wrote:
I donât find that answer particularly compelling. Neither do you. I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue mircales from the true ones?
That IS a good question, yes. So let's put that question on the table, for Carl and also for any interested Pandas. Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesus's miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation? **** Eric also wrote:
Youâre confusing the claim âa miracle happened hereâ with the claim âall miracles happened exactly as described.â As far as I can tell, Carl is in the former camp; you are in the latter.
But exactly how can you tell, Eric? After all, Carl's own response on page 1, clearly did NOT deny that any of Jesus's miracles and Resurrection "happened exactly as described." Unless he gives specific denials on specific Jesus miracles, perhaps he may be in the latter camp, hmm?

Why do you think ANY of the miracle stories are true? You cannot or will not say. You (and Carl Drews, so far) cannot give ANY reason to believe in the truth of those stories. All you can do is to repeat ad nauseum that you DO believe. Why? What makes you (or Carl Drews) think gods are real?

DS · 15 January 2015

Well Floyd seems to use the criteria that if the bible says it was a miracle, it was, regardless of the evidence. I can't speak for Carl, but he seems to assume that anything he really wants to believe was a miracle was, the things that don't need to be miracles weren't. I take a different approach. Since there is no evidence for any miracle, ever, I simply assume that none have ever occurred. I am willing to be proven wrong by evidence, but have not been so far. God could easily convince me, but apparently she chooses not to. Of course the hypothesis that no gods exist is also consistent with the evidence.

Rolf · 15 January 2015

Rolf said: Carl Drews wrote:
A wind setdown is certainly plausible but has little more hard evidence to support it than the idea that the plagues were caused by the eruption of the Thera volcano.
I have read "The Parting of the Sea" by Barbara J. Sivertsen and it struck me as somewhat more than just an "idea"?

Sorry, looks like I got the names mixed up, the words quoted seems to be from Matt Young.

phhht · 15 January 2015

DS said: Well Floyd seems to use the criteria that if the bible says it was a miracle, it was, regardless of the evidence.

Yes, I understand that he DOES believe. But he cannot or will not explain why. To say that he believes gods are real because he believes the bible is real, and he believes the bible is real because he believes gods are real, is vacuous and laughable.

eric · 15 January 2015

FL said:
Youâre confusing the claim âa miracle happened hereâ with the claim âall miracles happened exactly as described.â As far as I can tell, Carl is in the former camp; you are in the latter.
But exactly how can you tell, Eric? After all, Carl's own response on page 1, clearly did NOT deny that any of Jesus's miracles and Resurrection "happened exactly as described."

I can tell because he thinks the parting of the seas in Exodus was not a miracle. That seems pretty obvious from both the OP and his first response.

Unless he gives specific denials on specific Jesus miracles, perhaps he may be in the latter camp, hmm?

No, if he denies the miracle of the parted sea then its pretty obvious he doesn't believe all the miracles in the bible. But why are you even arguing with me about this? Just ask him, dude.

eric · 15 January 2015

phhht said: To say that he believes gods are real because he believes the bible is real, and he believes the bible is real because he believes gods are real, is vacuous and laughable.

Take out the second part and its just an argument from authority. Not particularly good but hardly unusual.

phhht · 15 January 2015

eric said:
phhht said: To say that he believes gods are real because he believes the bible is real, and he believes the bible is real because he believes gods are real, is vacuous and laughable.
Take out the second part and its just an argument from authority. Not particularly good but hardly unusual.

It's a circular argument with a circle of radius zero.

Carl Drews · 15 January 2015

eric said: As for Carl's book...Carl, it's a shame you couldn't find a publishing house to work with. From Matt's review it sounds like a professional editor could've really helped you polish your idea(s) and presentation. In that one way (at least), writing is like science: we all need independent feedback on our ideas, because we all have problems seeing the flaws in our own stuff. I once had a junior scientist who worked for me who was affronted by the idea that someone would edit her work. As I told her: even Stephen King has an editor. And you're no Stephen King. Having said that, if writing books is something you plan on continuing to do in the future, best of luck.

Eric - Thank you for the comment and the advice. I certainly value what review can do in software engineering and in preparing scientific manuscripts for publication. I am told that one pathway for independent authors is to be "discovered" by literary agents and publishers. Who knows what the future will bring?

Carl Drews · 15 January 2015

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: If one is going to be a Biblical literalist, shouldn't that be in terms of the original language? When I was a college freshman, about 45 years ago, the professor of religion class explained that "Red Sea" should have properly been translated as "Reed Sea," along with other considerations of text and language. Does anyone (with sufficient education) believe the Red Sea was crossed? If the exodus was a defining event for the Jews, then it's quite possible that a number of Hebrews left Egypt--but perhaps with little notice from the pharaoh and other Egyptians.

Chapter 7 Following the Trail of Between Migdol and the Sea contains in Table 7-1 a list of 14 crossing sites proposed around the Sinai peninsula. I supplied (latitude, longitude) coordinates accurate to 100 meters using Google Earth. The place names are also included. 5 out of 14 sites are on the modern Red Sea (only 36%). The remainder are across some yam suf, or "Sea of Reeds." My proposal is across the Kedua Gap at 30.9666Â° North, 32.4234Â° East. There is a map on the front cover of the book. Ali Bey Shafei had suggested the same site in 1946. "sufficient education": Of all the people listed in Table 7-1, Ron Wyatt was probably the least educated in biblical scholarship and Middle Eastern history. I know that you are trying to eliminate the non-serious proposals, but Lennart Moller also favors a crossing of the Gulf of Aqaba at Nuweiba. So does Ridley Scott in the movie "Exodus: Gods and Kings." The puzzle of the Red Sea crossing requires multiple disciplines, and no single person can be an expert in all the fields required (archaeology, literature, Egyptology, history, oceanography, geology, linguistics). We don't cross out Ferdinand de Lesseps just because he built the Suez Canal. Ron Wyatt thought outside the box and used what he knew to formulate a testable hypothesis. He deserves a place in Chapter 7.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKClPHRhWOQyCVGlIJhJOKy_uJujWHa74 · 15 January 2015

One of the many questions I have had about the Exodus account is this: are there any known measurements of the depth of mud at the bottom of the Red Sea (or other proposed crossing sites)? I would expect it to be waist high if not higher, and at any rate a serious obstacle to chariot traffic or even foot traffic. Of course it could have been miraculously converted into a paved highway for the crossing, but why was not this secondary miracle noticed and mentioned by the chroniclers? My guess is that in making up the tall tale they never thought of this problem (having never seen the bottom of the Red Sea).

The Golden Calf is also a deal-breaker for me. After seeing the 10 plagues (including the death of first-born sons - and why would a god or its angels need blood marks to tell Hebrew homes from Egyptian ones?) and the parting and closing of a sea, why would 30-40% of the exodus population decide they could make a better god by melting some trinkets and molding them into the shape of a calf?

Finally, the dissonance of receiving the Ten Commandments carved in stone (etching in titanium would have been my choice, but I guess god is limited to the technology of the time) including "Thou shalt not murder" and then immediately murdering the GC worshippers ... you could only make this stuff up (poorly).

JimV

Carl Drews · 15 January 2015

Miracles: The Old Testament idea does not match our modern understanding of the word "miracle." To Late Bronze Age Israelites, spectacular and rare events in their favor were a Mighty Work of God, and they did not quibble about the laws of physics and ask if Force still equaled mass times acceleration. Thus when Gideon surrounded a hostile army of Midianites with torches and defeated them, it was a Mighty Work of God (Judges 7). I am using this Old Testament concept of "miracle" because I am researching the Old Testament. My goal for Between Migdol and the Sea has been to study one reported miracle and study it very well. If you want an overview of the other miracles described in Exodus, please see Colin Humphreys "The Miracles of Exodus" (2003). The sea crossing narrative in Exodus 14 contains a natural component: the east wind. Exodus 14:20-21 says in the ESV:

Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

So the sequence is: 1. God sent the east wind. 2. The east wind moved the water. Part 2 is most certainly subject to scientific study, and ocean modeling in particular. Wind moves water according to the laws of physics. If the ancient story is true, then Part 2 should happen at some plausible location adjacent to the Sinai peninsula. It does indeed occur (see Migdol Chapter 5), and the land bridge opens near a New Kingdom site identified as "Migdol" by several archaeologists (Hoffmeier, Kitchen) for entirely different reasons. The overall event is, of course, a miracle because God accomplishes Part 1 at just the right time to deliver Moses and the Israelites from destruction, and He notifies Moses in advance of where to assemble. The miracle is in the timing, even though F=ma at all times during Exodus 14. For more information, see my October 2014 post about the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt and scroll down to "Miracles". Or read page 295 of Between Migdol and the Sea. There is still a natural law suspended here: the law of uncertainty in weather forecasting. I work with mesoscale weather forecasters, and none of them would risk the lives of 36,000 people based on a strong wind arriving and later subsiding with 1-hour accuracy. Furthermore, Moses had neither a supercomputer nor the WRF weather model at his disposal. I could be wrong about Part 2. Maybe the crossing of the Red Sea was "miracles all the way down." In that case Moses could have crossed the Red Sea in Djibouti and I would be out of luck. But the biblical text reads as if Part 2 is a causal event; the people of the time were not oceanographers, but they could tell that the east wind was driving the water away. The natural component of this particular miracle presents a big advantage; I can analyze that natural component with science and hopefully pinpoint a likely site for the famous crossing.

Carl Drews · 15 January 2015

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKClPHRhWOQyCVGlIJhJOKy_uJujWHa74 said: One of the many questions I have had about the Exodus account is this: are there any known measurements of the depth of mud at the bottom of the Red Sea (or other proposed crossing sites)? I would expect it to be waist high if not higher, and at any rate a serious obstacle to chariot traffic or even foot traffic. Of course it could have been miraculously converted into a paved highway for the crossing, but why was not this secondary miracle noticed and mentioned by the chroniclers? My guess is that in making up the tall tale they never thought of this problem (having never seen the bottom of the Red Sea). JimV

JimV - Can you tell us why you would expect the bottom of the Red Sea to have "waist high" (deep) mud? I'm interested. I have made the mud depth into a narrative thread through Chapter 5 The Tanis Hypothesis. You'll get plenty of answer there! A solution to the related "dry ground" problem occupies the last section of Chapter 6, "Citizen Science." Some bloggers at "Get Religion" provided the answer.

phhht · 15 January 2015

Carl Drews said:
Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

So tell us, Carl: what makes you think this event ever happened in the first place? I do not argue that such an event is impossible, even though I do not see how you can test your hypothesis to demonstrate its real-world feasibility. I just don't get why you put any credence in this story from the get-go. So why do you?

phhht · 15 January 2015

phhht said:
Carl Drews said:
Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

So tell us, Carl: what makes you think this event ever happened in the first place? I do not argue that such an event is impossible, even though I do not see how you can test your hypothesis to demonstrate its real-world feasibility. I just don't get why you put any credence in this story from the get-go. So why do you?

I didn't make myself clear. Let me try again. I don't see why you think such an event ever happened. That's not because I think such an event is impossible. It's that I don't see any reason to to think there was a god involved. Why do you think there was?

eric · 16 January 2015

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKClPHRhWOQyCVGlIJhJOKy_uJujWHa74 said: The Golden Calf is also a deal-breaker for me. After seeing the 10 plagues (including the death of first-born sons - and why would a god or its angels need blood marks to tell Hebrew homes from Egyptian ones?) and the parting and closing of a sea, why would 30-40% of the exodus population decide they could make a better god by melting some trinkets and molding them into the shape of a calf?

I don't remember the story exactly but I believe there may have been years between the events. Plenty of time for the standard human "yes, but what have you done for me lately?" bias to kick in. Moreover, the story of the golden calf makes a lot of sense if you discount the miracles. Group follows prophet into desert because prophet promises land of milk and honey. Some time later they are still in the desert, and some people have started to question the prophet's claims and question the god he's claiming gave him the visions, because they don't see any such land.

Finally, the dissonance of receiving the Ten Commandments carved in stone (etching in titanium would have been my choice, but I guess god is limited to the technology of the time) including "Thou shalt not murder" and then immediately murdering the GC worshippers ... you could only make this stuff up (poorly).

You're remembering the story wrong. God didn't kill anyone (directly) after the golden calf incident. He wanted to, but Moses convinced him not to. Then Moses went down and did a "you're either with me, or against me" routine. After people picked sides, he had his followers kill the ones who stood against him. If you ignore the miracles, its an entirely believable (if bloodthirsty) story. To pick up where I left off above...we left our protagonist in the desert, surrounded by his cult members, some of whom have started to question his being a prophet or his god being real. So he first lets people decide whether to stay with him or go. This lets him identify the unbelievers in his group. Then instead of actually letting them go, he has his more dedicated followers kill them.

DS · 16 January 2015

So it seems like it's miracles all the way down after all. So why do miracles have to conform to known natural laws? Is god limited to such "plausible" interventions? Does god have the power to circumvent natural laws? If so, why try to prove that no natural laws were broken? If not, maybe your god is just too small. Did the supposed resurrection conform to natural laws? If so, it really wasn't much of a miracle now was it?

I still don't see the point in any of this. Ia all miracles conform to natural laws, then god is unnecessary and perhaps irrelevant. If some miracles violate natural law, then why can't all miracles? If the miracle is in the timing, then Moses could just have been smart enough to plan ahead and create the "miracle" himself. In fact, it has been suggested that this supposed miracle was due to nothing more than an intimate knowledge of the local conditions and tides.

eric · 16 January 2015

DS said: I still don't see the point in any of this. Ia all miracles conform to natural laws, then god is unnecessary and perhaps irrelevant. If some miracles violate natural law, then why can't all miracles? If the miracle is in the timing, then Moses could just have been smart enough to plan ahead and create the "miracle" himself. In fact, it has been suggested that this supposed miracle was due to nothing more than an intimate knowledge of the local conditions and tides.

This sounds a bit like FL's 'all or nothing' argument he uses above. The point is, there are many believers that think the bible contains claims that are true and other claims that are false. In some cases, they may simply accept a claim out of faith. But in other cases, they are willing to try and use science to figure out whether a claim is true or false. Granted, non-believers can legitimately ask where they draw the line (between claims taken on faith and claims analyzed by science) and how they draw the line. But there is nothing particularly unusual in taking an old story filled with miracles and trying to figure out whether some of the events in it are based on real historical happenings. To try and figure out what is exaggeration, and what is whole-cloth confabulation. Just because we find it absurd to think Achilles was dipped in invulnerablity sauce by his goddess mother, is no reason to stop looking for the walls of Troy. And its a very good thing science didn't take that "its all-or-nothing" approach, because IIRC in the last 20 years or so we actually found the remains of Troy.

FL · 16 January 2015

Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesusâs miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation?

No answer from any of the Pandas.

I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue mircales from the true ones?

No answer from Carl Drews. FL

s.t.early · 16 January 2015

Regular lurker here. Enjoying the discussion as always. Haven't read Carl Drews' book and will confess that I likely won't (too many books on my list already). But I did want to ask if he is aware or if the book makes mention of Napoleon's crossing of the Red Sea (which was news to me as well until I read it somewhere). If not, it might be worth investigating further. See also:

http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/scholarship98/c_palestine.html . Relevant section pasted below.

"When Napoleon set his army in motion, Bourienne recorded,

On the morning of the 28th we crossed the Red Sea dry shod...Near the port the Red Sea is not above 1,500 meters wide, and is always fordable at low water...at high tide the water rises five or six feet at Suez, and when the wind blows fresh it often rises nine or ten feet. [11]

Napoleon was almost drowned in the rising tide."

gdavidson418 · 16 January 2015

FL said:
Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesusâs miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation?
No answer from any of the Pandas.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Are you really stupid enough to suppose that many of us believe that any of Jesus' miracles are "true"? Or, more importantly, that we think we have any way of truly determining that any were real, or even that any were false? Of course this reflects your long-term incapacity to understand the burden of "proof," unless you're just being dishonest. As usual you're an appalling interlocutor, who understands nothing about different types and purposes of writing in the Bible.

I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue mircales from the true ones?
No answer from Carl Drews.

So? Why would he respond to a tendentious, ignorant boob? I don't agree with his position, but if he indeed has a principled distinction between "real miracles" like the resurrection and things that presumably are indeed due to God's doings, but not actually being "real miracles" at least like the resurrection (I suspect he does), it's rather beyond your pathetic literalistic (mis)understandings, and it would be lengthy without you being willing or able to understand it. Tell us how the Tigris and Euphrates existed prior to the Flood, which you YECs claim is responsible for the topography and sediments of the earth. Can't, can you? Oh, I'm sure you could come up with some word-game from some mindless creationist site, but who cares? Clearly the story of Eden was about the earth basically as it is now (either the writers/redactors didn't even care about the flood, or, more likely, they just thought it killed life without otherwise affecting the earth much), contrary to the YEC claims about what the flood did. Glen Davidson

eric · 16 January 2015

FL said:
Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesusâs miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation?
No answer from any of the Pandas.

Well, the non-religious amongst us have told you the same thing over and over again, in many different versions, from Phhht's ascerbic terseness to Harold's detailed volumes. My short version for today will be: we require credible confirmatory evidence of any claim that a physical law has been broken or that our understanding of nature is wrong. The more miraculous the claim, the more credible evidence we're likely to require. Until we get it, we don't believe the miracle-claim. And this is not discriminatory or unfair, because we make the same requirement of any such claim, whether it comes from another scientist in a journal article, a venture capitalist toting a product, a creationist expounding on Genesis, a muslim claiming a flying horse, a televangelist claiming to be able to heal people, the local mystic claiming they can read the future, or what have you.

harold · 16 January 2015

FL said:
Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesusâs miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation?
No answer from any of the Pandas.
I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue mircales from the true ones?
No answer from Carl Drews. FL

Jesus is a character in the four gospels. It's fashionable to argue that Jesus never existed; I have no way of knowing for sure but suspect that the character is based on a real person or persons. It's hard to say. People debate endlessly about whether Robin Hood and various other legendary figures were based on real people. The basic ethical teachings ascribed to Jesus are mainly great, and this world would be far better off if anyone ever paid attention to them, or to equivalent systems from other religions or philosophies. In my personal view, claiming to be a Christian has no correlation with living by the values Jesus preaches in the Bible. Some Christians do, but so do some non-Christians, and most so-called Christians do anything but. (I realize that Jesus isn't perfect (drumroll), but quoting some minor mildly nasty thing won't change my impression that the character espouses a humane and compassionate values system overall. I also really enjoy his skewering of the pretentious, the hypocritical, the arrogant, and so on.) The Jesus character in the Bible says that if you accept him specifically as your savior you'll gain some kind of advantage after death. I would not be surprised if there was a real life Jesus who sincerely believed that; the Biblical character certainly reflects a decent and sincere person. However, that's basically what all religions say. I have no reason to accept any of them. It's not necessarily intended as a trick, but that's what it is. Magic not working for you now? Well, um, er, it will totally work after you're dead! It's just a gag. Get people scared and greedy about stuff that supposedly happens only after they're dead, so that no-one can ever say for certain whether or not it happens. Most of the people who peddle this gag believe in it themselves, but in the end, it's pretty transparent. You can't produce measurable miracles on demand, so you claim that something will happen to the souls of the dead. The Jesus character is shown performing miracles. These are very powerful passages which deeply move people because they touch on the question of human suffering. However, as far as I'm concerned, they're all made up stories. It is entirely possible that some of them are based on some real life incidents with scientific explanations, which were distorted into miracles by folklore. However, they're now just made up stories. They're powerful stories that deeply impact on peoples' hopes and fears, but that doesn't change the fact that they're stories. I can't prove they didn't happen, duh, but my default is skepticism.

gdavidson418 · 16 January 2015

DS said: So it seems like it's miracles all the way down after all. So why do miracles have to conform to known natural laws? Is god limited to such "plausible" interventions? Does god have the power to circumvent natural laws? If so, why try to prove that no natural laws were broken? If not, maybe your god is just too small. Did the supposed resurrection conform to natural laws? If so, it really wasn't much of a miracle now was it? I still don't see the point in any of this. Ia all miracles conform to natural laws, then god is unnecessary and perhaps irrelevant. If some miracles violate natural law, then why can't all miracles? If the miracle is in the timing, then Moses could just have been smart enough to plan ahead and create the "miracle" himself. In fact, it has been suggested that this supposed miracle was due to nothing more than an intimate knowledge of the local conditions and tides.

Those are good questions, and I think that today it's easy enough to say, yeah, shove the miracles overboard. But in the past it wasn't so clear, because many things clearly happened in a fairly law-like manner, such as the movements of the heavens and a catapulted rock, yet there were all of these strange things that affected people and things that weren't clear at all. The Greeks had the gods Deimos and Phobos (often translated "fear" and "panic"), who answered the question of, why do entire groups of armed combatants panic and start running? We have psychology, they had outside forces affecting humans. The fact that gods may affect you, though, didn't mean that, say, a lunging lion also causes fear, pretty consistently. One could ask, why pray to God to cause your side to win in battle, when everything is up to God anyway? Just pray, and God will make the right side win no matter what. But no, God had set things up in an orderly fashion, with the heavens never deviating (they do, but that was explained away), with autonomous beings, and certain things happening more or less regardless. Maybe God could intervene totally, but mostly he pretty much didn't. That just seemed to be a fact. This is a famous text:

The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. Judges 1:19

Especially with the later Monotheistic God and/or Trinity, that seems more problematic than it did to whoever wrote Judges, IMO. Because earlier theists saw the world filled with forces, some seen and some unseen, and iron is this strong substance that the gods aren't going to negate (at least not normally), but if you have skill and great weapons you're doing what you can do, and then God or the gods will do what they do, like guiding your weapon to its target. Iliad is pretty good in demonstrating that viewpoint, so that Athena's not going to simply stop a weapon, but if she likes you she might deflect it from its target. Still, with the Omnipotent Being of later theism, why isn't God the deciding force altogether and everywhere? Sure, but then again, why not God setting everything up so that it comes out as he desires? Well, in fact the latter notion seems to run into serious moral issues, theodicy problems, etc., but there are theists who might go one way and others might go the other way, and the moral issues are mysterious or some such thing. The upshot is that clearly things aren't ideal whether God intervenes a lot or not, so intervention doesn't seem to be the bigger problem of theodicy. So God set things up to be autonomous for the most part, in one view, because of free will and such matters, so even life might have evolved sans intervention, but a resurrection just isn't part of the natural order, so that simply requires an intervention. Since Jesus coming to earth already is an intervention, it seems to go along with that break in order anyhow, so fine, miraculous birth, miraculous resurrection. There can be a kind of logic to it all, then, I think. However, problems always existed--which wasn't such a problem when only other theistic concepts seemed to be alternatives--while under the empirical understanding there really are no problems even close to the problems of theism (research opportunities in empiricism), at least in my opinion. But atheists often don't get theists, and vice versa, and it's just a fact that there is an appeal to theism--from spiritual feelings and the desire for completion that the god-concept is supposed to fulfill, to the promise of immortality--that draws people to theism. Glen Davidson

gdavidson418 · 16 January 2015

Should have been: "The fact that gods may affect you, though, didnât mean that, say, a lunging lion didn't also cause fear, pretty consistently."

Glen Davidson

Matt Young · 16 January 2015

It is entirely possible that some of them are based on some real life incidents with scientific explanations, which were distorted into miracles by folklore.

It is also possible that Jesus was a magician -- like Elijah. I am not familiar with all of the "miracles," but I'll bet that James Randi could duplicate most of them.

gdavidson418 · 16 January 2015

Matt Young said:
It is entirely possible that some of them are based on some real life incidents with scientific explanations, which were distorted into miracles by folklore.
It is also possible that Jesus was a magician -- like Elijah. I am not familiar with all of the "miracles," but I'll bet that James Randi could duplicate most of them.

There are weird stories in the Gospels that seem to go along with him being a healer/magician of some sort. There's this from Mark 8:

22 And they came to Bethsaida. And some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, âDo you see anything?â 24 And he looked up and said, âI see people, but they look like trees, walking.â 25 Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26 And he sent him to his home, saying, âDo not even enter the village.â

I've seen this mentioned as an argument that his miracles were real, because people who have long been blind would not see properly at first. But come on, he spit on his eyes, and gave him poor sight the first time? Then fixed his sight with another miracle? That's not the first miracle mentioned by most believers, because it's all too physical, and at first, incomplete. It's what an early "magic healer" might have done, or what witnesses could have related anyway. It does seem possible that a kind of vision-restoration might occur temporarily, at least, maybe even something more lasting in some cases, although in some cases people are blind and seem not to know it, so he might have just hallucinated instead of truly seeing. Or the whole thing could be distorted beyond recognition of any event that gave rise to it, I don't know. But it seems that earlier memories of his miracles had more going on than just speaking and its done, or merely touching a person to instantly heal an ailment. Glen Davidson

harold · 16 January 2015

eric said:
FL said:
Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesusâs miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation?
No answer from any of the Pandas.
Well, the non-religious amongst us have told you the same thing over and over again, in many different versions, from Phhht's ascerbic terseness to Harold's detailed volumes. My short version for today will be: we require credible confirmatory evidence of any claim that a physical law has been broken or that our understanding of nature is wrong. The more miraculous the claim, the more credible evidence we're likely to require. Until we get it, we don't believe the miracle-claim. And this is not discriminatory or unfair, because we make the same requirement of any such claim, whether it comes from another scientist in a journal article, a venture capitalist toting a product, a creationist expounding on Genesis, a muslim claiming a flying horse, a televangelist claiming to be able to heal people, the local mystic claiming they can read the future, or what have you.

I've replied here because FL asked a question which is on topic for this particular thread. I mainly have no interest in arguing about religion. The interest which brought me to this site, originally, is my interest in combatting politically active science denial movements. I am also interested in combatting any efforts to use the government's power to impose the rituals of some favored religious sect on all Americans (not the same thing are arguing about whether that particular sect's teachings are "true" or "false"). Many religious people are my allies with regard to both of these interests. As long as people respect my rights and don't try to use ideologically motivated science denial to set public policy, I don't much care what religion they privately follow.

harold · 16 January 2015

Matt Young said:
It is entirely possible that some of them are based on some real life incidents with scientific explanations, which were distorted into miracles by folklore.
It is also possible that Jesus was a magician -- like Elijah. I am not familiar with all of the "miracles," but I'll bet that James Randi could duplicate most of them.

Some historical figure that the Biblical character is based on might have this characteristic. The Biblical character is basically a totally sincere and deeply religious Jew, who is a prodigy religious scholar during his childhood (depicted as recognized as such by rabbis), who becomes convinced that he is the awaited Jewish Messiah, and who lives a highly ascetic life of total poverty and constant preaching and religious work, which his disciples share. Whether stories of a magician like character were incorporated into the Biblical character is hard to say. You don't have to look for mysterious figures to find examples of legends being applied to a character loosely based on a real figure. Charlemagne is a well documented historical figure; there was even a fairly decent if mildly whitewashed biography of him written by one of his court scholars. His actual documented life is full of drama. Yet he is also a figure in all sorts of folk tales that are unrelated to the real Charlemagne. And the "legendary" Charlemagne is always depicted as an elderly man with a long white beard (he is essentially a folk symbol of "unassailably legitimate royal authority"). The real Charlemagne lived to be a bit older than 70, and thus probably did not have a white beard for most of his reign.

phhht · 16 January 2015

If I understand correctly, what Carl Drews has done in his book is to add one more purported miracle to the long, long list of ex-miracles now explained without the need to invoke any supernatural agency.

He's added the parting of the Red Sea to disease, thunder, the origin of the universe, the evolution of life, and thousands of other erstwhile miracles, which we now understand as manifestations of wholly natural forces. We understand that there were no gods involved. There was only the real.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKClPHRhWOQyCVGlIJhJOKy_uJujWHa74 · 16 January 2015

A couple replies:

Mr. Drews asked why I thought there was mud at the bottom of the Red Sea. I don't know if there is or not (I asked if anyone knew of studies). I thought so because of an incident in one of Patrick O'Brian's books about the British Navy, in which a diving bell is used to retrieve something from a wreck on the bottom of the Red Sea. O'Brian's books are historical fiction, but often based on actual records of the British Navy. Also in my personal experience there is mud (silt) on the bottom of deep bodies of water because the currents mainly move on the surface. If the bottom in question was not muddy this implies to me a shallow or even dried-up channel which would not need to be parted.

Eric: I recall the Golden Calf event as taking place within weeks of the crossing, but Sunday School was a long time ago for me. Any time within living memory of ten plagues and a sea parting would be too soon to be credible for me. Of course if there were no miraculous plagues and no sea-parting the event becomes easily credible, which was part of my point.

I never said nor meant that god directly killed the GC worshippers. My point was the Ten Commandments said "don't murder" and that is exactly what Moses' faction proceeded to do. Perhaps we have a different definition of murder, but the event fits my definition.

JimV

eric · 16 January 2015

Matt Young said: It is also possible that Jesus was a magician -- like Elijah. I am not familiar with all of the "miracles," but I'll bet that James Randi could duplicate most of them.

I think it was Helena Constantine a few months (years?) back that pointed out that the details of some of the miracle stories (such as the wedding of Cana, where Jesus turns water into wine) looked like they were specifically added to refute the 'magician' charge. Evidently, there were other magicians running around at the time that would turn water into wine, raise the dead, etc., and the christian gospel writers took care to put in material that would set Jesus apart. For the marriage at cana, those details were (a) the unusually large size of the vessels, because that quantity of water makes sleight-of-hand 'doping' more obvious, and (b) the unusually the high quality of the wine, because magicians used to pipe wine into a fountain water supply as one way to produce the miracle, but it was typically cheap wine. Now, the fact that in the first century AD magicians were running around doing these things, and that gospel writers knew it and took great care to write their stories to try and refute the magician charge, is interesting. At least to me.

FL · 16 January 2015

Eric wrote,

No, if (Carl) denies the miracle of the parted sea then its pretty obvious he doesnât believe all the miracles in the bible.

I agree with your statement as you worded it. But your statement doesn't deny a single thing (regarding literalness and historicity) about Jesus's miracles, which Carl Drews very specifically affirmed.

"Yes, Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and rose from the dead." -- Carl Drews

So unless otherwise specified or denied by Carl, the affirmation given by Carl IS pretty clear -- Jesus actually performed real and literal historical miracles and literally rose from the dead. NOT symbolically. Literally. Even if doesn't believe the Old Testament miracles took place. And yes, that includes those Jesus miracles involving super-fast creation of brand new biology parts, tissues, cells, programming/maintenance, and entire systems where they didn't exist one minute previously. (the healing of the man's withered hand, for example.) So, rationally, this very same Jesus (Colossians 1:16, the Creator of the Universe), could also do the very same miracles of super-fast supernatural creation of said biological parts/programming/systems, in order to create the first humans, Adam and Eve, EXACTLY as described in Genesis and within the EXACT time frame specified therein. And that would make it absolutely impossible for the theory of evolution to be a co-existing and compatible explanation for human origins. So, specifically regarding the origin of the first humans, evolution is again proven to be incompatible with Christianity. You must choose one explanation for human origins, or the other. You don't get to choose both. **** Meanwhile, like you suggested, it would be better for me to just ask Carl these questions. But by now, you have clearly noticed that he is NOT answering these specific questions and issues. Nobody else can, either. FL

Mike Elzinga · 16 January 2015

You know you are in the presence of an obsessive/compulsive sectarian ideologue when you see him making assertions about which he has no evidence whatsoever and for which he cannot possibly have any evidence.

Spending one's lifetime living in an outhouse studying the torn out pages of catalogs used for toilet paper is not equivalent to traveling the world and becoming knowledgeable in all things.

And, by the way, that "new fangled" television thing called, Unsolved Mysteries is not a source of evidence for anything you want to believe.

phhht · 16 January 2015

FL said: Eric wrote,
No, if (Carl) denies the miracle of the parted sea then its pretty obvious he doesnât believe all the miracles in the bible.
I agree with your statement as you worded it. But your statement doesn't deny a single thing (regarding literalness and historicity) about Jesus's miracles, which Carl Drews very specifically affirmed.
"Yes, Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and rose from the dead." -- Carl Drews
So unless otherwise specified or denied by Carl, the affirmation given by Carl IS pretty clear -- Jesus actually performed real and literal historical miracles and literally rose from the dead. NOT symbolically. Literally. Even if doesn't believe the Old Testament miracles took place. And yes, that includes those Jesus miracles involving super-fast creation of brand new biology parts, tissues, cells, programming/maintenance, and entire systems where they didn't exist one minute previously. (the healing of the man's withered hand, for example.) So, rationally, this very same Jesus (Colossians 1:16, the Creator of the Universe), could also do the very same miracles of super-fast supernatural creation of said biological parts/programming/systems, in order to create the first humans, Adam and Eve, EXACTLY as described in Genesis and within the EXACT time frame specified therein. And that would make it absolutely impossible for the theory of evolution to be a co-existing and compatible explanation for human origins. So, specifically regarding the origin of the first humans, evolution is again proven to be incompatible with Christianity. You must choose one explanation for human origins, or the other. You don't get to choose both. **** Meanwhile, like you suggested, it would be better for me to just ask Carl these questions. But by now, you have clearly noticed that he is NOT answering these specific questions and issues. Nobody else can, either.

The only drawback to your argument, Flawd, is that gods are not real. Gods are fictional characters, just like vampires, werewolves, and superheroes. What is it that makes you think they are real?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM · 16 January 2015

Carl Drews said: Miracles: The Old Testament idea does not match our modern understanding of the word "miracle." To Late Bronze Age Israelites, spectacular and rare events in their favor were a Mighty Work of God, and they did not quibble about the laws of physics and ask if Force still equaled mass times acceleration. Thus when Gideon surrounded a hostile army of Midianites with torches and defeated them, it was a Mighty Work of God (Judges 7). I am using this Old Testament concept of "miracle" because I am researching the Old Testament. ... 1. God sent the east wind.

Could God not have just as easily sent a pontoon bridge, or a hovercraft ferry? If the conditions were such that a band of people could walk across low water, they might (later) interpret the low-water condition as a miracle (or act of God). The tale could then gain more and more significance in later retellings. The event, if it happened, could have occurred without supernatural intervention.

Mike Elzinga · 16 January 2015

I wonder how future "historians" will interpret the expression "miracle drugs" if they ever come across the term in "ancient" writings.

I suspect it will depend on whether or not we "achieve" an "idiocracy" in the future.

Malcolm · 16 January 2015

FL said: Eric wrote,
No, if (Carl) denies the miracle of the parted sea then its pretty obvious he doesnât believe all the miracles in the bible.
I agree with your statement as you worded it. But your statement doesn't deny a single thing (regarding literalness and historicity) about Jesus's miracles, which Carl Drews very specifically affirmed.
"Yes, Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and rose from the dead." -- Carl Drews
So unless otherwise specified or denied by Carl, the affirmation given by Carl IS pretty clear -- Jesus actually performed real and literal historical miracles and literally rose from the dead. NOT symbolically. Literally. Even if doesn't believe the Old Testament miracles took place. And yes, that includes those Jesus miracles involving super-fast creation of brand new biology parts, tissues, cells, programming/maintenance, and entire systems where they didn't exist one minute previously. (the healing of the man's withered hand, for example.) So, rationally, this very same Jesus (Colossians 1:16, the Creator of the Universe), could also do the very same miracles of super-fast supernatural creation of said biological parts/programming/systems, in order to create the first humans, Adam and Eve, EXACTLY as described in Genesis and within the EXACT time frame specified therein. And that would make it absolutely impossible for the theory of evolution to be a co-existing and compatible explanation for human origins. So, specifically regarding the origin of the first humans, evolution is again proven to be incompatible with Christianity. You must choose one explanation for human origins, or the other. You don't get to choose both. **** Meanwhile, like you suggested, it would be better for me to just ask Carl these questions. But by now, you have clearly noticed that he is NOT answering these specific questions and issues. Nobody else can, either. FL

In other words: Christianity or reality, the choice is yours.

Matt Young · 16 January 2015

In other words: Christianity or reality, the choice is yours.

Not exactly, but close enough -- but let us not degenerate into a name-calling argument with the FL troll.

gdavidson418 · 16 January 2015

Matt Young said:
In other words: Christianity or reality, the choice is yours.
Not exactly, but close enough -- but let us not degenerate into a name-calling argument with the FL troll.

That's meant to be a paraphrase of FL's claims, though, not Malcolm's own statement. Glen Davidson

Malcolm · 16 January 2015

gdavidson418 said:
Matt Young said:
In other words: Christianity or reality, the choice is yours.
Not exactly, but close enough -- but let us not degenerate into a name-calling argument with the FL troll.
That's meant to be a paraphrase of FL's claims, though, not Malcolm's own statement. Glen Davidson

Exactly. Although I do agree with Floyd in this case. I too believe that people should choose between religion and reality. It is just that Floyd and I have made different choices.

Carl Drews · 16 January 2015

DS said: I still don't see the point in any of this. Ia all miracles conform to natural laws, then god is unnecessary and perhaps irrelevant. If some miracles violate natural law, then why can't all miracles? If the miracle is in the timing, then Moses could just have been smart enough to plan ahead and create the "miracle" himself. In fact, it has been suggested that this supposed miracle was due to nothing more than an intimate knowledge of the local conditions and tides.

DS - Some miracles mention a natural component, like the Ten Plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. Others do not, like Jesus walking on water. Science can study that natural component. For the case of Jesus walking on water, the text indicates that Force was not equal to mass times acceleration. Some biblical miracles suspend natural laws, and other miracles use those laws for God's purpose. We examine the text closely to determine which kind it is, realizing that the original author probably didn't care. Dave Luckett pointed out some time ago that biblical miracles are rare and exceptional cases; they don't interfere with the normal conduct of scientific research (apart from Intelligent Design). As Eric suggests, there are at least four points for conducting a study of Exodus 14:

Out of pure scientific curiosity.
To have an interesting topic for my Master's thesis.
To find a bunch of broken-up chariots in situ from the New Kingdom period.
To develop engineering tools, expertise, and techniques that will be applied in other cases to save lives and property.

#3 would be a remarkable find even if those chariots had no connection with the Bible.

phhht · 16 January 2015

Carl Drews said:
DS said: I still don't see the point in any of this. Ia all miracles conform to natural laws, then god is unnecessary and perhaps irrelevant. If some miracles violate natural law, then why can't all miracles? If the miracle is in the timing, then Moses could just have been smart enough to plan ahead and create the "miracle" himself. In fact, it has been suggested that this supposed miracle was due to nothing more than an intimate knowledge of the local conditions and tides.
DS - Some miracles mention a natural component, like the Ten Plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. Others do not, like Jesus walking on water. Science can study that natural component. For the case of Jesus walking on water, the text indicates that Force was not equal to mass times acceleration. Some biblical miracles suspend natural laws, and other miracles use those laws for God's purpose. We examine the text closely to determine which kind it is, realizing that the original author probably didn't care. Dave Luckett pointed out some time ago that biblical miracles are rare and exceptional cases; they don't interfere with the normal conduct of scientific research (apart from Intelligent Design). As Eric suggests, there are at least four points for conducting a study of Exodus 14:

Out of pure scientific curiosity.

To have an interesting topic for my Master's thesis.

To find a bunch of broken-up chariots in situ from the New Kingdom period.

To develop engineering tools, expertise, and techniques that will be applied in other cases to save lives and property.

#3 would be a remarkable find even if those chariots had no connection with the Bible.

So Carl, what makes you think gods are real?

Carl Drews · 16 January 2015

s.t.early said: Regular lurker here. Enjoying the discussion as always. Haven't read Carl Drews' book and will confess that I likely won't (too many books on my list already). But I did want to ask if he is aware or if the book makes mention of Napoleon's crossing of the Red Sea (which was news to me as well until I read it somewhere). If not, it might be worth investigating further. See also: http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/scholarship98/c_palestine.html . Relevant section pasted below. "When Napoleon set his army in motion, Bourienne recorded, On the morning of the 28th we crossed the Red Sea dry shod...Near the port the Red Sea is not above 1,500 meters wide, and is always fordable at low water...at high tide the water rises five or six feet at Suez, and when the wind blows fresh it often rises nine or ten feet. [11] Napoleon was almost drowned in the rising tide."

Thanks and congratulations to s.t.early for locating the Napoleon report and especially the original source! I had been aware of Napoleon's brush with disaster but had not drilled down to the first-person account. s.t.early's link will lead the interested reader to North to Palestine: Napoleon Marches Against the Turks, by Herb Feinberg. Citation 11 there is in full: De Bourienne, Louis Antoine Fauvelet. Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891; vol. I, 181.. The title is in English, and hopefully the rest of the text. I did not mention Napoleon's close call in Between Migdol and the Sea, but I did provide a detailed section on Samuel Bartlett, who investigated the Napoleon report in person at Suez in 1879. The Bartlett section is pages 42-48 in my Chapter 3 Analyzing a Miracle, where I cover the prior research. The Napoleon-Bartlett crossing is at 29.9637Â° North, 32.5622Â° East in my Table 7-1. To see the site before the Suez Canal was constructed, click here on Karte der Bai von Sues. Click again to open the image itself and zoom in with your magnifying glass. Napoleon Bonaparte, Samuel Bartlett, and (he concluded) Moses crossed the Red Sea proper from the town of SUES southeast across that shallow ford labeled Sandbank bet der Ebbe. A wind from the north works best here, but a wind out of the northeast will also produce wind setdown of over two meters. Tides help. It's still difficult for the waters to divide here, not just merely recede from that northeast inlet. The final stream of seawater takes forever to dwindle to zero even if some tidal lake remains on the north (left) side of the crossing. But Samuel Bartlett wisely recognized Suez as a good candidate for the crossing described in Exodus 14. Unfortunately, no reputable archaeologist has located a site named "Migdol" nearby. The Hebrew word "migdol" means "tower" or "fortress," and so the advocates of the Suez crossing have identified pointy hills and mountains nearby. Maybe so, but I'm not convinced. Like a jigsaw puzzle, all the pieces have to fit together. History question: What military leader actually did drown while attempting to cross a river, thereby leading to the collapse of his now leaderless expedition?

Carl Drews · 16 January 2015

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKClPHRhWOQyCVGlIJhJOKy_uJujWHa74 said: Mr. Drews asked why I thought there was mud at the bottom of the Red Sea. I don't know if there is or not (I asked if anyone knew of studies). I thought so because of an incident in one of Patrick O'Brian's books about the British Navy, in which a diving bell is used to retrieve something from a wreck on the bottom of the Red Sea. O'Brian's books are historical fiction, but often based on actual records of the British Navy. Also in my personal experience there is mud (silt) on the bottom of deep bodies of water because the currents mainly move on the surface. If the bottom in question was not muddy this implies to me a shallow or even dried-up channel which would not need to be parted. JimV

Yes, the water currents are the key to the mud consistency and depth. The HjulstrÃ¶m diagram shows quantitatively what you already know: that strong currents wash away the fine silt and leave coarse sand and gravel. Shallow channels subject to tides and winds won't have deep mud on the bottom. The PLOS ONE "Dynamics" paper includes a report by Alexander Tulloch of native Egyptians walking about on the mud bottom of Lake Manzalah after a strong east wind had blown it dry in 1882. Adult men can drown in two meters of water, especially if armor weighs them down, and the young Hebrew children probably couldn't swim very well. The Red Sea does not have to be really deep to match the narrative. Between Migdol and the Sea features the process of doing science as a graduate student. Think of the book as something like: The Double Helix meets the Old Testament. Not all insights and discoveries come from the lab, and some ideas arrive completely by accident. JimV's reading list from Patrick O'Brian would have saved me some time in figuring out about the mud.

phhht · 16 January 2015

Carl Drews said: For the case of Jesus walking on water, the text indicates that Force was not equal to mass times acceleration.

See Carl, what I don't get is why you believe "the text" tells a true story. I take it for granted that you don't believe in the reality of the feats of Superman, the Incredible Hulk, or the Avengers. Is that correct? So why believe that the story of a man walking on water is true? How can you tell that story is true, but the superhero stories are not? What makes you think the Bible story is real, Carl?

mattdance18 · 16 January 2015

FL said: Some of those same Jesus miracles CLEARLY involved direct Ex Nihilo Creation, the same as Genesis creation of humans, plus a way-too-fast time element that precludes any evolutionary or naturalistic explanation. (Notice Jesus' healing of the man's withered hand, for example, involving immediate Ex Nihilo Creation of brand new tissue, nerves, cells, systems to make brand new functioning hand....) ... So here's your question, Pandas:

And here's a question for you, Floyd: have you ever engaged in a real study of theology? I'm quite serious. Because even leaving aside the question of whether either creation or miracles did or did not occur, at the level of simply understanding the concept of "creatio ex nihilo," you fail completely. You want to throw around some Latin? Try this: "creatio non est mutatio." It means "creation is not change." That is, creation doesn't start with one thing -- like, gee, I dunno, a withered hand -- and end with another -- like, poof, wowza, brand new tissues. It isn't even a process that occurs at any particular moment or moments in time. And this is why religious thinkers who actually understand the concept of "creatio ex nihilo" actually tend not to be creationists, in the typical YEC sense of magical poof-ism, or in that of the watered-down ID critique of evolution. For a nice summary, by a religious person who, quite unlike you, Floyd, does understand it, see http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design . It's bad enough that you don't understand scientific concepts. What's truly ridiculous, though, is that you don't even understand the theological concepts of your own religion. In fairness, neither do the ideologically blinded pseudo-theologians typical of Christian conservatism for the past hundred years or so. Vom.

mattdance18 · 16 January 2015

phhht said:
DS said: Well Floyd seems to use the criteria that if the bible says it was a miracle, it was, regardless of the evidence.
Yes, I understand that he DOES believe. But he cannot or will not explain why.

There is no "why," not in the sense of any objective reason. As far as I can tell, he's some kind of intuitionist. Which is to say, a bullshit subjectivist.

phhht · 16 January 2015

If you still care,
the story of the diving bell is in Treason's Harbour.

mattdance18 · 17 January 2015

FL said:
Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesusâs miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation?
No answer from any of the Pandas.

What an incredible LIAR you are. Multiple people responded to the effect that they make no such distinction, and that all claims of miracles are thus epistemically equivalent. You just didn't like the fact that the epistemic status they accorded to those claims was "false," or at best "not determinably true." Evidently, in addition to not knowing diddly about your own religion's conceptual theology, you can't even be bothered to remember what its sacred text has to say about bearing false witness.

harold · 17 January 2015

harold said:
Matt Young said:
It is entirely possible that some of them are based on some real life incidents with scientific explanations, which were distorted into miracles by folklore.
It is also possible that Jesus was a magician -- like Elijah. I am not familiar with all of the "miracles," but I'll bet that James Randi could duplicate most of them.
Some historical figure that the Biblical character is based on might have this characteristic. The Biblical character is basically a totally sincere and deeply religious Jew, who is a prodigy religious scholar during his childhood (depicted as recognized as such by rabbis), who becomes convinced that he is the awaited Jewish Messiah, and who lives a highly ascetic life of total poverty and constant preaching and religious work, which his disciples share. Whether stories of a magician like character were incorporated into the Biblical character is hard to say. You don't have to look for mysterious figures to find examples of legends being applied to a character loosely based on a real figure. Charlemagne is a well documented historical figure; there was even a fairly decent if mildly whitewashed biography of him written by one of his court scholars. His actual documented life is full of drama. Yet he is also a figure in all sorts of folk tales that are unrelated to the real Charlemagne. And the "legendary" Charlemagne is always depicted as an elderly man with a long white beard (he is essentially a folk symbol of "unassailably legitimate royal authority"). The real Charlemagne lived to be a bit older than 70, and thus probably did not have a white beard for most of his reign.

The Biblical Jesus is actually essentially a prototype holy man, extremely similar to many Hindu yogi and guru figures, and many Buddhists saints, for example. A similarity to shaman figures is not hard to see. He lives a simple ascetic life with no interest in wealth, political power, or sexual conquests, has magic powers that he uses to help ordinary people, tries to encourage people to be good, is able to defeat evil supernatural beings, and is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of others. The idea that he is an amalgam of human and god also fits neatly into this - many such figures are depicted as having some sort of descent from a god. One variation is whether the benign shaman/holy man (or, not that infrequently, woman), achieves magical powers partly by divine birth, or solely by ascetic discipline. With Jesus, as with many, it's both. He is God and/or the Son of God, but he also studies the Torah and lives a pure life. In some examples, the holy figure achieves status only by their own efforts, in others, it is both efforts and some kind of supernatural or noble descent. From what little we know of the organized religions of bronze age and neolithic cultures, this doesn't seem to be the type of priest they had. The Jesus figure is somewhat different from the sacrifice- and ritual-directing, socially powerful priest. Instead, we seem to see the benign shaman figure in less complex societies, replaced by an official, government-allied, less empathetic ritual based priesthood at a certain level of organization, and then re-emerging again. Possibly in societies like Ancient Egypt or Mesoamerica, the shaman like figures were always there as village wise men/women or the like, separate from although not directly opposed to the official religion. The Catholic church is a truly fascinating institution in many ways, and one way is that they combined the shaman-like figure and the official priesthood into the same organization. The self-flagellating saint who heals the suffering and the arrogant bishop were part of the same religion, with the typical village priest a figure with features of each, in varying proportion depending on the individual.

loujost · 17 January 2015

One more strange thing about the Exodus story: If taken literally, it actually proves that the Egyptian gods are also real. Remember that Moses and an Egyptian priest had a face-off. The Egyptian priests threw their staffs on the ground and turned them into a snakes. Moses did the same and his staff turned into a bigger snake and ate the Egyptian's snake.

Some Christian might argue that Yahweh made all this happen to send a message to the Egyptians that he was one bad-ass god. Still, it is an ambiguous message. Wouldn't it have been sensible to let the Egyptian staff sit there on the floor rather than transform into a snake? And why would the Egyptians have had the confidence to throw their staffs down and turn them into snakes, if this was not a regular occurrence for them?

So it seems to me that the Bible proves polytheism of the broadest kind if taken literally. To fill this out, one could add many other godlike characters mentioned in the Bible.

loujost · 17 January 2015

Wow, the Napolean story mentioned by an earlier commenter, s. t. early, is worth repeating in full:

"When Napoleon set his army in motion, Bourienne recorded,

Napoleon was almost drowned in the rising tide.

General Bon, with two cannons and 1,500 men, captured Suez on December 7. Napoleon learned that Dgezzar was marching on El Arish. He quickly returned to Cairo and issued marching orders to the rest of his army. Berthier recalled,

In the evening they entered Suez, but it was highwater; they then ascended to the point of the Red Sea; but the guide lost himself in the marshes, from which he extricated himself with great difficulty, being up to the middle in the water. This guide must have been a descendant of the one who conducted Pharaoh. [12]"

TomS · 17 January 2015

loujost said: One more strange thing about the Exodus story: If taken literally, it actually proves that the Egyptian gods are also real. Remember that Moses and an Egyptian priest had a face-off. The Egyptian priests threw their staffs on the ground and turned them into a snakes. Moses did the same and his staff turned into a bigger snake and ate the Egyptian's snake. Some Christian might argue that Yahweh made all this happen to send a message to the Egyptians that he was one bad-ass god. Still, it is an ambiguous message. Wouldn't it have been sensible to let the Egyptian staff sit there on the floor rather than transform into a snake? And why would the Egyptians have had the confidence to throw their staffs down and turn them into snakes, if this was not a regular occurrence for them? So it seems to me that the Bible proves polytheism of the broadest kind if taken literally. To fill this out, one could add many other godlike characters mentioned in the Bible.

Acts 7:22 says that Moses was learned in the wisdom of Egypt. That may be a reference to his being able to outdo them at magic. Or this may be an instance of spontaneous generation. For which also see a couple of the plagues of Egypt with the spontaneous generation of frogs and insects.

Matt Young · 17 January 2015

So it seems to me that the Bible proves polytheism of the broadest kind if taken literally.

Henotheism -- the belief in national or tribal gods. The purpose of such stories was probably to show that Moses's god was stronger than the Egyptians' god(s). The Jonah story may have been intended to counter the beliefs in local gods.

DS · 17 January 2015

loujost said: One more strange thing about the Exodus story: If taken literally, it actually proves that the Egyptian gods are also real. Remember that Moses and an Egyptian priest had a face-off. The Egyptian priests threw their staffs on the ground and turned them into a snakes. Moses did the same and his staff turned into a bigger snake and ate the Egyptian's snake. Some Christian might argue that Yahweh made all this happen to send a message to the Egyptians that he was one bad-ass god. Still, it is an ambiguous message. Wouldn't it have been sensible to let the Egyptian staff sit there on the floor rather than transform into a snake? And why would the Egyptians have had the confidence to throw their staffs down and turn them into snakes, if this was not a regular occurrence for them? So it seems to me that the Bible proves polytheism of the broadest kind if taken literally. To fill this out, one could add many other godlike characters mentioned in the Bible.

But were they striped snakes? Were the wooden poles striped? Were the stripes on the Egyptian snakes bigger than the ones on Moses snake? Was it a miracle, or just a cheap magic trick?

stevaroni · 17 January 2015

FL said: Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesusâs miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation?

Well, before I answer that, I would ask you, Fl, just how do you distinguish exactly which of Jesusâs miracles are true versus the similar miracles attributed to, say, Shiva, or Vishnu, or Ganesh, or maybe Zeus or Apollo, or Ra or Quetzalcoatl or even, dare I say - Mohammed? How about the miracles the Mormons attribute to the hemi-demi-semi-god angels, like Moroni? If you think you got little response from, the pandas on your first question, I predict that we will get only deafening silence from you on this one. Well, not quite silence, what we'll actually get from you is some form of "Because my holy book says so" while staying remarkably silent on the fact that thousands of other holy books with equal pedigrees make the exact same claims about their gods. But, FL, I for one will be generous and tell you up front the exact method I use to differentiate the miracles attributed to Jesus from the miracles attributed to Vishnu et al. I don't.

Dave Luckett · 17 January 2015

The answer to Carl Drews history question is Frederick Barbarossa, 1190 CE. One of the leaders of the Third Crusade.

Mickey Mortimer · 17 January 2015

loujost wrote- "So it seems to me that the Bible proves polytheism of the broadest kind if taken literally."

It reflects the changing views of the Isrealites and cultures they got their stories from. As the Isrealites seem to have descended from the Canaanites, it makes sense that their main god El/Elohim (who was later combined/conflated with the more southern god Yahweh) was also the lead god of the Canaanite pantheon. As Isrealite religion developed, it moved from polytheism to henotheism (one main god, but lots of minor ones) to monotheism. It's interesting seeing the remnants of other gods in the Old Testament, though their importance was downplayed and often written as if only worshipped by the heretics each story wishes to vilify. One nice example is El's consort Asherah, who was worshipped by Isrealites via Asherah poles. The Old Testament has many instances of Isrealites being warned not to worship these, of kings allowing it and being punished by God, etc.. Not that you'd know it from reading many English versions of the Bible though, as e.g. Asherim is translated into "groves" in the KJV.

Then again, it's not like modern Judaism or Christianity is purely monotheistic either, with Satan and angels.

DS · 18 January 2015

Well that's the point. This is not the inerrant, inspired word of god. This is some oral traditions, steeped in culture and totally lacking in any scientific understanding. It reflects the knowledge and limitations of the times it was written in. It is influenced by past traditions, ancient history and cultural bias. It makes no sense to take it literally or to assume that it is inerrant. And it makes no sense to use it as a modern moral code. That would be like using a superman comic book as a science textbook. It isn't science, it's full of impossibilities and contradictions. It was never meant to be a science textbook. If you try to use it that way you aren't even wrong.

Likewise for the creation myth and the flood myth. They aren't science, they weren't meant to be science and the people who wrote them didn't understand science, nobody did at the time. As I have said many times before, taking them literally robs them of all truth, meaning and beauty. It doesn't matter if you want to live forever. The myths are still just myths, no matter how much you want them to be true. Get over it. If you understand that the bible is the product of an ancient culture, it might be instructive to demonstrate how natural phenomena might be misinterpreted as supernatural events at the time. But it makes no sense to try to find such explanations if you assume that supernatural events actually occur simply because the bible has to be taken literally.

Carl Drews · 18 January 2015

Yesterday Carl Drews said: History question: What military leader actually did drown while attempting to cross a river, thereby leading to the collapse of his now leaderless expedition?

Dave Luckett said: The answer to Carl Drews history question is Frederick Barbarossa, 1190 CE. One of the leaders of the Third Crusade.

Ten Points to Dave! If there is any point here, it's that drowning can occur in shallow water if there is a strong current to push the victims off their feet. On the Migdol book's web site there are a set of 10 historical and literary puzzles for book readers. Scroll down to Puzzles in the Book. Have fun!

loujost · 18 January 2015

Carl, I'd like to note that the Napoleon story shows that the Red Sea can be crossed by careful people any day of the week, without any miracles, not even miracles of good timing (only a little care). It does sound like you are right about winds playing an important effect on its water level.

So if the crossing of the Red Sea, and subsequent drowning of Pharaoh's troops, really did happen (a big if), the French account and your own work show that no intervention from a god is needed at all.

eric · 18 January 2015

FL said: So, rationally, this very same Jesus (Colossians 1:16, the Creator of the Universe), could also do the very same miracles of super-fast supernatural creation of said biological parts/programming/systems, in order to create the first humans, Adam and Eve, EXACTLY as described in Genesis and within the EXACT time frame specified therein. And that would make it absolutely impossible for the theory of evolution to be a co-existing and compatible explanation for human origins.

Uh, no. Saying something could happen is not the same as saying that it is absolutely possible anything else happened. Surely you see that?

eric · 18 January 2015

Sorry, that should read impossible.

phhht · 18 January 2015

Carl Drews said: If there is any point here...

Carl Drews is still ducking the question of what makes him think gods are real. So is Floyd Lee. So is Robert Byers. Not a single professed Christian at this site is willing or able to say why he believes what he does. Only David MacMillan would engage the question directly, and his best reason to believe was that he found god stories to be plausible. As an agnostic, I try not to believe any assertion of fact without a good reason to believe it - and even then I believe tentatively, with the acknowledgement that I may be wrong, and with the explicitly reserved right to change my mind. As an atheist, I can say why I believe what I do. I have an articulable rationale for my conclusion that gods aren't real. What is it about religious conviction that makes it so indefensible? Why are its proponents reduced to baffled silence when challenged? Why are so many of them unable to concede that they may well be wrong in their beliefs? Do we recognize any other human condition in which such obstinate but indefensible conviction obtains? Indeed we do. There are, for example, delusional disorders.

stevaroni · 18 January 2015

FL said: So, rationally, this very same Jesus (Colossians 1:16, the Creator of the Universe), could also do the very same miracles of super-fast supernatural creation of said biological parts/programming/systems, in order to create the first humans, Adam and Eve, EXACTLY as described in Genesis and within the EXACT time frame specified therein. And that would make it absolutely impossible for the theory of evolution to be a co-existing and compatible explanation for human origins.

Again, given the postulate (i.e. Jesus = infinite magic) then, FL, you are right - it is impossible to absolutely verify that special creation et. al. didn't happen, because, given enough magic the universe could, - for some unfathomable reason - have been created last Thursday looking exactly like it was 11 billion years old. On the other hand... You've still provided absolutely no evidence that Jesus/Yahweh/Jehovah was the one who did it. It could just as easily been Ganesha or Ra or Zeus. Given that your standard is "some God had infinite magic and hid his tracks very well", exactly how do I know which God it was? Given the totally arbitrary nature of your postulate, how do I know that it wasn't Baal or Gozer or Nuggan or Blind Io, and they not only made up the world, but also, again for whatever ineffable reasons they might have also made up the Bible, making both look absolutely authentic?

Carl Drews · 18 January 2015

loujost said: Carl, I'd like to note that the Napoleon story shows that the Red Sea can be crossed by careful people any day of the week, without any miracles, not even miracles of good timing (only a little care). It does sound like you are right about winds playing an important effect on its water level. So if the crossing of the Red Sea, and subsequent drowning of Pharaoh's troops, really did happen (a big if), the French account and your own work show that no intervention from a god is needed at all.

The regularity of the tides at Suez is yet another reason to reject that as the crossing site. Still, careless people can drown there if the wind suddenly shifts. For example, Pharaoh's commander thinks he has the tides all figured out, but - surprise! - it's the wind that causes the catastrophe. Exodus 14 includes a mass drowning in addition to the safe crossing. In an earlier comment I stated that my proposed crossing site is at Tell Kedua, not at Suez. There is no known Migdol site near Suez, but there is one near Tell Kedua. Interested readers can locate the Kedua Gap in Table 1 and Figure 8 of Dynamics of Wind Setdown at Suez and the Eastern Nile Delta, or in my Chapter 5 The Tanis Hypothesis.

Marilyn · 18 January 2015

Everything Jesus did he did to either put something right or to make something better, put something back to what it should be, that is what He is remembered for the fact that it was He who started to make a change for the better, and said that even greater things could be accomplished. But there were martyrs in the process of persuading people to live the christian life. St Paul was one who persecuted until he saw the reason behind the teachings of Jesus. It's like when the doctor puts a dislocated shoulder back into place you know the difference between it been out of place and then being put back. It's not magic, it's the result of doing things in the right way. Because our civilization are still not able to put back an ear that has been cut off doesn't mean that Jesus couldn't and I think that they can do such things these days but perhaps not quite so quick.

TomS · 18 January 2015

There are difficulties in resorting to an omnipotent agency. And I don't want to get into the difficulties of being able to do anything so I'll just talk about a "pluripotent" agency - one which is up to just about anything, much more than any natural, ordinal agency, more than we can put our own constraints on.

1) If we take the "probability" argument against ordinary agencies and apply it to pluripotent agencies, this means that the probability that the pluripotent agency has more results available to it, and thus that it is less probable that the one real result will be the one that is happens.

2) Even if it is true that the pluripotent agency was the cause, because so many options are open to it, it does not explain "this, rather than that". "What explains everything explains nothing." (If we have God so powerful that he can set the number of dimensions and the other parameters of space-time, it should be easy for him to make life even if the universe is not fine-tuned for life as we know it, so why would he bother with fine-tuning? That is, we don't have an explanation for fine-tuning.)

Dave Luckett · 18 January 2015

Phhht, I can essay an answer to your question, but you have to be willing to actually consider it.

It's this: Christians and theists generally know perfectly well that there is no reason to believe in God that passes the test of strict empirical materialism. Since they know that already, they see no point in informing a strict empiricist of reasons which will be immediately and automatically dismissed. Their reasons are their own, and sufficient for them. They're not sufficient for you, but they neither pick your pocket nor break your leg. You're entitled to reject them. They're entitled to accept them.

Can we please posit that, and move on?

Mike Elzinga · 18 January 2015

Is it possible for God to get pregnant? How did this deity come up with the idea of sex?

phhht · 18 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: Their reasons are their own, and sufficient for them.

What are those reasons? I think you are mistaken. I don't think most Christian believers can say why they believe what they do. They do not refrain from saying because they recognize how unworthy their reasons are. They refrain because they do not know why they believe what they do.

Just Bob · 18 January 2015

Marilyn said: Everything Jesus did he did to either put something right or to make something better...

Does that include cursing a fig tree for not having fruit when he wanted some? Seems pretty childish to me, and it didn't put the tree "right" or make it "better". And I note that the incident was followed by perhaps the greatest of his lies (or delusions or unfulfilled promises, whatever you want to call them):

âTruly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, âGo, throw yourself into the sea,â and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.â

Scott F · 18 January 2015

mattdance18 said: And this is why religious thinkers who actually understand the concept of "creatio ex nihilo" actually tend not to be creationists, in the typical YEC sense of magical poof-ism, or in that of the watered-down ID critique of evolution. For a nice summary, by a religious person who, quite unlike you, Floyd, does understand it, see http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design .

Thank you, matt, for that article. One quote I found amusing though (highlighting added):

Given the philosophical sophistication of their arguments, it is perhaps natural that ID theorists would assume that they had allies among traditional Thomists who are known for their systematic defense of the doctrine of Creation.

I don't know that I ever heard "ID theorists" being accused of having "philosophical sophistication". I also find it amusing:

Aquinas argued that their error was a failure to distinguish between cause in the sense of a natural change of some kind and cause in the sense of an ultimate bringing into being of something from no antecedent state whatsoever. Creatio non est mutatio says Aquinas: The act of creation is not some species of change. The Greek natural philosophers were quite correct in saying that from nothing, nothing comes. But by "comes" they meant a change from one state to another, which requires some underlying material reality. It also requires some pre-existing possibility for that change, a possibility that resides in something.

Some people are still debating the relative merits of Christian theology vs ancient Greek philosopher/scientists. Further:

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of somethingâs existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a matter of taking something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, Creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing.

I suppose that it is easier to present theological arguments against Aristotle than it is to present arguments against quantum physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNh-pY3hJnY

TomS · 18 January 2015

Scott F said:
mattdance18 said: And this is why religious thinkers who actually understand the concept of "creatio ex nihilo" actually tend not to be creationists, in the typical YEC sense of magical poof-ism, or in that of the watered-down ID critique of evolution. For a nice summary, by a religious person who, quite unlike you, Floyd, does understand it, see http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design .
Thank you, matt, for that article. One quote I found amusing though (highlighting added):
Given the philosophical sophistication of their arguments, it is perhaps natural that ID theorists would assume that they had allies among traditional Thomists who are known for their systematic defense of the doctrine of Creation.
I don't know that I ever heard "ID theorists" being accused of having "philosophical sophistication".

How about "marketing sophistication" or "political sophistication"? There is a kind of sophistication in avoiding the dumbest of the YEC statements, isn't there? As is not asking for the ketchup in a French restaurant?

I also find it amusing:
Aquinas argued that their error was a failure to distinguish between cause in the sense of a natural change of some kind and cause in the sense of an ultimate bringing into being of something from no antecedent state whatsoever. Creatio non est mutatio says Aquinas: The act of creation is not some species of change. The Greek natural philosophers were quite correct in saying that from nothing, nothing comes. But by "comes" they meant a change from one state to another, which requires some underlying material reality. It also requires some pre-existing possibility for that change, a possibility that resides in something.
Some people are still debating the relative merits of Christian theology vs ancient Greek philosopher/scientists. Further:
Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of somethingâs existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a matter of taking something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, Creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing.
I suppose that it is easier to present theological arguments against Aristotle than it is to present arguments against quantum physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNh-pY3hJnY

Does this mean that creation in the sense of Aquinas is a version of the Omphalos Hypothesis?

FL · 19 January 2015

Okay, so let's recap the Carl Drews situation, and tie some of the strings together. Here's what Matt Young said in the OP:

Mr. Drews, though he denies it, is virtually a biblical literalist. To be sure, he is far more sophisticated than, say, Ken Ham or even Hugh Ross. He knows that the parts of the Bible that so bemuse Mr. Ham are poetry and not to be taken seriously. But he states flatly that he believes in the miracles that Jesus of Nazareth purportedly performed and thinks that they were a suspension of natural law.

The belief that Jesus (or God) suspended natural law, even occasionally, is not, I think, in harmony with science.

Okay, that's important. In order to support his claim that Drews "is virtually a biblical literalist", Matt did provide an supporting example, a clear and specific example that, when examined further, DOES happen to bring up the fact that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity,, specifically on the topic of human origins. This is extremely important because the entire purpose of Carl Drews' book is to promote the general Theistic Evolution sales-pitch that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity. **** Meanwhile, Carl Drews responded to Matt's statement by clearly re-affirming (with NO backpedaling and NO attempts at "de-literalization"), that "Yes, Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and rose from the dead." A straightforward historical statement of fact, and Carl put it on the Panda table. Furthermore, later on, Carl pointed out that at least one of those Jesus miracles indeed does NOT fit in with science:

For the case of Jesus walking on water, the text indicates that Force was not equal to mass times acceleration.

So Carl's affirmation of Jesus's miracles, brought up a rational question from me:

Exactly how can ANY evolutionist rationally accept Jesusâs miracles as literal and historically accurate as described, WITHOUT also rationally accepting the Genesis miracles (the creation of humans, specifically) with the very same literalness and historical accuracy, and with the very same âEx Nihilo Creationâ plus the way-too-fast time element?

To which Eric replied (and this reply is important, so check it out):

They do it by saying some of the miracles described in the bible happened - some parts of the account are literally true - but not others. Humans often read a book and accept some of what it says to be true, but not all of it. I donât find that answer particularly compelling. Neither do you. I expect we would both reply to Carl: how do you separate the untrue miracles from the true ones?

And Eric's question was -- and is -- totally on point. Very good question from Eric. But Carl Drews did NOT answer it, even though he is here participating in this thread. Carl is avoiding it like the plague, because it is part of the larger picture of whether or not evolution is really compatible with Christianity. **** But I wanted to hear other Pandas offer their positions on Eric's specific question also, so I re-stated Eric's questions and offered it to all the Pandas:

Specifically, how do you Pandas distinguish exactly which of Jesusâs miracles are true and which are false? What criteria are you using to make that specific separation?

Well there was "No answer from the Pandas" so I said exactly that. Eric, bless his heart, took the lead for his hesitant fellow Pandas and replied:

Well, the non-religious amongst us have told you the same thing over and over again, in many different versions, from Phhhtâs ascerbic terseness to Haroldâs detailed volumes. My short version for today will be: we require credible confirmatory evidence of any claim that a physical law has been broken or that our understanding of nature is wrong. The more miraculous the claim, the more credible evidence weâre likely to require. Until we get it, we donât believe the miracle-claim.

Now that is a seriously important response. And it was unchallenged by any other Pandas, so I assume they all agree with it. Why is this response so important? Because of what it is saying. The Pandas' answer to the specific question given to Carl Drews, DIRECTLY negates and opposes what Carl Drews affirmed about "Yes, Jesus of Nazareth performed miracles and rose from the dead." After all, Eric, which of Jesus' miracles do you currently ACCEPT and AFFIRM as literally and historically true, right here and now, according to the specific criteria you wrote in the above paragraph? Here's your answer: NONE OF THEM. Please correct me if I'm wrong about it, but we both know that I'm not. Eric's answer, and the Pandas' answer to the Carl question, is NOT to separate the true miracles from the false, but instead to declare ALL of them false anyway. Yes, that is what you are doing Eric. This is all the more true because the "true or false" evidence-criteria that is used by professional PhD religion scholars, such as "Is there multiple attestation of Jesus doing this-or-that miracle" and "Do hostile sources also write that Jesus did supernatural deeds such as miracles or healings", is TOTALLY ignored in your paragraph. You say "credible scientific evidence" but you don't even specify what you mean by that (what, a photograph or something?), while you're simultaneously or unaware of what criteria the professional religion and history scholars are counting towards evidence when ancient literature is involved. And look at old Harold here:

It is entirely possible that some of them are based on some real life incidents with scientific explanations, which were distorted into miracles by folklore. However, theyâre now just made up stories.

Look at that. Just "made-up" stories, all of them. By the way, as a rational exercise, try reconciling Harold's entire explanation there with Carl's affirmation about Jesus walking on water and how it therefore looked like "Force was not equal to mass times acceleration." The two respective statements do NOT fit together, I'm afraid. So the Pandas, from the erstwhile Eric on down, have NOT answered the Carl question at all. The Pandas' answer, as given by Eric specifically, clearly and DIRECTLY denies and negates Carl's direct affirmation that Jesus really did, literally did, perform those Four Gospels miracles in actual history. **** So there you go. Mattdance thinks I'm a boldface-caps-italic "liar" when I said "No answer from the Pandas", but in fact I've now proved that there really IS "No answer from the Pandas" when it comes to how do you rationally separate the (historically) "untrue" Jesus miracles from the "true" Jesus miracles. There's no criteria being offered (except an ill-defined one that effectively labels ALL the Jesus miracles false anyway), and it also ignores the religion/history scholars' criteria for evidence. And Carl, the man who really brought up this entire question, is the most silent of all. His book is meant to promote, directly or indirectly, the idea that Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Alas, it is not. Not if you accept Jesus's miracles and Resurrection as literally historically true and accurate, as Carl does. Carl's religion of Theistic Evolution just doesn't pan out, if you accept Jesus' miracles as literal historically true. **** Let's stop here for a moment. I want to do Stevaroni too, and I will, but I know this is already a long summary. If you have read this far, much thanks to you. Please think things over. Evolution is INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity. FL

Dave Luckett · 19 January 2015

Phhht, in the past I have made the mistake of engaging you on this, to little purpose.

To a theist, God is a reasonable explanation for themselves, for beauty, for human awareness, for the Universe itself. They cannot rigorously prove it, but they find all those things and many more to be inexplicable without the operation of conscious purpose, in which they find the divine. We, too, have conscious purposes, which we are capable of directing for ourselves according to will. We can't explain why we have both the purpose and the will, but speculation on the unknown is permissable, and they find the explanation that it is installed in us by another consciously purposeful entity to be a reasonable one, which they accept.

I know you don't accept that. I know it is not rigorously or empirically evident. I know you hold that the fact that it doesn't meet that standard mandates its rejection. But while their explanation isn't satisfactory to you (or me), it is enough for them, for their personal belief. Peace to them, I say, unless they attempt to force their belief on me, or anyone, or attempt to deprive anyone of (as the saying goes) life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

FL would do so, of course, if he could. He would happily deploy the force of law to establish his religion and mandate its injunctions, and I really don't know how far he'd go with that. Further than his obsession with homosexuality or right-to-life, I believe. What it would come to in the end I shudder to think. Enforced church attendance? Abolition of divorce? Stoning adulterers? Confession of faith required for citizenship? Burning heretics? I don't know. As I remarked some time back, part of FL's political savvy is that he won't say.

But I am as certain as I can be that neither Carl Drews nor David MacMillan would countenance that or anything like it, and that this would apply to most theists. Since they allow me to live in peace according to my lights, I will return them the compliment. They haven't interrogated me on my lack of faith. I won't interrogate them.

Can we leave it there, please?

Dave Luckett · 19 January 2015

And FL's back on his hobby-horse again: "Evolution is INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity." Bold and caps, yet.

No. That's a flat lie. Strict empiricism, the insistence that all belief must be justified with rigorous empirical evidence, is incompatible with Christianity, because (as Christians would be the first to inform you) Christianity requires a faith-belief.

Otherwise, the only beliefs that are INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity are those directly opposed to its central doctrines: for instance, that Jesus was miraculously raised from the dead; that He died for our sins, including original sin; that He was the Son of God.

Evolution is not such a belief. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the central or even the peripheral faith-beliefs of Christianity. As I have many times demonstrated here - and FL has never responded with anything but silence - evolution has no position on original sin, nor the necessity for its expiation. It has nothing to say about the life, death, resurrection or nature of Christ. It does not preclude the idea that man is made in God's image. It does not deny that Creation is as God wills it; the Christian is free to believe that it merely describes accurately the natural process by which God worked to create the species. Evolution does contradict a literal reading of Genesis in all its aspects, but Christians are not constrained to read Genesis as literal history. Christian belief is described shortly but accurately in the various creeds. There is no mention of the literal acceptance of Genesis in any of them. Evolution is NOT INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity.

What is INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity is practice, or rather lack of it: the practices of charity, compassion, care for others, peacemaking and kindness. Jesus held them as highest and most essential, but FL told us once that he would like to sound empathic, which is as perfect a measure of his own capacity for it as you can get. He has many times demonstrated a tin ear for suffering, an intolerance of difference, and a willingness to coerce. Of course his crude delight in the fire he believes is to come has always been readily apparent, as is his eager wish for disaster, and his justification of even random atrocity as part of the vengeance of his God on a wayward people. Those are ideas, beliefs and practices that are INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity. FL already has a whacking great plank in his eye, just as he was warned - and of course, he ignores that warning, as he does every other word of his God that he finds inconvenient.

It is FL's beliefs and practices that are incompatible with Christianity, not evolution. His cognitive dissonance is overcome by the strict compartmentalisation of his mind, and he remains a Christian. By loudly proclaiming the fact, he discredits Christianity itself.

Malcolm used to say that FL's purpose is to drive others away from the Cross. I don't think, given the usual caveats, after all this time, it is his conscious purpose. But it certainly has been his effect.

Dave Luckett · 19 January 2015

Oh, and how do you know what miracles you accept as miracles?

Why, those that you think essential to Christian belief, if you're a Christian. If you're not, please yourself.

Simple, isn't it?

Marilyn · 19 January 2015

Just Bob said:
Marilyn said: Everything Jesus did he did to either put something right or to make something better...
Does that include cursing a fig tree for not having fruit when he wanted some? Seems pretty childish to me, and it didn't put the tree "right" or make it "better". And I note that the incident was followed by perhaps the greatest of his lies (or delusions or unfulfilled promises, whatever you want to call them):
âTruly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, âGo, throw yourself into the sea,â and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.â

There has been a few mountains moved and oceans for me to be able to converse with you and PT to be able to converse with me and everyone. I agree it would have been better that figs had started to grow on the tree, it did show a contrast from his usual and what he was capable of.

TomS · 19 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: Phhht, in the past I have made the mistake of engaging you on this, to little purpose. To a theist, God is a reasonable explanation for themselves, for beauty, for human awareness, for the Universe itself. They cannot rigorously prove it, but they find all those things and many more to be inexplicable without the operation of conscious purpose, in which they find the divine. We, too, have conscious purposes, which we are capable of directing for ourselves according to will. We can't explain why we have both the purpose and the will, but speculation on the unknown is permissable, and they find the explanation that it is installed in us by another consciously purposeful entity to be a reasonable one, which they accept. I know you don't accept that. I know it is not rigorously or empirically evident. I know you hold that the fact that it doesn't meet that standard mandates its rejection. But while their explanation isn't satisfactory to you (or me), it is enough for them, for their personal belief. Peace to them, I say, unless they attempt to force their belief on me, or anyone, or attempt to deprive anyone of (as the saying goes) life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

I don't really understand how God is an explanation for the Universe. In saying this, I don't mean to question that God is the cause or Creator of the Universe or of everything in the Universe. What is there that we know about God that accounts for there being a Universe, rather than some alternative? I don't even know what alternatives there are. So I guess my first question is what it is that you are saying that God is an explanation for.

FL would do so, of course, if he could. He would happily deploy the force of law to establish his religion and mandate its injunctions, and I really don't know how far he'd go with that. Further than his obsession with homosexuality or right-to-life, I believe. What it would come to in the end I shudder to think. Enforced church attendance? Abolition of divorce? Stoning adulterers? Confession of faith required for citizenship? Burning heretics? I don't know. As I remarked some time back, part of FL's political savvy is that he won't say. But I am as certain as I can be that neither Carl Drews nor David MacMillan would countenance that or anything like it, and that this would apply to most theists. Since they allow me to live in peace according to my lights, I will return them the compliment. They haven't interrogated me on my lack of faith. I won't interrogate them. Can we leave it there, please?

eric · 19 January 2015

FL said: You say "credible scientific evidence" but you don't even specify what you mean by that (what, a photograph or something?), while you're simultaneously or unaware of what criteria the professional religion and history scholars are counting towards evidence when ancient literature is involved.

I did specify, you just got my words wrong. I said credible confirmatory evidence. Meaning separate and independent (i.e. non-literary) evidence that these miracles could have happened and did happen. Someone else doing them would be credible confirmatory evidence. Bodies rising from the dead would be credible confirmatory evidence. And so on.

So the Pandas, from the erstwhile Eric on down, have NOT answered the Carl question at all.

I don't understand why you think I would answer it. I don't know how Carl decides which to believe. That's up to Carl. What I do know is that you're wrongity wrong wrong in claiming that belief in Jesus makes YECism philosophically necessary, that the latter follows logically from the other. That's bullflop.

[Carl's] book is meant to promote, directly or indirectly, the idea that Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Alas, it is not. Not if you accept Jesus's miracles and Resurrection as literally historically true and accurate, as Carl does.

That right there, is the bullflop. Its entirely possible that a divine God-man came down, did a bunch of miracles, and the earlier Hebrews got their history wrong. You've never actually given any sort of argument against that position, you just keep baldly asserting that it can't be true. Let's hear an argument for why it can't be true, FL.

DS · 19 January 2015

Floyd is INCOMPATIBLE with reality.

mattdance18 · 19 January 2015

FL said: Mattdance thinks I'm a boldface-caps-italic "liar"...

Because you are.

...when I said "No answer from the Pandas", but in fact I've now proved that there really IS "No answer from the Pandas" when it comes to how do you rationally separate the (historically) "untrue" Jesus miracles from the "true" Jesus miracles.

Saying that this cannot be done, rationally or otherwise, and that you are therefore begging the question, is an answer.

There's no criteria being offered (except an ill-defined one that effectively labels ALL the Jesus miracles false anyway), and it also ignores the religion/history scholars' criteria for evidence.

And saying that there is no such criterion is, yet again, an answer. As I've pointed out, you are dismissing them as answers at all, because you don't like them. Your parenthesis in the preceding sentence makes your dismissiveness flagrantly obvious. There is no "evidence" for Jesus' miracles. There are Biblical accounts, which are precisely what stand in need of evidence before we accept them as true. Saying that multiple textual accounts cannot all be false is nonsense. I can show you multiple textual accounts of Zeus. But the fact that Homer and Hesiod both discuss him hardly makes him real. Basically, it's the weakness of an "internalist," as opposed to "externalist," epistemology. I'd discuss it with you, but I suspect you have about as much ability and interest in philosophy as you do in theology. There's definitely been -- how shall I phrase this? -- NO REPLY FROM FLOYD -- about my "creatio non est mutatio" issue with your entire understanding of what "creatio ex nihilo" actually means and entails. As usual, the moment I start talking theology is the moment you clam up. So yes, Floyd, you are a LIAR. You got answers. You just didn't like them. Hence you dismissed them, and then you acted as if they hadn't been proferred. Let me know when you're ready for an honest discussion. Perhaps when you're done with stevaroni, we can dive into "creatio non est mutatio" and "creatio ex nihilo," and why most Catholic theologians think evangelical theology is conceptually and hermeneutically flawed, and why so few of them are sympathetic to intelligent design or any other form of creationism. Perhaps? I won't hold my breath.

bigdakine · 19 January 2015

Mike Elzinga said: Is it possible for God to get pregnant? How did this deity come up with the idea of sex?

I often ask literalists if God has a penis. Hilarity usually ensues.

mattdance18 · 19 January 2015

Scott F said: Thank you, matt, for that article. One quote I found amusing though (highlighting added):
Given the philosophical sophistication of their arguments, it is perhaps natural that ID theorists would assume that they had allies among traditional Thomists who are known for their systematic defense of the doctrine of Creation.
I don't know that I ever heard "ID theorists" being accused of having "philosophical sophistication".

Indeed not! I think more than anything, the author was trying to be nice. He was throwing a rhetorical bone to potentially hostile members of his audience, i.e., those with sympathies for ID. Glad you like the article. As an atheist myself, I of course disagree with the veracity of the concept of "creatio ex nihilo." But the article is a very good layman-oriented explication of the meaning of the concept. And it's that very meaning that the vast majority of Biblical literalists completely fail to grasp. Like Floyd, they suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect and don't even realize how poorly they understand their own religion.

mattdance18 · 19 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: Evolution does contradict a literal reading of Genesis in all its aspects, but Christians are not constrained to read Genesis as literal history.

eric said: What I do know is that you're [Floyd] wrongity wrong wrong in claiming that belief in Jesus makes YECism philosophically necessary, that the latter follows logically from the other.

You're both absolutely right, of course. But Floyd can't see it that way, because he makes no distinction between "what the Bible says" and "what Floyd believes the Bible means." He can't accept such a distinction without jeopardizing the absolutist nature of his interpretive claims. I don't want to revisit the topic here, as it's completely off-topic (we can discuss it again on the wall if people are interested, but I think it would be beating a dead horse), but: remember Floyd's take on the Bible's implications for slavery? His claim was that the Bible was unequivocally and absolutely opposed to chattel slavery. Not that the best interpretation of the Bible was anti-slavery. Not that the best moral position presently derivable from Biblical principles was anti-slavery. But that the Bible itself was totally anti-slavery. And what that whole discussion revealed, more than anything, was that Floyd has to believe that. The way he sees it, if he's interpreting the Bible, he's not following the Bible, ergo he's not following God. So no matter how much interpretation he does, he will never admit -- to himself, let alone to anyone else -- that he's interpreting anything at all. It's really no different when it comes to his "evolution is incompatible with Christianity" nonsense. And it's basically the Ken Ham line, ad nauseam. Only his/their interpretation of the Bible is valid, because as they see it, it's not an interpretation at all: it's just what the Bible says. It's not just what the Bible says, of course, and it is clearly an interpretation. But good luck getting them to see it. Like pretty much every Biblical literalist I've ever met or read, Floyd is a spiritual narcissist of the highest order.

FL · 19 January 2015

Meanwhile, Dave is somehow very worried that if I'm elected president (for example), I will create some federal laws mandating church attendance for everybody:

FL would do so, of course, if he could. He would happily deploy the force of law to establish his religion and mandate its injunctions... ...Enforced church attendance? Abolition of divorce? Stoning adulterers? Confession of faith required for citizenship? Burning heretics?

I will be honest (but not harsh) about this. Dave. Your quoted sentences really look kind of weird, almost humorously so, especially coming from somebody as articulate as you. They clearly don't have anything to do with the thread topic, nor anything I've posted in this thread. On the first sentence, I believe I've previously asked the Pandas to offer at least ONE such quotation from me, anywhere in PT or anywhere else (such as the Genesis Station blog). Please show me where I've ever said, suggested or even sneezed ANY such thing. So I ask the same request again, and this time I'll include your second sentence. Please show me where I've ever said or suggested anything like that, Dave. Now for all I know, you could be a serial axe murderer from the KKK, whose Gestapo grandpappy was directly on Dr. Josef Mengele's payroll. But I don't go around suggesting such things publicly, because there's not even one rational reason -- let alone a shred of evidence -- to suggest such a possibility. So you gotta keep stuff real, folks. (And if you do, you'll see that Carl Drews isn't able to reconcile Evolution with Christianity.) FL

eric · 19 January 2015

mattdance18 said: Glad you like the article. As an atheist myself, I of course disagree with the veracity of the concept of "creatio ex nihilo." But the article is a very good layman-oriented explication of the meaning of the concept. And it's that very meaning that the vast majority of Biblical literalists completely fail to grasp.

Its also interesting because it shows the point at which the Thomists go wrong. First paragraph under "No Order, No Science," he does a quick-change in meaning of the word 'design' between one sentence and the next, a switch that renders his complaint about science completely invalid. He first uses 'order and design' to denote the concept of the universe governed by laws. This is a 'design as pattern' meaning of the word. Well, I doubt many scientists are going to argue with that. But then he subtly switches to a 'design as plan of an intelligent being' meaning of the word at the end. What non-religious scientists would say is, obviously, you can't do that meaning-switch. You can't use an observation that the first is true to claim that the latter must be true. Patterns and regularities (i.e., designs) do not denote an intelligent designer, instead they can emerge from insensate principles. This is trivially obvious if you consider something like the roll of craps dice. A nice gaussian distribution (which is a pattern; a design will emerge from a series of rolls without any fixing of the dice (i.e, someone designing the series of rolls). Indeed, the casinos absolutely rely on the expectation of this design inevitably emerging without the dice being fixed to make their money.

mattdance18 · 19 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the central or even the peripheral faith-beliefs of Christianity. As I have many times demonstrated here - and FL has never responded with anything but silence - evolution has no position on original sin, nor the necessity for its expiation. It has nothing to say about the life, death, resurrection or nature of Christ. It does not preclude the idea that man is made in God's image. It does not deny that Creation is as God wills it; the Christian is free to believe that it merely describes accurately the natural process by which God worked to create the species.

Very well said. It's what I actually do like about Carl's book, as far as it's been characterized here. It establishes a natural framework for "miraculous" events, at least for some of them, anyway. Whether they actually are "miracles" would depend, in turn, on whether there is indeed a God in some way willing them to happen. Science would have nothing to say about that: it could describe the natural processes involved, leaving issues of transcendent metaphysics aside. And regarding those matters of transcendent metaphysics, reasonable people can disagree. Where I would disagree with Carl is over "miracles" that work by suspending natural processes rather than through them. The question of which "miracles" worked one way rather than the other seems to me fundamentally unanswerable. There is certainly no natural evidence for the suspension of natural processes and laws. There may be textual claims for facts that would require such suspensions, but those claims cannot themselves constitute evidence: it is precisely such claims whose veracity or even just plausibility must be supported by evidence; no claim of fact can serve as its own evidence. And so: either "miracles" like Jesus' resurrection or walking on water can ultimately be explained naturally, in which case they happened but there is still room for reasonable disagreement over the transcendent metaphysics that does or doesn't underlie nature; or they can't, in which case the "miracles" in question didn't actually happen, and their textual representations should be interpreted not as literal claims of natural, empirical, historical fact, but rather as symbolic expressions of metaphysical or moral import.

Dave Luckett · 19 January 2015

FL, for once, is right, on one thing. Only one, but it's true that this is off-thread. Back to the BW.

FL · 19 January 2015

Continuing on with Dave Luckett(I'm just catching up on the responsses as time permits). Dave also said,

Otherwise, the only beliefs that are INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity are those directly opposed to its central doctrines: for instance, that Jesus was miraculously raised from the dead; that He died for our sins, including original sin; that He was the Son of God.

Perceptive Panda readers already know why I highlighted those nine words from Dave's paragraph. You already know how -- and where -- to refute Dave on this one. The theory of evolution "puts Jesus on the unemployment line", as Frank Zindler famously mentioned. To save time, let's just have a couple evolutionists explain it to us again.

"...(Evolution) destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesusâ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins -- and this is what evolution means -- then Christianity is nothing!" -- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth

Seems clear enough, doesn't it? Here's another clear explanation:

Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example. If my rudimentary grasp of the science is accurate, then Darwinâs theory tells us that because new species only emerge extremely gradually, there really is no âfirstâ prototype or model of any species at allâno âfirstâ dog or âfirstâ giraffe and certainly no âfirstâ homo sapiens created instantaneously. The transition from predecessor hominid species was almost imperceptible. So, if there was no âfirstâ human, there was clearly no original couple through whom the contagion of âsinâ could be transmitted to the entire human race. The history of our species does not contain a âfallâ into sin from a mythical, pristine sinless paradise that never existed. -- former Christian pastor (now atheist) Mike Aus

. By the way, evolutionist Dr. Jerry Coyne has commented regarding Aus, "I don't see any way around this (argument)." That's because there ISN'T any way around that specific argument. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. FL

mattdance18 · 19 January 2015

FL said: blah blah blah blah blah

Whatever, Floyd. Here are a couple direct questions: Would you legally permit people who don't share your view of religion to obtain abortions? Would you legally permit people who don't share your view of religion to obtain civil marriages, even if they were of the same sex? Or would the legal code with regard to such matters need to reflect your view of religion? It's off-topic. Feel free to reply on the Bathroom Wall. Do note that failure to reply will engender speculation that your silence might imply answers that you don't feel like admitting. As well as further speculation that this is because you want to hew to the letter of "I've never said anything like that."

Matt Young · 19 January 2015

Can we leave it there, please?

Yes, please! Also, can we let the FL troll lie as well? (Pun noticed but not consciously intended.)

mattdance18 · 19 January 2015

eric said: Its also interesting because it shows the point at which the Thomists go wrong. First paragraph under "No Order, No Science," he does a quick-change in meaning of the word 'design' between one sentence and the next, a switch that renders his complaint about science completely invalid. He first uses 'order and design' to denote the concept of the universe governed by laws. This is a 'design as pattern' meaning of the word. Well, I doubt many scientists are going to argue with that. But then he subtly switches to a 'design as plan of an intelligent being' meaning of the word at the end. What non-religious scientists would say is, obviously, you can't do that meaning-switch. You can't use an observation that the first is true to claim that the latter must be true. Patterns and regularities (i.e., designs) do not denote an intelligent designer, instead they can emerge from insensate principles. This is trivially obvious if you consider something like the roll of craps dice. A nice gaussian distribution (which is a pattern; a design will emerge from a series of rolls without any fixing of the dice (i.e, someone designing the series of rolls). Indeed, the casinos absolutely rely on the expectation of this design inevitably emerging without the dice being fixed to make their money.

I agree. It's the weakest point in the article. He's absolutely right that the idea of creatio ex nihilo does not imply the falsity of evolution, nor does it imply the truth of intelligent design or any other form of creation as a correct alternative explanation for the origin and diversity of life; to the contrary, creatio ex nihilo, understood in classical Thomistic terms, is more compatible with evolution than with ID/creationism. However, he then proceeds to make the philosophical, metaphysical case that the very order of nature itself does indeed require a creator-designer. It's a reasonable argument to make, so long as one recognizes (a) it is indeed a philosophical argument about metaphysics, and (b) one doesn't take it to be in any way incompatible with the sciences of nature. He doesn't, so there's no problem there. But reasonableness aside, it's still not a good argument. The first part of my objection -- which itself is philosophical and metaphysical, not scientific -- is direct, and essentially what you note: orderly patterns (or what we consider to be such, anyway...) can indeed emerge from undirected physical processes; the inference that there must be a creator/designer is therefore unnecessary -- not impossible, but not necessary, either. The second part of my objection is indirect, rooted essentially in theological concerns were it indeed to be the case that this unnecessary but nonetheless possible deity existed: Why would he do it this way? What's the point? Etc, etc. And the problem of evil looms large at this point. I also think he goes further wrong in suggesting that the idea that there could not be such a deity is held by many naturalists or scientists to be a natural-scientific proposition. It's clearly not such a proposition, and I can't think of anyone -- not any "sophisticated" thinkers, certainly -- who holds that it is. I feel like he's shadow-boxing a bit there. But overall, I really like this essay. Not only does it show why ID/creationism makes no sense even from the standpoint of traditional philosophical theology, it reminds us -- even if part of the reminder was not quite what the author intended -- how important it is to distinguish natural-scientific claims from metaphysical claims, and that the one sort doesn't imply much about the other.

mattdance18 · 19 January 2015

Matt Young said:
Can we leave it there, please?
Yes, please! Also, can we let the FL troll lie as well? (Pun noticed but not consciously intended.)

Will do. Bathroom Wall from here on out.

TomS · 19 January 2015

mattdance18 said:
Scott F said: Thank you, matt, for that article. One quote I found amusing though (highlighting added):
Given the philosophical sophistication of their arguments, it is perhaps natural that ID theorists would assume that they had allies among traditional Thomists who are known for their systematic defense of the doctrine of Creation.
I don't know that I ever heard "ID theorists" being accused of having "philosophical sophistication".
Indeed not! I think more than anything, the author was trying to be nice. He was throwing a rhetorical bone to potentially hostile members of his audience, i.e., those with sympathies for ID. Glad you like the article. As an atheist myself, I of course disagree with the veracity of the concept of "creatio ex nihilo." But the article is a very good layman-oriented explication of the meaning of the concept. And it's that very meaning that the vast majority of Biblical literalists completely fail to grasp. Like Floyd, they suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect and don't even realize how poorly they understand their own religion.

If you're going to bring in Biblical literalism, keep this in mind. The only mention of ex nihilo in the Bible is in a deuterocanonical work, that is, one which would be accepted by Catholics (like Aquinas), but not by most Protestants. And, if you're going to take a non-evolutionary creation in the sense of Aquinas, you have to account for the "chicken or egg" problem. If there is a sudden appearance of a living thing the question is whether it bears the appearance of having been born and aged. A world of life which is largely as it is today cannot survive without having a history. If you don't want to take refuge in the Omphalist Hypothesis, and you don't want an eternal steady-state universe or an eternal return, the only resolution seems to be evolution.

TomS · 19 January 2015

mattdance18 said:
eric said: Its also interesting because it shows the point at which the Thomists go wrong. First paragraph under "No Order, No Science," he does a quick-change in meaning of the word 'design' between one sentence and the next, a switch that renders his complaint about science completely invalid. He first uses 'order and design' to denote the concept of the universe governed by laws. This is a 'design as pattern' meaning of the word. Well, I doubt many scientists are going to argue with that. But then he subtly switches to a 'design as plan of an intelligent being' meaning of the word at the end. What non-religious scientists would say is, obviously, you can't do that meaning-switch. You can't use an observation that the first is true to claim that the latter must be true. Patterns and regularities (i.e., designs) do not denote an intelligent designer, instead they can emerge from insensate principles. This is trivially obvious if you consider something like the roll of craps dice. A nice gaussian distribution (which is a pattern; a design will emerge from a series of rolls without any fixing of the dice (i.e, someone designing the series of rolls). Indeed, the casinos absolutely rely on the expectation of this design inevitably emerging without the dice being fixed to make their money.
I agree. It's the weakest point in the article. He's absolutely right that the idea of creatio ex nihilo does not imply the falsity of evolution, nor does it imply the truth of intelligent design or any other form of creation as a correct alternative explanation for the origin and diversity of life; to the contrary, creatio ex nihilo, understood in classical Thomistic terms, is more compatible with evolution than with ID/creationism. However, he then proceeds to make the philosophical, metaphysical case that the very order of nature itself does indeed require a creator-designer. It's a reasonable argument to make, so long as one recognizes (a) it is indeed a philosophical argument about metaphysics, and (b) one doesn't take it to be in any way incompatible with the sciences of nature. He doesn't, so there's no problem there. But reasonableness aside, it's still not a good argument. The first part of my objection -- which itself is philosophical and metaphysical, not scientific -- is direct, and essentially what you note: orderly patterns (or what we consider to be such, anyway...) can indeed emerge from undirected physical processes; the inference that there must be a creator/designer is therefore unnecessary -- not impossible, but not necessary, either. The second part of my objection is indirect, rooted essentially in theological concerns were it indeed to be the case that this unnecessary but nonetheless possible deity existed: Why would he do it this way? What's the point? Etc, etc. And the problem of evil looms large at this point. I also think he goes further wrong in suggesting that the idea that there could not be such a deity is held by many naturalists or scientists to be a natural-scientific proposition. It's clearly not such a proposition, and I can't think of anyone -- not any "sophisticated" thinkers, certainly -- who holds that it is. I feel like he's shadow-boxing a bit there. But overall, I really like this essay. Not only does it show why ID/creationism makes no sense even from the standpoint of traditional philosophical theology, it reminds us -- even if part of the reminder was not quite what the author intended -- how important it is to distinguish natural-scientific claims from metaphysical claims, and that the one sort doesn't imply much about the other.

There are some other problems. Although they may be consequences of who you are saying. One is that design alone is not enough. There also has to be production. I think that this is something which has become clear since the Industrial Revolution. It used to be that things were designed and manufactured by the same person, the artisan. (Who also obtained the raw materials, made the tools, and sold the finished product.) The other is that even though we accept that a thing has been designed, that fact is not enough to account for the design of the object. Evolutionary biology is concerned with explaining the variety of life. That living things are created by God does not help in telling us "why this, rather than that", for God's ways are inscrutable, and, as far as we can tell, could be done in infinitely different ways. (We vertebrates have vertebrate eyes, when we could have insect eyes, or, for that matter, God could allow us to see without any eyes at all - or to fulfill his purposes without sight.)

prongs · 19 January 2015

Dave Luckett said: Phhht, in the past I have made the mistake of engaging you on this, to little purpose. To a theist, God is a reasonable explanation for themselves, for beauty, for human awareness, for the Universe itself. They cannot rigorously prove it, but they find all those things and many more to be inexplicable without the operation of conscious purpose, in which they find the divine. We, too, have conscious purposes, which we are capable of directing for ourselves according to will. We can't explain why we have both the purpose and the will, but speculation on the unknown is permissable, and they find the explanation that it is installed in us by another consciously purposeful entity to be a reasonable one, which they accept. I know you don't accept that. I know it is not rigorously or empirically evident. I know you hold that the fact that it doesn't meet that standard mandates its rejection. But while their explanation isn't satisfactory to you (or me), it is enough for them, for their personal belief. Peace to them, I say, unless they attempt to force their belief on me, or anyone, or attempt to deprive anyone of (as the saying goes) life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. FL would do so, of course, if he could. He would happily deploy the force of law to establish his religion and mandate its injunctions, and I really don't know how far he'd go with that. Further than his obsession with homosexuality or right-to-life, I believe. What it would come to in the end I shudder to think. Enforced church attendance? Abolition of divorce? Stoning adulterers? Confession of faith required for citizenship? Burning heretics? I don't know. As I remarked some time back, part of FL's political savvy is that he won't say. But I am as certain as I can be that neither Carl Drews nor David MacMillan would countenance that or anything like it, and that this would apply to most theists. Since they allow me to live in peace according to my lights, I will return them the compliment. They haven't interrogated me on my lack of faith. I won't interrogate them. Can we leave it there, please?

I would add that Christian religion has positive aspects, and thereby justifies its existence, all the negative aspects notwithstanding (FL included). Despite phhht's incredulity at believer's justifications, I know reasonable Christians who temper their behavior by their religion - they are not criminals, nor rapists, nor tax cheaters, because of their religion. Whether this be a good thing or a bad thing, I will let phhht judge. As for me, though I do not subscribe to it, I cannot deny its sometimes positive influence. Though I do not condone the ugly misuse of religion, I cannot ignore it has beneficial effects as well. Such is life.

harold · 20 January 2015

Tom S said -

One is that design alone is not enough. There also has to be production.

Good illustration of the fact that ID is nothing more than a pseudo-legalistic dissembling attempt to disguise creation science. They mean "intelligent creation", obviously. They clearly can't say "creation", the whole point of their crap is disguise creationism. That would be like Richard Nixon wearing a Richard Nixon mask to rob a bank. They can't say "intelligent production", either. It's too obvious that production means creation. They had to come up with some weasel word that means "creation" to some people but has plausible deniability, so they came up with "design".