How true, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I'll give you a tip. Science isn't about counting noses. It's not a popularity contest.<<

But you immediately try the same game yourself...

>>These accounts have been proclaimed, analysed, and often believed by countless millions over the centuries.<<

So we would find ourselves back in the realm of my-millions versus your-millions, which would be neatly, even poetically, pointless.

To extract us from that particular cul-de-sac, let's try a balance of probabilities approach.

When a perfectly cogent, well-supported and highly detailed account of the structure of the universe is stacked up against a narrative created by people who didn't even have the assistance of telescopes, were still fifteen hundred years from Newton's Principia, and couldn't even conceive of the electromagnetic spectrum, I feel that I am on much firmer ground with the former.

What keeps me interested in your version of religion is the sheer mental effort that you must expend on a daily basis, simply to maintain your commitment to it.

Pericles,
The point I was making with Banjo was that there was a cohesive body of data associated with the claims of the Christian faith (a set of facts) to which we can refer or examine (Bertrand Russell said we should try and stick to the facts.)

With regard to a more recent creation, it is precisely those physical structures and phenomena to which you speak, discovered through modern techniques, which we believe are supportive of the creationist model.

Yet the various proposed models for Earth's origins are all rather malleable and philosophically influenced. We've discussed this issue before, and you've always appeared doggedly closed to try and examine any of the underlying philosophical assumptions. Your previous post (on Thursday) openly states that you are philosophically closed to ideas outside of the atheist vision. So there's little point discussing detail here.

.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote :

« I choose to believe in these accounts [ the narratives of the 4 Gospels] as reliable and true. You choose otherwise. There is certainly an amount of faith entered into on my part, for I cannot know everything and the thoughts and motives of all involved. »

That seems an honest assessment to me, Dan.

The only caveat I should add to your statement is that I never indicated that I “choose otherwise” so far as your belief in the reliability of the Gospels is concerned.

What I did state was that I have arrived at the very clear understanding that there is no god or gods or any such thing as the supernatural.

Perhaps, some day, a well-balanced group of reputed historians comprised of believers and non-believers will carry-out a serious study of the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the scriptures and publish their findings.

I have no doubt there would remain some major points of discord - in which case, it would be appropriate for the opposing arguments to be clearly detailed for the reader’s consideration - but, I am sure there must be some honest academics, on both sides, capable of cooperating together in a collective study and arriving at a large consensus on that for which there is good reason to believe constitutes historical fact.

Until that day, I’m afraid I have to agree with you that “our knowledge is not complete, for we can only see things in part and imperfectly”. I have serious doubts about the neutrality of the various sources of information I have come across so far - though I must confess that I have not conducted an exhaustive research on the matter.

So, unless you have something further to add, Dan, I don’t think there’s much more I can say on this particular topic and shall leave it at that.

It has been nice chatting with you.

.

I totally accept that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, The point I was making with Banjo was that there was a cohesive body of data associated with the claims of the Christian faith<<

And the point I was making is that there is a vastly more cohesive body of data that can be examined to support the view that the earth is considerably older than a handful of millennia.

>>With regard to a more recent creation, it is precisely those physical structures and phenomena to which you speak, discovered through modern techniques, which we believe are supportive of the creationist model.<<

Which bring me back to my overriding concern with your point of view, that you begin with the premise that the biblical narrative is literally accurate, and refuse to examine any case that might exist, given a different starting point.

>>Yet the various proposed models for Earth's origins are all rather malleable and philosophically influenced.<<

Perhaps. But since you have selected the biblical narrative, no other possibilities are available to you. If you examine the question with an "evidence first" approach, there are literally thousands of alternative answers. As has been demonstrated throughout history - as new information comes to light, the explanations update themselves, with increasing precision.

>>...you've always appeared doggedly closed to try and examine any of the underlying philosophical assumptions<<

That's actually quite an amusing accusation, coming from you. The fact that you refuse to examine this information outside your biblical frame of reference is surely a sign of the very narrowest possible field of vision.

>>Your previous post (on Thursday) openly states that you are philosophically closed to ideas outside of the atheist vision.<<

It is true that I find it impossible to include the concept of a deity bringing our world into being through an inexplicable divine will. But on the other hand, I have yet to see a post from you that demonstrates that you are philosophically open to ideas other than those indicative of a commitment to young earth creationism.

>>So there's little point discussing detail here<<

As you wish.

Pericles,
With regard to evidence for the evolutionary view of the earth's beginnings, you say that I refuse to examine evidence beyond my own philosophical frame of reference. And I will be saying the same thing back to you. You even admit to being incapable of seeing a theistic alternative. You say, "I find it impossible to include the concept of a deity bringing our world into being ,,,."

If I begin with the premise that the biblical narrative is accurate, I do so for the sake of argument, to see what results this might net. And in doing so, we find a lot falling into place, with many encouraging discoveries.

It is not that I refuse to look at the other side. I am quite familiar with the atheistic (materialist) view. It is, after all, the main view encouraged currently throughout most people's formal education. It's pretty much the only view people get shown on TV nature documentaries and when visiting guide centres at nature parks, etc. But you have asked me what is the evidence from the other point of view, so this is what I try to present. Several times, I have raised specific lines of evidence with you suggesting a more recent origin of earth or of mankind (on 'the balance of probabilities',) which don't easily fit with the 'old age' paradigm without much massaging.

That you say there are 'thousands of alternative answers', this confirms to me the way people usually think about these issues in practice. They start with a theory or an idea and see how the evidence fits into it, not the other way around. An "evidence first" approach is a nice idea, but evidence must be interpreted. It doesn't speak for itself. One alternative is the biblical one. We seek to discover what insights this approach offers, and we think it offers much.

Banjo,
Despite standing on different sides of the fence of belief, I think we do find some common ground in our assessment of several things. I admit our knowledge is not complete in the sense of it not being exhaustive. And I agree that finding neutral sources of information is rather difficult. Humans by nature are not neutral, but come holding cultural viewpoints, preconceptions and biases.

Yet I disagree that sufficient enquiry into the historicity of these ancient matters has not been sought and obtained. Though more discoveries could possibly be made, scholars of differing backgrounds throughout the centuries have invested their lives in researching the scriptures and their historical background. I doubt there is any document anywhere beyond those of the New and Old Testaments to have received anything near as much thorough analysis.

The baton through history has been passed on. The gospel message has found me. The invitation to believe has been given and undergirded with ample and sufficient grounds.