Dear George,

There is not a good term in general currency for one who rejects not only theism but any form of belief in the supernatural which exists even in non-theistic religions such as Buddhism. When Christianity originated during the Roman Empire Christians were called atheists as they rejected belief in the Gods. In that sense atheism is currently worldwide. Non-Christian theists have been called atheists by Christians as they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Naturalism maintains that physical phenomena are the consequence only of natural causes. My philosophical stance is that all supernatural entities are merely human inventions and have no existence outside of the human imagination. God is only one of those inventions.

Unfortunately, the primary meaning of the word, naturalist, does not mean one who accepts naturalism.

Anyhow, whatever you call it I accept naturalism.

Severin has made a point. Several on this list accept the Bible as literal truth. You don't. I really have no argument with you. You believe in something I don't believe in. However, I have no basis on which to say your belief is false. I see no evidence for it, but that cannot support my view that it is false.

Why don't you accept the Bible as literal truth? Your answer may enlighten your co-believers who do accept it as literal truth.

George,
I believe reliance on the ‘Book of Nature’ concept is flawed, especially so in this domain within the overlap of science and theology. It places too much confidence in the ability of scientists—who are laden with biases and agendas—to produce an accurate assessment and come to unbiased conclusions. Because of these, reading the book of nature has become interpretive at best. Discrepancies arise, which is why we have the benefit of Special revelation, which is more precise.

At the very least, if they both have the same source in God, God’s Book of Nature should not conflict with God’s book of Scripture. Scriptures are the spectacles with which to read the book of nature.

I also question your example of the Magi. I don’t think that they were practicing science in the sense of deduction based on reasoning and observation of nature. I think they were more likely astrologers, who interpreted star movements in line with prophecies and legends. Also, St Paul was more limited, saying that God’s creation clearly reveals something about God’s power and eternal qualities, not specific dates and prophecies, such as timings and placements of prophets’ births.

“However, both the 'progressive' Christian and creationist Christians have to have faith - for there remains no proof for any religion let alone the one they were born into.”
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 3 August

It’s natural, even godly, that children follow in the line of their parents. But if you think that churches in Australia are not also populated by a healthy number of ex-atheists and educated people from non-religious homes, then you need to get out more.

A 6000 year old earth is not just OT. All of the NT writers make reference to early Genesis.

And I struggle to comprehend why an atheist bothers studying theology.

Oliver,
“Good science holds positions tentatively and responds to facts, making revisions.”

I think on this point we are caught in agreement. That is the reason I brought up the subject of Pluto as a reminder of science history, and why I felt the need to criticise the ABC article’s questionnaire. I hope that you would agree.

And if you allege that there is no standard view of the Trinity, then why bother basing one of your arguments around a view of such a thing? The phrase given at the top of this page speaks of ‘mainstream’ religion. The Trinity has definitely been front and centre of the mainstream church for the last 2000 years. So I thought it useful to clarify something of what that entails.

I am still trying to follow your line of thought. The universe is unbounded, timeless, without beginning, and has no need of a creator. To me, that sounds like God is not anywhere in the picture. If that’s your view, then fine. But let’s not kid ourselves that that could be a theistic view.

The issue is simple. Either God made the world or it made itself.

God making the world by enabling it to make itself is nonsense. It’s on the level of believing you can have four sided triangles.

(If you bring up the concept of square triangles, I won’t be in a mood to try and argue against those either.)

David,
No one on this list, and no one I have ever met, accepts the Bible as literal truth. Yours is a misleading statement.

The Bible is part of God’s revelation to mankind. In that, it contains God’s truth, but to say anyone reads it literally is misleading.

The Bible contains much history and poetry, and several other genres. Genesis is largely history. I would accept it if you said that Genesis was literal or literalist, or whatever is the term, but not that the Bible as a whole is literal. I think someone of your learning ought to know better.

Even in Genesis, as a history book for the Jews, there contains some poetry, but largely in dialogue from the mouths of people who may have been singing or whatever.

So, though it may be a small point, I’m pulling you up for saying anyone ‘takes the Bible literally’. It doesn’t happen. And it makes me think that you may have some kind of agenda in saying so.

I would accept it if you said that about Genesis or some other part of the Bible that was written with the expectation that people would take it literally.

Dear Dan,

Some people take the first eleven chapters of Genesis literally. It is pure myth, and there is no reason to think that it is other than pure myth.

It is a creation story of a tribal people. There is no more reason to regard it as other than legend than there is to regard the Aboriginal legend of the rainbow serpent as other than legend.

The creation myths in the Bible incorporate some of the creation myths of the other people who lives in that area. We know that from other sources such as Kramer's translation of cuneiform tablets.

You wrote: "Genesis is largely history." Genesis contains no history at all. History can be verified. Genesis is not history. None of it can be verified.

Hi Dan,

History holds theew is no standard trinity. Moreover, trinities are not unique to Nicaean Christians, i.e., the Eygptians and Hawiians has a Trinity. Trinities predate Nicaea. The Eastern Christian Church over the details. I think in recent times referred to the trinities in two contexts (a) as a form of syncretian and (b) in a first century sctiptural re-write of Isa. 1.2 (?) the Holy Spirit descendes on the Messiah, suggesting the Spirit was not with the Messiah from the Beginning.

"I am still trying to follow your line of thought. The universe is unbounded, timeless, without beginning, and has no need of a creator. To me, that sounds like God is not anywhere in the picture. If that’s your view, then fine. But let’s not kid ourselves that that could be a theistic view." - D

Yes, it my tentative view. It could easily be held by an atheist. Yet, it is not kidding to say it can also be a theistic view. Think of Russian babushka dolls, wherein, an unbounded, timeless, without beginning is embedded in a like achetype of a higher order: Little a embedded in big A. It works for both theists and atheists explanations, except in the atheistic case, this option can be one option. The atheist's option is just one doll.

Being a skeptic, I try for the helicopter view and adjudicate the evidence. I must admit onotology and metaphyics make investigation challenging. Yet, comparing green apples with red apples on a (near as possible) common methodology, is better than comparing apples (say particle physics) with oranges ( any or all of the scriptures).