Dear Rhian,

You wrote: "Your statement “I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god” seems rather arrogant, and flies in the face of evidence of religious beliefs of some of the West’s greatest thinkers."

I iterate the statement: I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god.

There is no evidence I know of that any of the people of great intelligence believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I stated it as a belief rather than a fact. One of the techniques in propaganda is name-calling. Rather than counter a person's statement with evidence one calls names. Saying my statement was 'rather arrogant' is name-calling.

Another technique is proof by assertion. 'flies in the face of evidence' is proof by assertion. If you have evidence that any great thinker believed literally in the biblical god than please supply such evidence, and I will examine it. Otherwise I have no reason to question my belief. I don't argue with facts. I also don't argue by name-calling.

Rhian,

I'm a bit surprised to see someone like yourself raising the fine tuning argument in a somewhat favourable light, given how thoroughly debunked it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jU42uC9vag
http://youtu.be/mlLdq1tRcOg
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fine-tuning_argument

This article is one big God of the Gaps fallacy. Leo Lane has helped to keep this fallacy alive in the comments section with his talk of consciousness.

Fine-tuning has been mentioned, which commits the Argument from Incredulity fallacy and the Begging the Question fallacy.

Is there an apologist here (including the author) who can present an argument (just one, give us your best) in support of the existence of a god, that is not fallacious?

*Crickets chirping*

David f

I’ll admit my use of “arrogant” was an insult, but so was your claim that it’s not possible to be a Christian and intelligent. We have already discussed the religious beliefs of many of the west’s great thinkers, so I am not arguing without evidence. If your contention applies only to contemporary thinkers, perhaps you could consider one of the many lists of prominent contemporary academics who are also Christian, including several natural science Nobel laureates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

If your argument is that it is not possible given modern knowledge for an intelligent person to take all of the bible as literally true, then I agree with you. But that’s not what “believing in a biblical god” means to most Christians.

AJ Philips
I am aware of criticisms of the “fine tuning” theory, and used it mainly to illustrate the range of views that sits loosely under the tag of intelligent design. Some versions of it are daft (I hadn’t heard of the lunar eclipse theory before I read your link, but it’s clearly one). But some of its refutations are not very persuasive. The Douglas Adams “puddle” argument is amusing but essentially circular – the universe must be conducive to the creation of intelligent life, or we wouldn’t be here to ask the why it is. And some of science’s attempts to explain the “fine tuning” seem contrived to explain away its seeming improbability. For example, the multiverse theory which posits that all possible universes exist, including all the ones in which intelligent life could not evolve, but by logical necessity we inhabit one in which it did.

I don’t think fine tuning proves the existence of God, but it does perhaps raise the possibility that the universe has a creator. In any event, I don’t think the origin of life is the central question that the bible seeks to address

Rhian,
Indeed, the Bible (in particular, Genesis) addresses all of the central questions of life, not excluding details about its origin. I don't know how you could miss it.

Banjo,
Which of the 'gospel' truths do I have in mind? Any or all of them. Open any page, and you will find reliable information concerning the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Some say it's life changing.

As for the 45,000 different churches or Christian denominations of which you speak, I don't find this particularly disconcerting. The gospel has entered into hundreds of different languages and cultures over many centuries. Given the human tendency to divide and splinter along the slightest quibble, I'm quite surprised at the level of unity of teaching one can find amongst the various churches. This is in no small part due to the integrity of canonical Scriptures themselves, which are recognised more or less universally by all Christians.

From my experience, I work in association with a large Christian mission in Africa. Our members come from several countries and numerous Protestant denominations. Exactly which ones I couldn't immediately say, as we never bother getting around to ask each other where we're from. We also have healthy working relations with Catholics and others. What unifies us is a lot more than what divides us.

As for this more recent (in theological terms) controversy of creation/evolution, there are differing views. Creationists and evolutionists are present everywhere; it's not split along denominational lines. Historically, the way I see it, Darwin and others really rocked the boat in about the middle to late 19th Century, and it has yet to stabilise. Belief in evolution then grew steadily for about a 100 years. But since then, sometime after the middle of the 20th Century, the tide has turned. Science is continually finding increasing levels of sophistication and evidence for design in biology. I doubt those 19th Century ideas (e.g. Darwin knew nothing of genetics, etc.) will stand the test of time.