Joe,
Well there's the problem with "God". Evidence, facts, examples, ect...
If I wanted I could provide as much "evidence" to back up my "Q from Star Trek Intelligent Design" line of thinking.
The Bible is always being thrown into this discussion around our campfires. I always have to ask which VERSION of the Bible are we going to discuss. Will we bring in the other gospels and scripture into the discussion or only the ones that were CHOSEN BY MAN to be included into the "good book"?
Seems to me a discussion of anything under the sun including religion and politics would be quite the fun experience with you Joe. You don't seem to get offended by the mere questioning of your beliefs. Ted is the same way IMO. Others seem to get "huffy".
WayOutWest,
First of all, in reference to the last paragraph there, THANK YOU. That's a very nice compliment, especially considering that most people would not say that I'm incredibly open-minded.
Well, it terms of "Intelligent Design," Q from Star Trek would fit nicely into such a model. That's why I can't call "Intelligent Design" a theory. In order to move into the realm of theory, the hypothesis must be developed, tested, and proven not inconsistent.
The idea of "evidence, facts, examples, etc." have to be provided for Intelligent Design to move from hypothesis to theory is the part that I don't think many folks advocating Intelligent Design understand. Intelligent Design must be tested - or, at the very minimum, be PROVEN as possible. For example, if we were able to create universes in a laboratory, Intellligent Design would gain a great deal of validity. Biological engineering and cloning and things like that ALSO advance the credibility of Intelligent Design. (There's a can of worms to open up. A scientist working on Intelligent Design would need to prove that humans can be designed by creating one. Imagine the religious take on that one...needing to "play God" in order to prove it possible, and therefore validate its teaching!)
You see, I really don't think religion will want to play in this ballpark. What they SHOULD want is to get science out of THEIR ballpark - in other words, we shouldn't overvalue initial hypotheses or theories. Religion does not rely on prove, and science should never rely on FAITH.
As for the "version" of the Bible to use, any version of the Bible itself has no standing for scientific discussion. (Nor, for example, would the works of Shakespeare.) And in a theological discussion, the version depends upon the set of beliefs you choose to discuss. For example, for me to argue with Skander about Christianity versus Islam, I would need to use "my" version of the Bible, "his" version of the Koran (and I believe there's really only one version of it), and established facts of history, science, etc. One could also include works of literature in the discussion, depending on what ideas one wished to pursue.
So, I really don't buy into the "which version of the Bible should we use" question. To me, that's obvious - especially as a Southern Baptist (which is pretty much an Evangelical Christian on steroids) - in discussing with me, you'd need to use the version that I read, and believe to be completely correct.
I can't say how you could argue with a person who didn't believe his Bible to be entirely correct. Then again, I'd be nervous of a person whose God put out faulty Bibles/Korans/Torahs.
That said, I also believe that almost all writing uses figurative language. I think that is a concept that one MUST understand before reading or debating the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious work. Also, I believe we must look for the message that is trying to be communicated. Whether 7 days means 7 literal days or whether it means 7 different points of activity is missing the point: that GOD CREATED.
Likewise, because something significant is not included in a book does not invalidate the book. A book on Newton's Law is not invalid just because it does not mention Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Therefore, I don't believe that all significant historical events were recorded in the Bible.
Religion, in my opinion, should be discussed much like philosophy or literature would be in a classroom. This, of course, is one of my beliefs that is based on faith. I'll be glad to discuss religion and my beliefs with anyone - most especially anyone who DOESN'T believe the same way I believe. I leave it in God's hands as to what decisions/commitments that discussion leads them to. In essence, every time I discuss these concepts, I regard that as a bit of evangelism...an attempt to convert the person who I am discussing it with.
I find science has too many gaps in it to completely discredit religion - and that's while playing in the scientific ballpark. Science can't tell me *WHY* E=mc^2...just that it does. Science is a big part of why I'm religious...it has shown me that there's just so much that we don't know, but pretty much everything we DO know works in what I'd refer to as a "system."
In the abstract, I don't see God as being all that different from a computer engineer who built a machine, knows how it runs, started many separate processes, and has the understanding of the code behind each of those processes as well as their interactions with other processes. Existing outside the system, he wields all power by being able to re-program, debug, and upgrade. However, inside the system, that appears miraculous or supernatural. Sitting in the same spot, with the same knowledge, and the same power, ANYONE could do the same thing - in that way, we're created in his image. The kicker is that there isn't anyone capable of sitting in the same spot, or with the same knowledge, or with the same power. That's what makes him different - GREATER - than us.
You see, I don't consider God "distant." I don't consider God "unknowable." He's *VERY* real - and in a lot of ways, very predictable. And personally, I find that quite comforting.
