The most salient difference between science and religion is that science comes to (relatively) unambiguous conclusions, whereas religion is left swimming around in a slough of imprecise and fatally ambiguous promissory notes as to what its devotees are to believe and hold to be true. We have recently been blessed with a signal example of this in the person of one of the commentators here on choiceindying,com — one David Roemer, whose blog, New Evangelist, is something of a paradigm case of religion’s failure to make sense. For example, Roemer writes this (on the linked page):
Richard Dawkins in his latest book said evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because of the sun. He must have gotten this idea from a peer-reviewed article published in the American Journal of Physics. Catholic Truth in England just published my explanation of why the article is absurd.
The trouble with people like Roemer is that he imagines that things that he has read are also determinative for the positions of others. The article in the American Journal of Physics to which he refers was published recently (2009), and one may be assured that Dawkins was saying that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics long before this. Indeed, the second law only applies to closed systems, which the earth patently is not, so even if you don’t understand the math of the article, it is plain that, if evolution defies the second law, it must be because there is another energy source which militates against increased entropy here on earth (in select instances), and that that source provides the energy needed to defeat the suggestion that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
A review of some of the messianic prophecies that Christians claim were fulfilled by Jesus. It reveals that many of the “prophecies” are nothing more than Christian fabrications, misquotations, and misapplications of passages in the Hebrew scriptures. By the Bible’s own standard, then, Jesus was not the Messiah.
How Religion’s Demand for Obedience Keeps Us in the Dark Ages
For the vast majority of human history, the only form of government was the few ruling over the many. As human societies became settled and stratified, tribal chiefs and conquering warlords rose to become kings, pharaohs, and emperors, all ruling with absolute power and passing on their thrones to their children. To justify this obvious inequality and explain why they should reign over everyone else, most of these ancient rulers claimed that the gods had chosen them, and priesthoods and holy books obligingly came on the scene to promote and defend the theory of divine right.
It’s true that religion has often served to unite people against tyranny, as well as to justify it. But in many cases, when a religious rebellion overcame a tyrant, it was only to install a different tyrant whose beliefs matched those of the revolutionaries. Christians were at first ruthlessly persecuted by the Roman Empire, but when they ascended to power, they in turn banned all the pagan religions that had previously persecuted them. Protestant reformers like John Calvin broke away from the decrees of the Pope, but then created their own theocratic city-states where their will would reign supreme. Similarly, when King Henry VIII split England away from the Catholic church, it wasn’t so he could create a utopia of religious liberty; it was so he could create a theocracy where his preferred beliefs, rather than the Vatican’s, would be the law of the land. And in just the same way, when the Puritans fled England and migrated to the New World, it wasn’t to uphold religious tolerance; it was to impose their beliefs, rather than the Church of England’s.
Evolution Skeptics Will Soon be Silenced by Science: Richard Leakey
Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.
Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it,” the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist said.
“If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive, then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.”
Here are some top ways Christians push people out the church door or shove secret skeptics out of the closet.
If the Catholic bishops, their conservativeProtestant allies, and other right-wing fundamentalists had the sole objective of decimating religious belief, they couldn’t be doing a better job of it.
Why can’t it be an angel, again? You said it’s safe to conclude that, but it seems like an unwarranted assumption. Why couldn’t it be an angel named Wormwood that poisons 1/3 of the planet’s water? God can act on matter, and if he feels like it he can delegate an angel to act for him. In the Old Testament and the New God regularly send angels to do his bidding.
It isn’t an unwarranted assumption. This argument was meant to address a futurist perspective. Believers of the futurist approach actually believe that the “great star” is a comet or an asteroid. However, the supposed creator of the universe would know the difference between a comet, an asteroid, and a star. Thus, my argument puts the futurists argument to rest.
However, I am more inclined to lean towards historians regarding the interpretation of Revelation Ch. 8. Historians consider the Book of Revelation to be a symbolic representation of historic events. Therefore, they consider the star to be a known figure of the time — possibly the army of Huns, Arius, or Emperor Constantine. The Book of Revelation shares a certain quality with the Book of Daniel, namely the quality of being written during a time of oppression. Whoever wrote these books wrote them in such a manner because they could not clearly depict the events of the time or openly express their feelings regarding the respective regimes that oppressed them; hence the Book of Revelation demonstrates anti-Roman sentiment in a symbolic manner (i.e. 666 signifying Nero Caesar).
When considering the history that has been deciphered in the Book of Revelation, it is safe to conclude that there’s nothing divine about the book. Thus, it is safe to conclude that Revelation Ch. 8 speaks not of an angel.
Religious laws are legalized religious doctrines. They are “revelations” turned into rules to govern society. Religious laws are sacred dogma institutionalized. They are sins criminalized. They are religious hatred, intolerance, discrimination and fanaticism turned into state policies.
In most parts of Africa, the negative impact of religious laws on democracies and human rights systems is clear and compelling—from the wars, conflicts and anarchy in Somalia, Northern Uganda, and in the Sudans, to the threats posed by Islamism to the Arab Spring in North Africa and the peaceful coexistence of people in Nigeria; from the witch hunts in Malawi, Nigeria, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Kenya, Guinea Conakry, Mozambique and the Central African Republic, to the wave of homophobia sweeping across different countries with overt and covert support from the OIC, the Vatican and other religious agencies that foster religious laws and its discontents across the globe.
How we address this ‘sensitive’ issue of religious law—particularly here at the Human Rights Council—will go a long way in determining the future of democracy and human rights in the world. I will discuss this theme under three sub headings: witch hunts, homophobia and religious bloodletting.
Assailability can expose weakness, if the person who does the assailing is correct, and, as you said, only then.
I would say that the Judeo-Christian God has not been “correctly assailed,” and for your argument to work, you would have to prove that he has been or is. In the original article, you site a two instances in the New and Old Testaments were you think God acts unjustly.
Every good apologist struggles in explaining his treatment of children. In those verses, he either commands the murder of children, promises to murder children, and even carries out those promises. There’s nothing just about charging a child for their parent’s crimes. In those instances, he demonstrates a type of justice that is savage compared to some of our modern systems. Here in the US, a child isn’t punished or executed for the crimes of their parent(s). Therefore, we have a better justice system than the one put forth by the Judeo-Christian god and he can be assailed for that matter.
First you site Christ, saying it isn’t just to send someone to die for someone else’s sins. If Jesus is God, then the Father sending the Son to die was, in fact, God sending himself in human form to die, because the debt of mortal sin was was too great for any ordinary fallen man to repay. If it isn’t just, that’s only because it’s merciful.
I am well familiar with everything outlined in this section. I do have an issue with an innocent man paying debts for the guilty. However, I also have an issue with vicarious redemption — the old “cast your sins on Christ and be forgiven; it’s not by works but by faith.” In simpler terms, a good person who doesn’t believe in Christ is worthy of damnation whilst a murderer who accepted Christ in his deathbed inherits the kingdom of heaven. It’s a negligent manner of forgiving sins. Furthermore, sin is illusory and though that is a separate matter, in order to prove the veracity of Christ’s sacrifice, one must prove the reality of sin.
In the Old Testament, you site the Noah story, the flooding of the Earth (I think, you don’t site it explicitly.) You say that it is unjust for one man to kill another, even it he has issue with him. However, God isn’t a man. He is, whether directly or indirectly, responsible for the death of every man. Every single one. Maybe that’s unjust, but I don’t think the fact that we all die is unjust, just unfortunate.
Death is the inevitable consequence of living. However, the Flood myth is more than just a bad way of handling an issue with mankind. The Flood myth also demonstrates a trial and error system employed by an “omniscient” god. His first attempt to wipe away sin was a global flood; his second attempt was the sacrifice of Christ. Why didn’t he employ the seemingly better solution to begin with? Why cause the death of millions? His judgement makes no sense whatsoever. There are also issues in the following verses:
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
Genesis 6:5, 6
There are a few issues in these two verses. Firstly, “the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” The impossibility of this section should be obvious to anyone. Humans are a duality of perhaps a false dichotomy known as good and evil. There has never been a time and there will never be a time when humans have nothing but evil thoughts at all times. Such a notion also raises the issue of volition. To prove that one can generate evil thoughts, one has to prove that one is entirely free of environmental, societal, and unconscious variables. Thoughts lead to actions; thus, one would ultimately be attempting to prove that one’s actions are free of the aforementioned. Unfortunately, no one is free from those variables. For example, a psychopath acts according to abnormalities in his/her brain structure. It is an unconscious variable that has determined the types of thoughts they will have and the types of acts they will commit. A just god would not only recognize such inefficiencies, he would also normalize the brain structure or prevent it altogether as means to deter such “evil” actions.
Then there’s the issue of regret. One seldom, if ever, regrets a good decision. We almost always regret bad decisions, thoughts, words, and actions. The verse explicitly says that he regretted creating man due to the wickedness that existed at the time. Thus, he regretted a bad decision. How can an omniscient god — a god who presumably sees occurrences before they happen — make a bad decision? Moreover, how can his heart be troubled? A troubled heart or more accurately, a troubled conscience is a human emotion. A troubled conscience acts against the notion of omniscience.
St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica deals with an issue similar to this. He brings up several instances of God doing or having things done that don’t seems just or right, and explains them. It’s the second part of the second part, question 104, article 4. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm Objection 2 and the response are relevant, and while it might not be completely satisfying, St. Thomas is a pretty good apologist, and I think his argument is sound. It is, obviously, based on his previous arguments, but I can’t very well link you to all of them.
I mean no ill when I say this, but in my experience, there’s no such thing as a good apologist. The answers are always unsatisfactory. I did read through some of the link. I believe you directed me to the part about obedience to god and should he always be obeyed; if I’m wrong, correct me. I would grant that the arguments put forth are in a way related to our discussion, but they aren’t entirely related to our discussion. In order to correctly assail, one must identify clear instances of error in one’s character, decision-making, and/or manner(s) of dealing with others. In Management courses, one will learn of a concept called emotional intelligence. It consists of the following four qualities:
self-awareness
self-management
social awareness
relationship management
The qualities are self-explanatory. The Judeo-Christian god shows poor self-awareness in demonstrating an inability to keep his personal emotions separate from his decisions. That follows that he demonstrates poor self-management — especially when he smites thousands of Israelites due to David’s sin (1 Chronicles 21). He also demonstrates poor social awareness. That goes back to the issue of a psychopath and the obligation to know exactly why a psychopath behaves in the manner in which he/she behaves. If one does not possess the first three qualities, it automatically follows that one does not possess the last quality. He is also bad at managing relationships. That goes back to the issue of the Flood. In the interest of maintaining a relationship with his creation, why didn’t he approach the situation in a different manner? Divine command theory does not explain any of my points by the way. To simply say that he does what he wants because he’s god is to forgo the use of reason. He’s either a god worthy of worship or a horrid abstraction concocted by ancient men; the latter rings truer.
First off, very well written and thorough. Second, I am not pretending to be an expert in any of your three ideas, I just have some questions about their actual correctness. So please, bear with me.
1. Evolution
You state that because Adam and Eve were not a “biological population” then they cannot have existed (or at least that is what I thought you were going for). Yet as I understand evolution it is a series of mutations and adaptations, in which the good survive and the bad die (forgive my simplifying the process). But these mutations do not happen “populations” at a time, for example, 100 similarly mutated birds were not born simultaneously. Does this mean then that the first two, “are inconsistent with Evolution and it is safe to conclude that they didn’t exist,” because they are not a population? This does not seem very logical. So Adam and Eve could have been the first of a newly mutated species.
Mutations simply alter the product of a gene, have no effect, or prevent a gene from functioning. Furthermore, mutations are simply one mechanism of evolution and an important variable in natural selection. However, they could not have been the first of a newly mutated species. Richard Dawkins said it best in his debate with Cardinal Pell:
“[W]e know that the previous species from which we’re descended is probably homo erectus and before that some sort of australopithecine, but there never was a last homo erectus who gave birth to the first homo sapiens.”
Paleoanthropolists posit that h.heidelbergensis was our direct ancestor. However, there wasn’t a time where the last of that specie gave birth to the first h.sapein. Moreover, biologists estimate that populations of h.sapien diverged from their latest ancestor roughly 200,000 years ago (read here and here). Further still, these populations differed from the modern h.sapien in a few ways. Our DNA and brain size differs from theirs; our average brain size is 1300 cubic cm. A distinction is often made between modern h.sapien and archaic h.sapien. Thus, my original point stands, Adam and Eve are inconsistent with Evolution.
Again this is simply my speculation, perhaps I misread the first comment or simply do not have a strong enough grasp on evolution. It just seemed that denying the existence of two beings because there were not more of them seems off.
2. Genetics
Interesting enough you state how mutations would have had to occur to account for the multitude of hair colors and eye colors and somehow this disproves their existence once again. But the whole of evolution relies on the idea of mutations within species, so I do not see how the necessity of mutations to account for hair and eye colors would remove the possibility of two ancestral parents. So mutations are necessary for evolution but you reject Adam and Eve because mutations would have had to happen to create different hair and eye colors.
I oversimplified the Genetics argument. I don’t reject Adam and Eve from a Genetic standpoint for those reasons. I granted that eye color, hair color, and other mutations are possible in the lineage of two individuals. However, if there were two ancestral parents, the mutations would be innumerable. Our DNA also has tracings form another specie, namely h.neanderthalensis (read more here, here, and here). If Adam and Eve were the first Neaderthalensis, they weren’t our ancestral parents; they would be our evolutionary cousin and another species entirely. Again, my original point stands, they are inconsistent with Genetics because of mutation and due to the presence of Neanderthal DNA in our genome. Perhaps this question will clarify: if we grant that they were our ancestral parents, how does one account for the presence of another specie’s DNA in our genome — a non-h.sapien specie I might add?
3. Fossil Record
A very interesting point here, and this is my first attempt at it, so once again bear with me. To start the world in which we live is material (obviously) and consequently the manner in which man learns is through the material. It is therefore best suited to the understanding of man that evolution and the fossil record follow the material laws, otherwise man would reject them being unable to understand the anomalies. Thus God created the world in a manner that makes sense to our senses. So these species that died out were mutations that followed the idea of evolution and survival of the fittest, in that they were not fit and consequently became extinct. Thus though God knew these species would die out, he allowed for them to come into being. In the same way God did not simply create the world, but first started with the creation of the universe that (following the laws of physics) eventually led to the creation of the Earth in a process that humans manner of understanding might be able to grasp. So God utilized the methods of evolution in order to make the history of man intelligible to man.
That would make sense if there were no transitions in the fossil record. As I stated, the fossil record is inconsistent with an all-knowing designer because it seems to be a trial and error system. It took roughly 8 million years to get to h.sapien for example. All of our ancestors were similar to us in one way or another; however, they were not modern h.sapien — the specie that arrogantly labelled itself the image of god. If our Evolution is true and given the evidence it is true, god utilized a slow moving and faulty mechanism to achieve his image. It is far from the instantaneous account in Genesis and inconsistent with the idea of omniscience. Carl Sagan said it best:
“The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament).”
It is good that you state, “You have framed an argument around false premises,” because after all this discussion, I do hold that the entire Epicurean question is framed around a faulty premise, i.e. evil exists. But as my post is long enough I will simply leave a link to a discussion I have had on that matter before. Thus all of the arguments you have put forth in an attempt to show the falsehood of Eden and the consequential backlash of the resulting problem of evil, are based on the false premise that evil is a created thing. Otherwise, there is no “Problem of Evil” for a Christian.
Hopefully my points were easy to understand, I often have a problem with rambling. Anyhow, I look forward to your response and the answering of my questions.
I actually agree with you; the Problem of Evil shouldn’t be an issue for a Christian. I have addressed the Problem of Evil and in the past, I used it to object to Christian Theism. However, as my reinforced points may have shown you, there are other problems with Christian Theism. I am planning on addressing the Problem of Evil from an atheistic perspective. Ironically, I do raise the question: does evil exist? When considering the brain structure of psychopaths and the biological determinants that “make” a murderer, evil may be an implicit result of biological, environmental, and sometimes unconscious determinants. Evil may not be an explicit entity that exists via the volition of human beings. Evil is a mystery to say the least.
In spite all this, original sin eventually led to the sacrifice of Christ. However, if original sin is grounded in the myth of Eden, how can one prove that sin continued? I posit that one cannot prove that without a series of speculations. Therefore, that begs the question: was Christ sacrificed as a ransom for our sins? If sin becomes an obscure variable, his sacrifice, his divinity, and even his existence are put in question. The historicity of Jesus is a whole other matter, but the original argument basically said: the Problem of Evil is solved because of sin. In essence, I was calling sin illusory. I wasn’t necessarily addressing the reality or non-reality of evil. Nonetheless, as aforementioned, if sin is illusory, that raises a problem for the key tenet of Christianity, namely salvation through Christ.
Your argument is, fundamentally, that a flawed god is no god at all, and shouldn’t be believed in, and that an assailable god is necessarily flawed, right?
That is the basic thrust of the argument, but I’ll clarify below.
I don’t think your premise that an assailable god is necessarily flawed is true. There are two ways to go about assailing something, correctly and incorrectly. If your censure (or reasons for censuring) are correct, then it would seem that there is a flaw in the censured or beset idea. If your reasons are incorrect, completely or partially, then there isn’t necessarily a flaw in the idea.
I agree; there are correct and incorrect ways to assail. I didn’t feel it necessary to mention that in the original argument. If a god assumed to be perfect demonstrates flaws, I feel that it is correct to assail. As you may recall, my argument was against the prevalent ideas of god in the modern day. These ideas speak of perfect, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibeneficient, sovereign deities. Thus, if flaws of any kind can be found in x or y deity, x or y deity can be assailed and ultimately discarded either as a possible reality or an object of worship.
You use Democrats and Republicans, and Marxists and Capitalists as examples. Because you can assail any of the positions that they lay out, you say that each of them is flawed, they have weakness in their ideology. You also say that there are situations where they apply, and that one economic type can be better than another.
Let’s say that there is a perfect economic model. There isn’t, obviously, and there may never be, but for the sake of argument lets grant it. It would be assailable, at least potentially. Maybe people would question it, maybe they wouldn’t, but they could, and if they did, that wouldn’t prove any weakness, at least not necessarily.
You go on the say that the god of the Old Testament is unjust, assailable, and therefore that really he’s no God at all. You finish by saying that “…an imperfect deity is equivalent to a human.” I’m not sure this is true either. The Greek gods were definitely imperfect. Just look at them as portrayed by Homer. However, the Greeks didn’t think of them as human, because they were gods. Anyway, minor point.
I understand where you’re coming from. However, as aforementioned, the argument isn’t designed to disprove imperfect, human-like deities like the Greek gods. The argument is designed to disprove gods like Yahweh — gods who are considered perfect, unblemished, and incapable of error. If one can prove otherwise, they are reduced to something less than a god. The Greek gods have been reduced to figures of myth and though I am unfamiliar with the full spectrum of reasons for such reduction, it is safe to assume that they were reduced to myth because they weren’t god-like enough; in other words, they demonstrate one too many human qualities. That’s what I mean when bringing Yahweh to a human level. He demonstrates no qualities greater than our own. He is often assailed for his actions and he cannot be absolved of most, if not all of those actions — even by the best apologists.
I mostly just disagree with your apparent premise that assailability implies weakness and therefore error. I’d appreciate clarification, or if not, just let me know that you’re busy, and I’ll lay my curiosity to rest.
Do you not agree with assailability implying weakness and error? I don’t think assailability just implies weakness; I think it also explicitly exposes weakness — if and only if the object in question is correctly assailed. After that it’s no mystery; weaknesses in x lead to errors because of x or errors within x. The Judeo-Christian god has been and can be correctly assailed. Weaknesses in his judgement, character, creation process, etc. can be explicitly demonstrated. Therefore, he is not a perfect god; he is an abstraction through which errors have been made and in which errors are apparent.
![veritas-splendor:
First off, very well written and thorough. Second, I am not pretending to be an expert in any of your three ideas, I just have some questions about their actual correctness. So please, bear with me.
1. Evolution
You state that because Adam and Eve were not a “biological population” then they cannot have existed (or at least that is what I thought you were going for). Yet as I understand evolution it is a series of mutations and adaptations, in which the good survive and the bad die (forgive my simplifying the process). But these mutations do not happen “populations” at a time, for example, 100 similarly mutated birds were not born simultaneously. Does this mean then that the first two, “are inconsistent with Evolution and it is safe to conclude that they didn’t exist,” because they are not a population? This does not seem very logical. So Adam and Eve could have been the first of a newly mutated species.
Mutations simply alter the product of a gene, have no effect, or prevent a gene from functioning. Furthermore, mutations are simply one mechanism of evolution and an important variable in natural selection. However, they could not have been the first of a newly mutated species. Richard Dawkins said it best in his debate with Cardinal Pell:
“[W]e know that the previous species from which we’re descended is probably homo erectus and before that some sort of australopithecine, but there never was a last homo erectus who gave birth to the first homo sapiens.”
Paleoanthropolists posit that h.heidelbergensis was our direct ancestor. However, there wasn’t a time where the last of that specie gave birth to the first h.sapein. Moreover, biologists estimate that populations of h.sapien diverged from their latest ancestor roughly 200,000 years ago (read here and here). Further still, these populations differed from the modern h.sapien in a few ways. Our DNA and brain size differs from theirs; our average brain size is 1300 cubic cm. A distinction is often made between modern h.sapien and archaic h.sapien. Thus, my original point stands, Adam and Eve are inconsistent with Evolution.
Again this is simply my speculation, perhaps I misread the first comment or simply do not have a strong enough grasp on evolution. It just seemed that denying the existence of two beings because there were not more of them seems off.
2. Genetics
Interesting enough you state how mutations would have had to occur to account for the multitude of hair colors and eye colors and somehow this disproves their existence once again. But the whole of evolution relies on the idea of mutations within species, so I do not see how the necessity of mutations to account for hair and eye colors would remove the possibility of two ancestral parents. So mutations are necessary for evolution but you reject Adam and Eve because mutations would have had to happen to create different hair and eye colors.
I oversimplified the Genetics argument. I don’t reject Adam and Eve from a Genetic standpoint for those reasons. I granted that eye color, hair color, and other mutations are possible in the lineage of two individuals. However, if there were two ancestral parents, the mutations would be innumerable. Our DNA also has tracings form another specie, namely h.neanderthalensis (read more here, here, and here). If Adam and Eve were the first Neaderthalensis, they weren’t our ancestral parents; they would be our evolutionary cousin and another species entirely. Again, my original point stands, they are inconsistent with Genetics because of mutation and due to the presence of Neanderthal DNA in our genome. Perhaps this question will clarify: if we grant that they were our ancestral parents, how does one account for the presence of another specie’s DNA in our genome — a non-h.sapien specie I might add?
3. Fossil Record
A very interesting point here, and this is my first attempt at it, so once again bear with me. To start the world in which we live is material (obviously) and consequently the manner in which man learns is through the material. It is therefore best suited to the understanding of man that evolution and the fossil record follow the material laws, otherwise man would reject them being unable to understand the anomalies. Thus God created the world in a manner that makes sense to our senses. So these species that died out were mutations that followed the idea of evolution and survival of the fittest, in that they were not fit and consequently became extinct. Thus though God knew these species would die out, he allowed for them to come into being. In the same way God did not simply create the world, but first started with the creation of the universe that (following the laws of physics) eventually led to the creation of the Earth in a process that humans manner of understanding might be able to grasp. So God utilized the methods of evolution in order to make the history of man intelligible to man.
That would make sense if there were no transitions in the fossil record. As I stated, the fossil record is inconsistent with an all-knowing designer because it seems to be a trial and error system. It took roughly 8 million years to get to h.sapien for example. All of our ancestors were similar to us in one way or another; however, they were not modern h.sapien — the specie that arrogantly labelled itself the image of god. If our Evolution is true and given the evidence it is true, god utilized a slow moving and faulty mechanism to achieve his image. It is far from the instantaneous account in Genesis and inconsistent with the idea of omniscience. Carl Sagan said it best:
“The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament).”
It is good that you state, “You have framed an argument around false premises,” because after all this discussion, I do hold that the entire Epicurean question is framed around a faulty premise, i.e. evil exists. But as my post is long enough I will simply leave a link to a discussion I have had on that matter before. Thus all of the arguments you have put forth in an attempt to show the falsehood of Eden and the consequential backlash of the resulting problem of evil, are based on the false premise that evil is a created thing. Otherwise, there is no “Problem of Evil” for a Christian.
Hopefully my points were easy to understand, I often have a problem with rambling. Anyhow, I look forward to your response and the answering of my questions.
I actually agree with you; the Problem of Evil shouldn’t be an issue for a Christian. I have addressed the Problem of Evil and in the past, I used it to object to Christian Theism. However, as my reinforced points may have shown you, there are other problems with Christian Theism. I am planning on addressing the Problem of Evil from an atheistic perspective. Ironically, I do raise the question: does evil exist? When considering the brain structure of psychopaths and the biological determinants that “make” a murderer, evil may be an implicit result of biological, environmental, and sometimes unconscious determinants. Evil may not be an explicit entity that exists via the volition of human beings. Evil is a mystery to say the least.
In spite all this, original sin eventually led to the sacrifice of Christ. However, if original sin is grounded in the myth of Eden, how can one prove that sin continued? I posit that one cannot prove that without a series of speculations. Therefore, that begs the question: was Christ sacrificed as a ransom for our sins? If sin becomes an obscure variable, his sacrifice, his divinity, and even his existence are put in question. The historicity of Jesus is a whole other matter, but the original argument basically said: the Problem of Evil is solved because of sin. In essence, I was calling sin illusory. I wasn’t necessarily addressing the reality or non-reality of evil. Nonetheless, as aforementioned, if sin is illusory, that raises a problem for the key tenet of Christianity, namely salvation through Christ.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4l69lL0Rv1qbnop5o1_1280.png)
