Dear Dan,

<<This topic might not interest you, but it obviously does some.>>

Indeed there is no reason why this topic should interest God's children, but that's not the issue: the author is liable to inadvertently do damage through his article. If people were to be convinced by the article, then they would be calling on God for the wrong reasons and subsequently, instead of worshipping God they would be taken to idolatry.

Do you consider the gospel that weak that it needs defending? The gospel is there to defend you, to lead you away from temptation. Would you use a bible-book to kill flies?

If knowing whence this world and our bodies came was necessary for procuring our daily bread, then it could be excused - but it isn't.

Those who know God should certainly be teaching about Him, but mature believers are a rarity. A mature believer is fixed on God. A mature believer, as opposed to an agnostic, puts all their eggs in the one basket of God rather than keep some, just in case, in the basket of the world saying "well perhaps I'm just a body after all". A mature believer would pick up Genesis 1 and use it to teach his/her disciples about the Sabbath, about the importance of taking regular times off away from work to rest and reflect on God. A mature believer, even if s/he could, would not use the bible in vain to teach physics and biology.

<<St Peter said to be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to those asking of you a reason for your hope.>>

Just tell them "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth. He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: He that keepeth thee will not slumber". Nothing more is needed. Once they see your undivided hope, it may inspire and prompt them to follow your personal example.

AJ,
It seems the Ken Ham v Bill Nye debate made quite a splash in some circles. From my view, it seems that both Ham (the supposed 'Fundamentalist') and Nye (the supposed 'Skeptic') are similarly convinced of their own position.

Yet in the blog, for which you have linked, the atheist seems to lean towards Ham's statement, 'nothing' would change his mind, as being the more appropriate. This is the blog's final paragraph -

"To me, answering the question “what would it take to change your mind” with “when you prove enough evidence” is exactly the same as saying “when hell freezes over” and “when pigs fly”. I personally find it more honest to outright say “Nothing changes my mind”. I find saying “when you prove enough evidence” a tad dishonest because it pretends that this is an open debate, while to me it’s not. It’s only technically true, on a purely syntactic level. To me, “nothing” represents the truth better."

Yuyutsu,
I don't know what you've got against physics and biology. You seem to deliberately want to take an anti-intellectual path. Sorry, that's not for me.

Haven't you read the New Testament? There is quite a lot of it devoted to keeping doctrine pure from false teaching, and staying faithful to the truth of the gospel. In the early centuries there were heresies, such as Gnosticism, and church leaders were busy to defend the truth of the gospel.

I do not believe the gospel is weak. Yet truth still needs a defence. Take the example of Lindy Chamberlain, whom I consider to be an Australian hero. She knew the truth. She saw it with her own eyes. (A wild dog had taken a baby out of her tent.) Yet knowing the truth herself wasn't enough. Keeping herself out of prison wasn't enough. The only thing that would satisfy her was a declaration of the truth. And she fought for 32 years until she had a certificate in her hands given to her by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to say that a dingo had taken her baby out of that tent on that night.

They say that truth will naturally rise to the top. Usually it will. Sometimes truth must be defended. We shouldn't be sitting around on our hands.

What’s with the “supposed”, Dan?

<<From my view, it seems that both Ham (the supposed 'Fundamentalist') and Nye (the supposed 'Skeptic') are similarly convinced of their own position.>>

Ken Ham is a fundamentalist by the very definition of the word:

“A person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion:” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fundamentalist)

If you have any evidence that Bill Nye is not really a sceptic, then I’d be interested to hear it. Otherwise, it looks like applying Hitchens’ Razor here may be in order.

<<Yet in the blog, for which you have linked, the atheist seems to lean towards Ham's statement, 'nothing' would change his mind, as being the more appropriate.>>

I don’t think the blogger leans towards Ham’s position. The difference appears to lie in the blogger speaking more colloquially and not allowing for the hypothetical as Nye did. Especially given this comment:

“It’s not that I would reject any evidence in favor of the existence of a god, it’s that I honestly don’t think that evidence will ever come up.”

But the rest of what the blogger had to say was not the point of my linking to it. Nor is it because I’m under any illusions that they are an authority. I linked to that article (after selecting it from multiple search results, mind you) as a way of demonstrating that an observation that I have made myself many times before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15301#264276), has been made by others too.

People tend to get bored and stop listening if one starts to repeat oneself too often, so I thought I’d let someone else make my point for me this time. That Nye and Ham featured as a famous example of the observation was purely incidental too.

Oh, I should have pointed out, too, that whether or not Nye and Ham are "similarly convinced of their own position[s]" is beside the point. The point is who of the two would be willing to change their mind under ANY circumstances.

Again, though, that Nye and Ham feature as an example was trivial. I was applying the same frequently- and widely-observed phenomenon to theism and atheism in general. Which is why I cut the mentioning of creationism out with the ellipsis.

Dear Dan,

Science has its place: we use it to provide sustenance to our bodies: food, clean water, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc. Without the knowledge of physics and chemistry and biology we would have no chance of sustaining so many (in fact too many) people on earth and keeping them alive and more healthy for more years.

But this is where it should end - while science can tell us all we need about the world, it is useless in regard to truth, for the only Truth is God while the world is only an illusion.

<<Haven't you read the New Testament? There is quite a lot of it devoted to keeping doctrine pure from false teaching, and staying faithful to the truth of the gospel>>

From the moment treasures are placed in the hands of humans, corruption is inevitable. I take no pleasure in telling you this, that despite all good efforts, both the old and new testaments were not and could not be kept pure over time. Trying to capture God in words is like trying to catch the moon by quickly covering a bucket that is full of water while it reflects the moon's image.

<<You seem to deliberately want to take an anti-intellectual path. Sorry, that's not for me.>>

There is indeed an intellectual path to God, if that's for you, but it is a very difficult one, very treacherous and many who tried it have ended up mad, utterly lunatic. Essentially, you would be playing in the devil's court and I wish you the best of luck if you believe that you could beat the devil in their own court.