A Prayer Of Salvation (1 Viewer)

[dkp993]

Those looking for "proof" and the faithful are often talking past each other.

Faith = Trust

I mean that is the fundamental concept that pushes this discussion and while there will never be an "answer". Agnostic/Aetheist want proof of God. Religious people believe that Faith(Trust) there is God as the test. Believing without proof shows you are worthy.

It's kind of an impossible bridge to cross because by definition there can never be proof of God otherwise there would be no reason for faith.

Kirkegaard talks about the leap of faith. The thing that atheists miss, as they must, is that on the other side of that chasm is a proof of the heart that can't be measured but only experienced.

I was raised in the faith, but at 54 years old I can tell you that's not why I am faithful. It's because the Lord has proven His trustworthiness in my life time after time. At the lowest points in my life He has been a steady presence bringing peace and guidance. And at the highpoints Hr has likewise been there.

Jesus promises only two things to believers this life: peace, and the cross. And He delivers.

That’s beautiful, and I’m glad your faith has provided you with that, I truly am. Unfortunately my experience has been quite different. For me organized religion, Catholic in my case (though I was never baptized), felt like nothing but exclusion-ism. Lots of talk of love, acceptance, peace and grace… but daily actions of judgement, exclusion, fear, control and threats of eternal damnation. It never felt like reality ever even attempted to approach the talk. And God always felt non existent.*

Did these early experiences shape my current beliefs, almost certainly. But I’m also naturally a person who attempts to apply logic to most things. Because of this I pretty sure the questions I have today about organized religion would have manifested anyways, and I’m not sure even if my early experiences had been different that “faith” would ever have been enough of an answer for me.


*in rereading this I realized it could be interpreted as if I experienced something extremely nefarious or improper. I absolutely did not. What I’m referring too is largely words not meeting actions.

 

[Gally]

I was raised in the faith, but at 54 years old I can tell you that's not why I am faithful. It's because the Lord has proven His trustworthiness in my life time after time. At the lowest points in my life He has been a steady presence bringing peace and guidance. And at the highpoints Hr has likewise been there.

That is awesome for you. I can have that peace of mind and guidance of being a good person without having a belief (or presence) of God. That to me isn't "proof". It's a faith that something is there and a belief of that but not proof of anything.

Some people cannot simply be at peace for many reasons and believing in a higher power will give them purpose and something to hang on to. Absolutely nothing wrong with that but I struggle to see that as proof of anything.

 

[dgreen]

Because that’s the reason the story exists. It is trying to convey some meaning/message. My mom used to say, “Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.” If you ask a text a question it’s not trying to answer, then there’s no telling what erroneous conclusions you might reach. Unless a text is a modern journalistic news article or history textbook, “did this happen exactly as described” is almost never the right question for that text because that’s not the reason the author put pen to paper.

That's fine, but is the overarching debate theological or philosophical? If it's philosophical, I agree the historical details are irrelevant. If it's theological, then historicity becomes important.

Here it is if you’re interested. You are obviously familiar with Dawkins. Rabbi Sacks was (passed away a few years ago) a popular Orthodox Jew. I’m a fan of his religious work.

Since I assume it is a given that you will overwhelmingly side with Dawkins, I’d suggest paying attention to how they communicate differently instead of focusing on who is “winning”. Dawkins mostly uses direct propositions like a good scientist would. Sacks tells stories and uses analogies like a good rabbi would. I think those differences are telling.

It’s also interesting how many of the same topics came up in this discussion as have come up in this thread. It’s been years since I watched this so it was nice to relisten.

I’m also interested in hearing why you say a theological discussion means historicity is important. I assume you agree that theological messages can be delivered through fictional stories or through creative retelling of historical events.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Because that’s the reason the story exists. It is trying to convey some meaning/message. My mom used to say, “Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.” If you ask a text a question it’s not trying to answer, then there’s no telling what erroneous conclusions you might reach. Unless a text is a modern journalistic news article or history textbook, “did this happen exactly as described” is almost never the right question for that text because that’s not the reason the author put pen to paper.

That's fine, but is the overarching debate theological or philosophical? If it's philosophical, I agree the historical details are irrelevant. If it's theological, then historicity becomes important.

Here it is if you’re interested. You are obviously familiar with Dawkins. Rabbi Sacks was (passed away a few years ago) a popular Orthodox Jew. I’m a fan of his religious work.

Since I assume it is a given that you will overwhelmingly side with Dawkins, I’d suggest paying attention to how they communicate differently instead of focusing on who is “winning”. Dawkins mostly uses direct propositions like a good scientist would. Sacks tells stories and uses analogies like a good rabbi would. I think those differences are telling.

It’s also interesting how many of the same topics came up in this discussion as have come up in this thread. It’s been years since I watched this so it was nice to relisten.

I’m also interested in hearing why you say a theological discussion means historicity is important. I assume you agree that theological messages can be delivered through fictional stories or through creative retelling of historical events.

Dawkins articulates the issue pretty well at 11:26. The Rabbi wants us to presuppose God exists or that the sea was divided so that he can explain the "why". That's not a fair ask, imo.

If this debate was "Let's talk about the purpose of life IF there was a creator" then they would be on the same page. Instead, the Rabbi is debating the purpose of life because there IS a creator and asks Dawkins to go along with the presupposition.

This gets to my theological vs philosophical take. If we're both agreeing that God does or doesn't exist, then we can be in sync with a philosophical discussion. If instead there's theological tension like we see here, then we're going to be stuck teasing out our different conclusions before we can talk about any "why".

 

[dgreen]

Because that’s the reason the story exists. It is trying to convey some meaning/message. My mom used to say, “Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.” If you ask a text a question it’s not trying to answer, then there’s no telling what erroneous conclusions you might reach. Unless a text is a modern journalistic news article or history textbook, “did this happen exactly as described” is almost never the right question for that text because that’s not the reason the author put pen to paper.

That's fine, but is the overarching debate theological or philosophical? If it's philosophical, I agree the historical details are irrelevant. If it's theological, then historicity becomes important.

Here it is if you’re interested. You are obviously familiar with Dawkins. Rabbi Sacks was (passed away a few years ago) a popular Orthodox Jew. I’m a fan of his religious work.

Since I assume it is a given that you will overwhelmingly side with Dawkins, I’d suggest paying attention to how they communicate differently instead of focusing on who is “winning”. Dawkins mostly uses direct propositions like a good scientist would. Sacks tells stories and uses analogies like a good rabbi would. I think those differences are telling.

It’s also interesting how many of the same topics came up in this discussion as have come up in this thread. It’s been years since I watched this so it was nice to relisten.

I’m also interested in hearing why you say a theological discussion means historicity is important. I assume you agree that theological messages can be delivered through fictional stories or through creative retelling of historical events.

Dawkins articulates the issue pretty well at 11:26. The Rabbi wants us to presuppose God exists or that the sea was divided so that he can explain the "why". That's not a fair ask, imo.

If this debate was "Let's talk about the purpose of life IF there was a creator" then they would be on the same page. Instead, the Rabbi is debating the purpose of life because there IS a creator and asks Dawkins to go along with the presupposition.

This gets to my theological vs philosophical take. If we're both agreeing that God does or doesn't exist, then we can be in sync with a philosophical discussion. If instead there's theological tension like we see here, then we're going to be stuck teasing out our different conclusions before we can talk about any "why".

Got it. Yeah, I personally have very little interest in debating whether or not God exists. I rarely see that conversation go anywhere. It's definitely helpful to know what presuppositions we each start with. Sacks presupposes God's existence and wants to talk about meaning and purpose while Dawkins wants to talk about whether or not God exists.

Most of my interest is in interpreting what the Biblical authors said. And I don't think you have to presuppose God really exists or that the sea literally parted to do that. Just like any other piece of literature, you can simply see God as a character and the Exodus as an event in a story. To then draw out meaning, you only need to presuppose that the story teller intends to make a point with the story. So, we can shift from a meaning of "this is how God really is" (which presupposes the existence of God) to "this is what the author intends to communicate about this God character" (which does not require a presupposition that God exists).

And Dawkins does just that in the passage from his book that Sacks read out loud. (I'd be interested in your interpretation of that passage from Dawkins. Dawkins said it was a joke, so I assume that's how he intended it. Have you read The God Delusion? Did you read that passage as a joke?) By reaching those conclusions about the God of the Old Testament, Dawkins is basically saying that's what he thinks is the meaning to be found in the OT. And he did that without presupposing God actually exists.

What Dawkins does in his interpretation is presuppose that we should read the Biblical authors as if they were recording historical events in a modern way. As Sacks pointed out, that's how a fundamentalist reads the Bible. Dawkins, while being critical of fundamentalist readings, has fundamentalist interpretations himself. They were both interpreting Scripture and reaching different conclusions about the God character, not because one of them presupposes God's existence and the other doesn't but because (IMO) one understands how to read ancient Hebrew literature and the other doesn't.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Got it. Yeah, I personally have very little interest in debating whether or not God exists. I rarely see that conversation go anywhere. It's definitely helpful to know what presuppositions we each start with. Sacks presupposes God's existence and wants to talk about meaning and purpose while Dawkins wants to talk about whether or not God exists.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the opening of the debate, but its purpose was whether science can be applied to Jewish theology so focusing on meaning of the stories seems to deviate from the central discussion.

ETA - The Rabbi opens with what is essentially 'I like science, my Jewish brethren like science, now let's talk about stuff in non-scientific terms'.

And Dawkins does just that in the passage from his book that Sacks read out loud. (I'd be interested in your interpretation of that passage from Dawkins. Dawkins said it was a joke, so I assume that's how he intended it. Have you read The God Delusion? Did you read that passage as a joke?) By reaching those conclusions about the God of the Old Testament, Dawkins is basically saying that's what he thinks is the meaning to be found in the OT. And he did that without presupposing God actually exists.

I only watched the first 20 minutes. Are you referring to OT God being the most unpleasant character in all fiction?

 

[dgreen]

Got it. Yeah, I personally have very little interest in debating whether or not God exists. I rarely see that conversation go anywhere. It's definitely helpful to know what presuppositions we each start with. Sacks presupposes God's existence and wants to talk about meaning and purpose while Dawkins wants to talk about whether or not God exists.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the opening of the debate, but its purpose was whether science can be applied to Jewish theology so focusing on meaning of the stories seems to deviate from the central discussion.

And Dawkins does just that in the passage from his book that Sacks read out loud. (I'd be interested in your interpretation of that passage from Dawkins. Dawkins said it was a joke, so I assume that's how he intended it. Have you read The God Delusion? Did you read that passage as a joke?) By reaching those conclusions about the God of the Old Testament, Dawkins is basically saying that's what he thinks is the meaning to be found in the OT. And he did that without presupposing God actually exists.

I only watched the first 20 minutes. Are you referring to OT God being the most unpleasant character in all fiction?

I'm honestly not 100% sure what the purpose of the debate was. My guess is that it was to get the two of them together based on their books that were mentioned at the beginning. I haven't read either book. Here's the Amazon description of Sacks' book:

Spoiler

Impassioned, erudite, thoroughly researched, and beautifully reasoned, The Great Partnership argues not only that science and religion are compatible, but that they complement each other—and that the world needs both.

“Atheism deserves better than the new atheists,” states Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, ridiculing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science.” Rabbi Sacks’s counterargument is that religion and science are the two essential perspectives that allow us to see the universe in its three-dimensional depth. Science teaches us where we come from. Religion explains to us why we are here. Science is the search for explanation. Religion is the search for meaning. There have been times when religion tried to dominate science. And there have been times, including our own, when it is believed that we can learn all we need to know about meaning and relationships through biochemistry, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology. In this fascinating look at the interdependence of religion and science, Rabbi Sacks explains why both views are tragically wrong.

So, I assume the debate was set up knowing this is how Sacks would approach the discussion. In this description, he says that part of the new atheist methodology is to quote texts. If someone is going to use a Biblical story as part of their evidence for their argument, then I don't see how the meaning of that story is a deviation. I don't think stories should be separated from their meaning.

And, yes, I'm referring to the OT God being the most unpleasant character in all fiction.

 

[Captain Cranks]

And, yes, I'm referring to the OT God being the most unpleasant character in all fiction.

I tend to agree with it, and there are many Bible passages I could use to support that thesis, but it's certainly not going to land well on someone who doesn't believe it's fiction or thinks there's some virtuous purpose to the unpleasantness. What is your reaction to it?

 

[Gally]

Got it. Yeah, I personally have very little interest in debating whether or not God exists. I rarely see that conversation go anywhere.

I agree and I think that is because of what I said earlier. Believers reference faith as the "proof" God exists and non-believers want actual scientific "proof" God exists. There is no way to reconcile that so the debate really ends there.

 

[dgreen]

And, yes, I'm referring to the OT God being the most unpleasant character in all fiction.

I tend to agree with it, and there are many Bible passages I could use to support that thesis, but it's certainly not going to land well on someone who doesn't believe it's fiction or thinks there's some virtuous purpose to the unpleasantness. What is your reaction to it?

My main question was whether or not you thought it was a joke as Dawkins claims in the debate. Again, I'm more than willing to accept Dawkins' word on that. I think it's obvious it wouldn't be interpreted as a joke by believers, so I was curious if atheists automatically recognized it as a joke.

I have no issue with that being his perspective. It is understandable. The way God and the Bible has been taught in parts of our culture can easily lead to that conclusion. But, Sacks' points were accurate here. As he mentions, much of Dawkins' words have been stock antisemitic language throughout Christian history. Dawkins didn't intend it that way and was unaware of that history, so there's no accusation there. However, his approach to interpreting the Bible is problematic. And I'm not sure why this isn't clearer to more people. It is something that is so crystal clear to me that I'm amazed that there's push back on things like this. How can someone that smart not understand the importance of how stories work, cultural context, and literary genres? How can he lean on his own interpretation that is heavily influenced by his modern culture, a culture with a long history of Christian antisemitic interpretation towards the God of the OT, and completely ignore more ancient Jewish interpretations which see these things differently? Why is that their interpretation is wrong about their God as revealed through their language and their culture, but someone thousands of years later in a vastly different culture who doesn't know the original language or culture (just my assumption about Dawkins) is the one with the key to who this God is?

Who is more likely to interpret this post correctly: those reading this thread today or someone who digs this up 2000 years from now on the other side of the world?

As always, I've enjoyed this conversation with you.

 

[Captain Cranks]

And, yes, I'm referring to the OT God being the most unpleasant character in all fiction.

I tend to agree with it, and there are many Bible passages I could use to support that thesis, but it's certainly not going to land well on someone who doesn't believe it's fiction or thinks there's some virtuous purpose to the unpleasantness. What is your reaction to it?

My main question was whether or not you thought it was a joke as Dawkins claims in the debate. Again, I'm more than willing to accept Dawkins' word on that. I think it's obvious it wouldn't be interpreted as a joke by believers, so I was curious if atheists automatically recognized it as a joke.

I have no issue with that being his perspective. It is understandable. The way God and the Bible has been taught in parts of our culture can easily lead to that conclusion. But, Sacks' points were accurate here. As he mentions, much of Dawkins' words have been stock antisemitic language throughout Christian history. Dawkins didn't intend it that way and was unaware of that history, so there's no accusation there. However, his approach to interpreting the Bible is problematic. And I'm not sure why this isn't clearer to more people. It is something that is so crystal clear to me that I'm amazed that there's push back on things like this. How can someone that smart not understand the importance of how stories work, cultural context, and literary genres? How can he lean on his own interpretation that is heavily influenced by his modern culture, a culture with a long history of Christian antisemitic interpretation towards the God of the OT, and completely ignore more ancient Jewish interpretations which see these things differently? Why is that their interpretation is wrong about their God as revealed through their language and their culture, but someone thousands of years later in a vastly different culture who doesn't know the original language or culture (just my assumption about Dawkins) is the one with the key to who this God is?

Who is more likely to interpret this post correctly: those reading this thread today or someone who digs this up 2000 years from now on the other side of the world?

As always, I've enjoyed this conversation with you.

I think "joke" was an incorrect term. Joke suggests he doesn't believe it. Light-hearted is probably a better description.

Regarding your second paragraph, I don't think someone like Dawkins is interested in debating subjective interpretations of the Bible. He has his own interpretation and I trust it's because he's read the OT himself. However, I doubt his interpretation is something he'd go to the mat over. Why? Because it's outside the bounds of scientific inquiry.

So I rewatched the intro to the debate and the moderator's first question to the Rabbi is why he felt the need to write a book 'as a response to The God Delusion arguing that science and God are compatible'. To me, that sets the stage for what is to be debated. I'm confused as to why you think the science part of that would be ignored and instead they debate literary interpretations.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How can he lean on his own interpretation that is heavily influenced by his modern culture, a culture with a long history of Christian antisemitic interpretation towards the God of the OT, and completely ignore more ancient Jewish interpretations which see these things differently? Why is that their interpretation is wrong about their God as revealed through their language and their culture, but someone thousands of years later in a vastly different culture who doesn't know the original language or culture (just my assumption about Dawkins) is the one with the key to who this God is?

Elsewhere in this thread there is something like "I believe in the bible because Jesus believed in the bible". That statement has numerous obvious issues but to me the biggest is that Jesus, as portrayed in the bible is an early first century Jew. Not a late first century Chirstian. Nor second and certainly not a 21st century Christian. So even accepting that at times Jesus will interpret scripture in a somewhat novel manner or say things about fulfilling the scripture and/or law I think it is very safe to say that what Jesus believed, or at least expressed out loud in the early first century about the Jewish scripture and what twenty first century American "Evangelical" "Bible Thumping"* Christian believe that the Old Testament says is very often different. (Though rapture or not, they both tend to share apocalyptic "end times" tendencies.)

I think that this thought parallels the above. Christians and by extension most of the western world more often than not read the Old Testament through the eyes of Christianity. But the Jews that "didn't understand their own scripture and thus rejected, thus executed Jesus" have never read it this way. And just as it might be unfair to presuppose God for the debate, it would seem equally unfair to demand that a Jewish Rabbi see Jewish scripture through the lens of Christianity no matter how dominant that perspective has become.

Notes:
I'm not a fan of these debates and will likely never watch this one, so my comments are about the characterization rather than the actual content. Which of course can be dangerous.

* These are in upper case to use those words as modern titles rather than generic definitions. In the sense that despite the "E" in ELCA, few would consider mainstream Lutherans evangelicals in the same sense that we commonly use the word for various other denominations (especially non-denomination) that are routinely called "Evangelical" churches.

 

[dgreen]

So I rewatched the intro to the debate and the moderator's first question to the Rabbi is why he felt the need to write a book 'as a response to The God Delusion arguing that science and God are compatible'. To me, that sets the stage for what is to be debated. I'm confused as to why you think the science part of that would be ignored and instead they debate literary interpretations.

I don't think the science part would be ignored. They discussed science and both agree that science is good for explaining scientific questions. Science was part of the discussion and literary interpretations was part of the discussion.

 

[Captain Cranks]

So I rewatched the intro to the debate and the moderator's first question to the Rabbi is why he felt the need to write a book 'as a response to The God Delusion arguing that science and God are compatible'. To me, that sets the stage for what is to be debated. I'm confused as to why you think the science part of that would be ignored and instead they debate literary interpretations.

I don't think the science part would be ignored. They discussed science and both agree that science is good for explaining scientific questions. Science was part of the discussion and literary interpretations was part of the discussion.

In your opinion, what would be the purpose of having a debate on literary interpretation with someone like Dawkins?

 

[dgreen]

So I rewatched the intro to the debate and the moderator's first question to the Rabbi is why he felt the need to write a book 'as a response to The God Delusion arguing that science and God are compatible'. To me, that sets the stage for what is to be debated. I'm confused as to why you think the science part of that would be ignored and instead they debate literary interpretations.

I don't think the science part would be ignored. They discussed science and both agree that science is good for explaining scientific questions. Science was part of the discussion and literary interpretations was part of the discussion.

In your opinion, what would be the purpose of having a debate on literary interpretation with someone like Dawkins?

Because he uses his interpretations to make claims about God and religion.

 

[dgreen]

So I rewatched the intro to the debate and the moderator's first question to the Rabbi is why he felt the need to write a book 'as a response to The God Delusion arguing that science and God are compatible'. To me, that sets the stage for what is to be debated. I'm confused as to why you think the science part of that would be ignored and instead they debate literary interpretations.

I don't think the science part would be ignored. They discussed science and both agree that science is good for explaining scientific questions. Science was part of the discussion and literary interpretations was part of the discussion.

In your opinion, what would be the purpose of having a debate on literary interpretation with someone like Dawkins?

Because he uses his interpretations to make claims about God and religion.

And to flip the question: what’s the purpose of a science debate with a rabbi? I assume they both knew it was a debate that would straddle two different disciplines.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So I rewatched the intro to the debate and the moderator's first question to the Rabbi is why he felt the need to write a book 'as a response to The God Delusion arguing that science and God are compatible'. To me, that sets the stage for what is to be debated. I'm confused as to why you think the science part of that would be ignored and instead they debate literary interpretations.

I don't think the science part would be ignored. They discussed science and both agree that science is good for explaining scientific questions. Science was part of the discussion and literary interpretations was part of the discussion.

In your opinion, what would be the purpose of having a debate on literary interpretation with someone like Dawkins?

Butting in and heading off on a tangent at the end.

Wouldn't you need to understand the literary context, literary purpose of the story in order to identify whether or not there is any point to evaluate it from a scientific, or historical, or whatever perspective? Whether or not it is in conflict promoting a perspective as "science" in conflict with the latest scientific theories?

If "creation" is a parable (which I think I read earlier was the Rabbi's view) then trying to evaluate it scientifically seems pointless.

If the exodus is supposed to happen as described in Exodus, then there are lots of scientific and historical means to evaluate the probability that it did happen that way. Which I think that the current answer is that so much of the evidence that would be expected to be findable is lacking so the probabilities are low. But if the interpretation is that "the Exodus" narrative is mostly hyperbolic grandeur embellishing "an exodus" then the probabilities change.

Something like the resurrection is pretty much pointless to evaluate as science or history since it is all outside of nature. But the interesting thing to me is that "the" Exodus and "the" Resurrection, whether they happened or not in any form beyond story telling are two of the most significant events shaping the history of western civilization. No that doesn't mean that there is a god. Just shows the power of a good myth.

 

[Paddington]

Got it. Yeah, I personally have very little interest in debating whether or not God exists. I rarely see that conversation go anywhere.

I agree and I think that is because of what I said earlier. Believers reference faith as the "proof" God exists and non-believers want actual scientific "proof" God exists. There is no way to reconcile that so the debate really ends there.

Believers have plenty of scientific evidence of the existence of God, but in the end, faith is required, but it takes more faith to believe that there is no God.

The laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet here it is. In other words, scientifically, it is impossible for us to exist. How did we get here contrary to the laws of science?

 

[dkp993]

Got it. Yeah, I personally have very little interest in debating whether or not God exists. I rarely see that conversation go anywhere.

I agree and I think that is because of what I said earlier. Believers reference faith as the "proof" God exists and non-believers want actual scientific "proof" God exists. There is no way to reconcile that so the debate really ends there.

Believers have plenty of scientific evidence of the existence of God, but in the end, faith is required, but it takes more faith to believe that there is no God.

The laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, yet here it is. In other words, scientifically, it is impossible for us to exist. How did we get here contrary to the laws of science?

Straight from ChatGPT….

How can life (and by extension, human existence) persist and evolve in a universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy?
This is deep — because at a glance, life seems to create order in a universe that trends toward disorder (entropy). So how is that possible?
The Laws in Question
Conservation of Energy (First Law of Thermodynamics)
Energy cannot be created or destroyed — it only changes forms.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
In any closed system, entropy (disorder) tends to increase.
That means systems naturally evolve from order to disorder unless energy is added.
So How Does Life Exist?
We are not closed systems
Earth, and life on it, are open systems. That means we exchange energy and matter with our surroundings.
The Sun delivers energy constantly.
Organisms absorb and transform that energy (through photosynthesis, metabolism, etc.)
In doing so, we create local order (cells, organisms, systems) — but we increase disorder elsewhere (e.g., heat released, waste produced).
So life doesn’t break the second law — it obeys it by increasing net entropy, even while creating localized pockets of order.

Life exists by feeding off energy gradients — increasing entropy in the universe, even as it maintains and builds order locally.
So, we exist with the laws of thermodynamics — not in spite of them. We're actually a beautiful outcome of them.

 

[Northern Voice]

Something like the resurrection is pretty much pointless to evaluate as science or history since it is all outside of nature. But the interesting thing to me is that "the" Exodus and "the" Resurrection, whether they happened or not in any form beyond story telling are two of the most significant events shaping the history of western civilization. No that doesn't mean that there is a god. Just shows the power of a good myth.

It does. And how much death and carnage and strife and conflict have we seen and continue to see because of these myths?

I think that my #1 issue with this discussion is if we strip the "does God exist/not exist?" scientific aspect of it, then we could have shared similar stories, fables, passed on wisdom, nursery rhymes, whatever you want you to call it that shape who we are, and built our community centers where we come together, without all the harm religion has done and continues to do on such a broad scale in the name of various and competing "Gods". Its been such a blight on the world, from ancient conquests to "missionaries" crippling civilizations to child abusing priests to what's still going on in the middle east and to an extent in USA in the name of God.

The only value I see in religion as a non-believer are coping with death - I love but don't believe in the idea of an afterlife where I see my dad and my dogs again - and sense of community, which has been lost for a lot of people but can exist outside the church.

I personally see no other value in faith/religion, and believe you can't really ever take the does God scientifically exist, did the resurrection scientifically happen (scientifically, they likely don't/didnt) part out from believers, how could they ever justify all they/their people have done in his name?

 

[northern exposure]

what i have never understood is why your god is better than someone else's god.
Edited to add , this isnt just aimed at Christians. its every religion

Because I believe that my God is the one and only true God. He is the creator of all things. He fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth in His first coming. There are many others of His second coming. He performed miracles to prove who He was. He predicted His own death and resurrection and then died a.d rose again. That is just a few reasons why I believe that my God is the true God and all others are false.

So the difference between you and atheists is you believe in one more God than they do?

 

[Captain Cranks]

So I rewatched the intro to the debate and the moderator's first question to the Rabbi is why he felt the need to write a book 'as a response to The God Delusion arguing that science and God are compatible'. To me, that sets the stage for what is to be debated. I'm confused as to why you think the science part of that would be ignored and instead they debate literary interpretations.

I don't think the science part would be ignored. They discussed science and both agree that science is good for explaining scientific questions. Science was part of the discussion and literary interpretations was part of the discussion.

In your opinion, what would be the purpose of having a debate on literary interpretation with someone like Dawkins?

Because he uses his interpretations to make claims about God and religion.

And to flip the question: what’s the purpose of a science debate with a rabbi? I assume they both knew it was a debate that would straddle two different disciplines.

I went back and did some homework so that I had a better understanding of the setup for this debate. Hawkins writes The God Delusion which argues that belief in God is unnecessary and unsupported by science; science and reason provide better tools for understanding reality and building a moral society. Rabbi Sacks writes his own book as a rebuttal, arguing that science and religion are not enemies but partners. Science explains how the world works. Religions addresses the why (meaning, purpose).

That's effectively where the debate opens and Sacks explains how he and his Jewish friends love science and that it trumps all else, including theology when they're at odds. However, he feels it doesn't explain the "why" or provide answers to meaning and purpose. From here we go on a bit of a tangent that leads us to a discussion about the parting of the Red Sea. Dawkins wants to know if this is scientifically possible and after Sacks states that a simulation proves it could happen, says that Dawkins is missing the bigger picture by focusing on such details. "The essence of the story is the power of the powerless."

So let's leave it here because I think this is where our sensibilities diverge. Regardless of whether Dawkins accepts that God exists, which Sacks indirectly requires him to grant, what value does this story have that separates it from any fictional literature from which people can draw inspiration?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi @Navin Johnson

Please don't use the laughing emoji to laugh at posts like you did here.

This has been a good discussion and please don't use the emoji that way.

Thank you.

 

[dgreen]

Regardless of whether Dawkins accepts that God exists, which Sacks indirectly requires him to grant, what value does this story have that separates it from any fictional literature from which people can draw inspiration?

I suppose the separation comes in where the story claims that power came from. In the Exodus, it came from the God character. As Sacks pointed out, it is a polemic against the thoughts of their day where Egypt, its Pharaoh, and its gods would have been seen as the greatest powers who were unbeatable. It is, without a doubt, arguing that this God of Israel is the source of the power.

Other stories exist about the power of the powerless (underdog stories) and claim that it can come from your own hard work, better weapons, intelligent strategy, teamwork, hope, perseverance, etc.

I feel like I know how you might respond to this,, but I think too often I make an assumption on where the conversation is going and try to give a pre-answer to a hypothetical upcoming question. So, I'll leave it like this for now and not try to do that.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I suppose the separation comes in where the story claims that power came from. In the Exodus, it came from the God character. As Sacks pointed out, it is a polemic against the thoughts of their day where Egypt, its Pharaoh, and its gods would have been seen as the greatest powers who were unbeatable. It is, without a doubt, arguing that this God of Israel is the source of the power.

Other stories exist about the power of the powerless (underdog stories) and claim that it can come from your own hard work, better weapons, intelligent strategy, teamwork, hope, perseverance, etc.

I feel like I know how you might respond to this,, but I think too often I make an assumption on where the conversation is going and try to give a pre-answer to a hypothetical upcoming question. So, I'll leave it like this for now and not try to do that.

Circling back to my previous point about philosophy vs theology, if we're just talking about literature that provides valuable insights about life through its storytelling, then getting into the weeds about the stories' science misses the point. However, I don't think that's what Rabbi Sacks is offering here. He wants you to accept that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose. That's not a concession someone like Dawkins is going to grant easily.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Something like the resurrection is pretty much pointless to evaluate as science or history since it is all outside of nature. But the interesting thing to me is that "the" Exodus and "the" Resurrection, whether they happened or not in any form beyond story telling are two of the most significant events shaping the history of western civilization. No that doesn't mean that there is a god. Just shows the power of a good myth.

It does. And how much death and carnage and strife and conflict have we seen and continue to see because of these myths?

I think that my #1 issue with this discussion is if we strip the "does God exist/not exist?" scientific aspect of it, then we could have shared similar stories, fables, passed on wisdom, nursery rhymes, whatever you want you to call it that shape who we are, and built our community centers where we come together, without all the harm religion has done and continues to do on such a broad scale in the name of various and competing "Gods". Its been such a blight on the world, from ancient conquests to "missionaries" crippling civilizations to child abusing priests to what's still going on in the middle east and to an extent in USA in the name of God.

The only value I see in religion as a non-believer are coping with death - I love but don't believe in the idea of an afterlife where I see my dad and my dogs again - and sense of community, which has been lost for a lot of people but can exist outside the church.

I personally see no other value in faith/religion, and believe you can't really ever take the does God scientifically exist, did the resurrection scientifically happen (scientifically, they likely don't/didnt) part out from believers, how could they ever justify all they/their people have done in his name?

I am a believer and while I guess I find more good in religion then you do, I still tend to be "anti-religion". That is in my vocabulary being religious is not the same as having faith and trying to live it. Religion is where you find the quest for power, the "shaming", the "holier than thou" nonsense, etc. I very often cringe (or worse) at what people say and do in the name of my beliefs. There is some terrible history there, and it sadly continues. But religion is also where you see the individual good of parishioners leveraged into something much bigger (sum greater than the parts type of thing.) And, yes, there are secular organizations that do the same thing - Rotary community social is at 6.

I cannot defend all that Christians have done in Jesus' name. Some has been horrific. Some has been "good" but with an unreasonable price tag. And lots have just been good. I also cannot fathom whether western civilization is better or worse in an alternative universe where Jesus is crucified and buried and the story ended. Was the "Good News" ultimately good? I'd like to think so, but I am just not imaginative enough to really answer the question. Would we have better art in a largely pagan world? Would we have anything like the communities that early Christians formed? The type of charity? The type of setting where "the worse of us" (as far as circumstance) communes next the "the best of us" as equals (at least in that moment)? I just don't know!

I'm also, for lack of a better word agnostic, even indifferent about an afterlife. None of the way I try to shape my life and my faith is about getting an eternal reward or avoiding an eternal punishment. I assume that any attempt along that line will be counterproductive because ultimately it is selfish. Sin to me is synonymous with being selfish. I'm just looking to do my tiniest of tiny bit to transform the troubled world into the "love thy neighbor" vision of "God's kingdom". That being said, I also think that living this way brings me the most happiness so in some ways the few times I'm really able to be selfless is ultimately selfish.

And while "my" book arguably says otherwise, I'm sure that there are many, many "paths" to live a similar life hoping to achieve the same kind of impact in the world with or without comparable beliefs in God or gods. And I'm pretty confident that if I woke up tomorrow no longer able to believe that most of my life would be unchanged. I'd have few more hours on Sunday mornings, probably at first a few more dollars until I find some other cause to support, etc. but everything else would very likely be the same. I just, at least so far don't wake up this way, though at various points in the day I might be a very strong doubter.

Last, I wish I could remember the passage but somewhere in the epistles Paul more or less says the same thing I did about faith and religion using the vocabulary of his day. That reading catches me by surprise every three years. You'd think I'd scribble it down to remember, but I haven't.

 

[dgreen]

I suppose the separation comes in where the story claims that power came from. In the Exodus, it came from the God character. As Sacks pointed out, it is a polemic against the thoughts of their day where Egypt, its Pharaoh, and its gods would have been seen as the greatest powers who were unbeatable. It is, without a doubt, arguing that this God of Israel is the source of the power.

Other stories exist about the power of the powerless (underdog stories) and claim that it can come from your own hard work, better weapons, intelligent strategy, teamwork, hope, perseverance, etc.

I feel like I know how you might respond to this,, but I think too often I make an assumption on where the conversation is going and try to give a pre-answer to a hypothetical upcoming question. So, I'll leave it like this for now and not try to do that.

Circling back to my previous point about philosophy vs theology, if we're just talking about literature that provides valuable insights about life through its storytelling, then getting into the weeds about the stories' science misses the point. However, I don't think that's what Rabbi Sacks is offering here. He wants you to accept that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose. That's not a concession someone like Dawkins is going to grant easily.

Are you saying the claim that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose means that it makes sense to get into the weeds about the stories' science? I think it would be good to work with an example here. I find things become much clearer in my mind when it is a discussion about a concrete example rather than abstract principles. So, if you can apply what you're proposing to a particular story, I think that would be helpful.

 

[dgreen]

Last, I wish I could remember the passage but somewhere in the epistles Paul more or less says the same thing I did about faith and religion using the vocabulary of his day. That reading catches me by surprise every three years. You'd think I'd scribble it down to remember, but I haven't.

James said:

If anyone thinks himself to be religious, yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I suppose the separation comes in where the story claims that power came from. In the Exodus, it came from the God character. As Sacks pointed out, it is a polemic against the thoughts of their day where Egypt, its Pharaoh, and its gods would have been seen as the greatest powers who were unbeatable. It is, without a doubt, arguing that this God of Israel is the source of the power.

Other stories exist about the power of the powerless (underdog stories) and claim that it can come from your own hard work, better weapons, intelligent strategy, teamwork, hope, perseverance, etc.

I feel like I know how you might respond to this,, but I think too often I make an assumption on where the conversation is going and try to give a pre-answer to a hypothetical upcoming question. So, I'll leave it like this for now and not try to do that.

Circling back to my previous point about philosophy vs theology, if we're just talking about literature that provides valuable insights about life through its storytelling, then getting into the weeds about the stories' science misses the point. However, I don't think that's what Rabbi Sacks is offering here. He wants you to accept that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose. That's not a concession someone like Dawkins is going to grant easily.

Are you saying the claim that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose means that it makes sense to get into the weeds about the stories' science? I think it would be good to work with an example here. I find things become much clearer in my mind when it is a discussion about a concrete example rather than abstract principles. So, if you can apply what you're proposing to a particular story, I think that would be helpful.

Not necessarily, Let's work through the parting of the Red Sea example. What are we supposed to glean from that?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Last, I wish I could remember the passage but somewhere in the epistles Paul more or less says the same thing I did about faith and religion using the vocabulary of his day. That reading catches me by surprise every three years. You'd think I'd scribble it down to remember, but I haven't.

James said:

If anyone thinks himself to be religious, yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

That sounds like it might be it. So, James, not Paul. Probably why I can never find it.

Thanks!

 

[Paddington]

what i have never understood is why your god is better than someone else's god.
Edited to add , this isnt just aimed at Christians. its every religion

Because I believe that my God is the one and only true God. He is the creator of all things. He fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth in His first coming. There are many others of His second coming. He performed miracles to prove who He was. He predicted His own death and resurrection and then died a.d rose again. That is just a few reasons why I believe that my God is the true God and all others are false.

So the difference between you and atheists is you believe in one more God than they do?

I believe in the God who is supported by the evidence and it shows that He is the true and living God of the Bible. I have a genuine relationship with Him. Have you ever read the Secular Writings about Christ from His day and shortly thereafter?

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

How do you explain the hundreds of prophecies written of Christ, hundreds of years before HIs birth, that was fulfilled in His first coming, including where He would be born, when He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and rise again? And many more, then these things all happened. No one else, just Jesus. What about His miracles that He performed to prove who He is? What about the way that the Bible fits together as one book, although with was written over a 1600 year period, by 40 different writers, in different parts of the world? How do you explain how matter and energy exist contrary to the laws of science? How do you explain the explosion of Christianity after His death and resurrection? How do you explain the lives changed through thousands of years since Christ walked the earth? The archaeological findings that support the Bible's accuracy? Why wouldn't I believe it?

 

[Navin Johnson]

what i have never understood is why your god is better than someone else's god.
Edited to add , this isnt just aimed at Christians. its every religion

Because I believe that my God is the one and only true God. He is the creator of all things. He fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth in His first coming. There are many others of His second coming. He performed miracles to prove who He was. He predicted His own death and resurrection and then died a.d rose again. That is just a few reasons why I believe that my God is the true God and all others are false.

So the difference between you and atheists is you believe in one more God than they do?

I believe in the God who is supported by the evidence and it shows that He is the true and living God of the Bible. I have a genuine relationship with Him. Have you ever read the Secular Writings about Christ from His day and shortly thereafter?

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

How do you explain the hundreds of prophecies written of Christ, hundreds of years before HIs birth, that was fulfilled in His first coming, including where He would be born, when He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and rise again? And many more, then these things all happened. No one else, just Jesus. What about His miracles that He performed to prove who He is? What about the way that the Bible fits together as one book, although with was written over a 1600 year period, by 40 different writers, in different parts of the world? How do you explain how matter and energy exist contrary to the laws of science? How do you explain the explosion of Christianity after His death and resurrection? How do you explain the lives changed through thousands of years since Christ walked the earth? The archaeological findings that support the Bible's accuracy? Why wouldn't I believe it?

They didn't happen

 

[Northern Voice]

what i have never understood is why your god is better than someone else's god.
Edited to add , this isnt just aimed at Christians. its every religion

Because I believe that my God is the one and only true God. He is the creator of all things. He fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth in His first coming. There are many others of His second coming. He performed miracles to prove who He was. He predicted His own death and resurrection and then died a.d rose again. That is just a few reasons why I believe that my God is the true God and all others are false.

So the difference between you and atheists is you believe in one more God than they do?

I believe in the God who is supported by the evidence and it shows that He is the true and living God of the Bible. I have a genuine relationship with Him. Have you ever read the Secular Writings about Christ from His day and shortly thereafter?

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

You don't think every person who believes in a different "god" doesn't think theirs is the one and only true one that is supported by evidence?

Come on...

 

[massraider]

How do you explain the explosion of Christianity after His death and resurrection

After you attack a country, and murder its people, you get to install your religion. It's a really sweet side benefit.

 

[Northern Voice]

How do you explain the explosion of Christianity after His death and resurrection

After you attack a country, and murder its people, you get to install your religion. It's a really sweet side benefit.

And I think this is probably getting to the reason that many of us find these threads so offensive, the idea that we as individuals need to somehow be saved where honestly, I believe the big picture view would be that the world needs to be saved from religion.

 

[northern exposure]

what i have never understood is why your god is better than someone else's god.
Edited to add , this isnt just aimed at Christians. its every religion

Because I believe that my God is the one and only true God. He is the creator of all things. He fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth in His first coming. There are many others of His second coming. He performed miracles to prove who He was. He predicted His own death and resurrection and then died a.d rose again. That is just a few reasons why I believe that my God is the true God and all others are false.

So the difference between you and atheists is you believe in one more God than they do?

I believe in the God who is supported by the evidence and it shows that He is the true and living God of the Bible. I have a genuine relationship with Him. Have you ever read the Secular Writings about Christ from His day and shortly thereafter?

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

How do you explain the hundreds of prophecies written of Christ, hundreds of years before HIs birth, that was fulfilled in His first coming, including where He would be born, when He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and rise again? And many more, then these things all happened. No one else, just Jesus. What about His miracles that He performed to prove who He is? What about the way that the Bible fits together as one book, although with was written over a 1600 year period, by 40 different writers, in different parts of the world? How do you explain how matter and energy exist contrary to the laws of science? How do you explain the explosion of Christianity after His death and resurrection? How do you explain the lives changed through thousands of years since Christ walked the earth? The archaeological findings that support the Bible's accuracy? Why wouldn't I believe it?

So followers of Allah, Jehovah, Muhammed, Vishnu, etc. are all hoodwinked into believing a bunch of lies?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How do you explain the explosion of Christianity after His death and resurrection?

It didn't explode. It grew in spurts and spats, but over the first three and half centuries it was slow and steady growth. The explosion was when it became a favored religion under Constatine (i..e Rome gave it money) and then after Theodosius I (i.e. it was pretty much the only allowed religion).

How Many Early Christians Were There and When? Crunchin’ the Numbers​

August 29, 2024

One scholar (Rodney Stark, mentioned in my previous post) calculated the rate of growth of early Christianity to be about 40% per decade from the very beginning to about the time of the conversion of Constantine. There is nothing implausible about a religion growing that quickly per se; the Mormon church did for most of its history until recently.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Have you ever read the Secular Writings about Christ from His day and shortly thereafter?

No! No one recently have! There are no surviving contemporary secular accounts of Jesus from his day or shortly after! None! There are no surviving Christian accounts either "shortly thereafter". Paul makes a few mentions of Jesus in his letters. Surprisingly few, twenty years later. The gospels likely contain "nuggets' of earlier writings that no longer survive forty to sixty-five years after the fact. Josephus (not secular) has a couple of mentions of Christianity and a disputed mention about Jesus in the first century. In the second century Romans start talking about what to do with Christians, possibly stating that they worship Christ which is a description of Christians not worshipping the gods and not a confirmation about anything else.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How do you explain the hundreds of prophecies written of Christ,

This is easy. None of this prophecy was written about a future messiah if you read the scripture literally as it was read for centuries. Then Christians come along and reinterpret this to fit their narratives. Including adding stuff that only existed in the Greek translation of scripture that wasn't in the Hebrew. Not to mention the stuff they made up about Jesus like at least one of the genealogies. At least one of the birth narratives. At least one date of crucifixion.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

What about His miracles that He performed to prove who He is? What about the way that the Bible fits together as one book

In the Gospel of John Jesus is doing "signs" to prove who he is. In the synoptic gospels Jesus refuses to perform miracles to prove who he is.

 

[Paddington]

What about His miracles that He performed to prove who He is? What about the way that the Bible fits together as one book

In the Gospel of John Jesus is doing "signs" to prove who he is. In the synoptic gospels Jesus refuses to perform miracles to prove who he is.

Probably because of the unbelief of those around Him.

 

[Psychopav]

What about His miracles that He performed to prove who He is? What about the way that the Bible fits together as one book

In the Gospel of John Jesus is doing "signs" to prove who he is. In the synoptic gospels Jesus refuses to perform miracles to prove who he is.

I mean, in Luke He literally tells John the Baptist's followers to tell John about His miracles to show He's the one that John has been waiting for.

 

[Navin Johnson]

How do you explain the explosion of Christianity after His death and resurrection

After you attack a country, and murder its people, you get to install your religion. It's a really sweet side benefit.

Evangilism of the sword

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

"Free will" and choosing religion, interesting idea. Those that acknowledge "free will" as part of their relationship with god and part of their Christianity, do you believe if your circumstances were different that you would still choose Christianity as your preferred religion?

Where you were born
Color of your skin
Inherent disease
Culture
Social status
Economics
Education
Dominant religion
Childhood trauma
Regional conflicts/lack of conflicts

Just a few factors in "free will" and how circumstances outside of our control play a large enough role that it's unlikely to be as "free" as some would like.

So the root of what I'm getting at is why Christianity specifically? I imagine very few commenting have converted from another religion (though if any have I'd love to hear why). How much of your choice to practice Christianity came from your "free will" vs beliefs that were already ingrained by influences in your childhood and before you were older and could actually entertain the idea of "free will"?

Religion isn't truth just because it's dominant in someone's situation. To suggest anyone else is wrong or that there's some universal truth seems short sighted. Nobody needs saving from their ideas, philosophies, religions anymore than Christians need saving from theirs.

My opinion as an agnostic, but I'd like to hear the why for Christianity over all the other religions and philosophies available to us in an interconnected world.

 

[Captain Cranks]

"Free will" and choosing religion, interesting idea. Those that acknowledge "free will" as part of their relationship with god and part of their Christianity, do you believe if your circumstances were different that you would still choose Christianity as your preferred religion?

Where you were born
Color of your skin
Inherent disease
Culture
Social status
Economics
Education
Dominant religion
Childhood trauma
Regional conflicts/lack of conflicts

Just a few factors in "free will" and how circumstances outside of our control play a large enough role that it's unlikely to be as "free" as some would like.

So the root of what I'm getting at is why Christianity specifically? I imagine very few commenting have converted from another religion (though if any have I'd love to hear why). How much of your choice to practice Christianity came from your "free will" vs beliefs that were already ingrained by influences in your childhood and before you were older and could actually entertain the idea of "free will"?

Religion isn't truth just because it's dominant in someone's situation. To suggest anyone else is wrong or that there's some universal truth seems short sighted. Nobody needs saving from their ideas, philosophies, religions anymore than Christians need saving from theirs.

My opinion as an agnostic, but I'd like to hear the why for Christianity over all the other religions and philosophies available to us in an interconnected world.

Coincidentally I watched a podcast on this very subject last night. Free will

 

[dgreen]

I suppose the separation comes in where the story claims that power came from. In the Exodus, it came from the God character. As Sacks pointed out, it is a polemic against the thoughts of their day where Egypt, its Pharaoh, and its gods would have been seen as the greatest powers who were unbeatable. It is, without a doubt, arguing that this God of Israel is the source of the power.

Other stories exist about the power of the powerless (underdog stories) and claim that it can come from your own hard work, better weapons, intelligent strategy, teamwork, hope, perseverance, etc.

I feel like I know how you might respond to this,, but I think too often I make an assumption on where the conversation is going and try to give a pre-answer to a hypothetical upcoming question. So, I'll leave it like this for now and not try to do that.

Circling back to my previous point about philosophy vs theology, if we're just talking about literature that provides valuable insights about life through its storytelling, then getting into the weeds about the stories' science misses the point. However, I don't think that's what Rabbi Sacks is offering here. He wants you to accept that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose. That's not a concession someone like Dawkins is going to grant easily.

Are you saying the claim that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose means that it makes sense to get into the weeds about the stories' science? I think it would be good to work with an example here. I find things become much clearer in my mind when it is a discussion about a concrete example rather than abstract principles. So, if you can apply what you're proposing to a particular story, I think that would be helpful.

Not necessarily, Let's work through the parting of the Red Sea example. What are we supposed to glean from that?

I'm going to try hard not to be too long-winded here. There are a couple ways to look at this. There's the more zoomed-in focus, which is what I think Rabbi Sacks provided, and then the meaning within the larger narrative.

If we just open to Exodus and read a few chapters, I think Sacks provided a good summary of what should be gleaned. The powerless (Hebrew slaves) are given power over their oppressors. The power was provided by this God who heard their cries and rescued them. Most scholars believe the 10 plagues target 10 different Egyptian gods. The God of the Hebrews showed his power over their gods and over Pharaoh's army. Escaped slaves fleeing on foot got away from the world's mightiest army of horses and chariots. As Sacks said, it is a polemic against the prevailing thought of the day. It's a polemic against mighty, oppressive empires and in favor of the oppressed.

Like any good story, we can also jump back to the beginning to see where this stories falls in the larger narrative.

Genesis 1-2: God creates everything and it is good. He gives things function and purpose. He sets up humanity with a special job to be his physical presence in the world and to rule (justly) over creation. God has brought order out of chaos and he wants to partner with humans. This is seen as God establishing himself as king over his kingdom, which is all creation. Humans have everything they need, but they also have a choice in how they will carry out their special purpose.

Genesis 3-11: Humanity chooses to define good and evil in their own terms, a rejection of God's kingship. Humans are exiled from the special spot God made for them. Things get worse when Cain murders Abel and then the whole world descends back into total chaos by the time of the flood. The earth is filled with violence and corruption and creation has been ruined. God starts over with a new creation, but immediately Noah is cursing Canaan and the people of Babel (Babylon) are trying to make a name for themselves so God confuses their language and scatters them. It's clear, humanity will continually takes things in the wrong direction. The major problem has been introduced into the story and we need a way to fix that and to restore all of creation.

Genesis 12-50: God partners with one man, Abram, to initiate the rescue plan. God says that through Abram and his descendants, he will bring blessing to all the world. God will make Abram's name great and make him into a great nation. So God sends Abram to the land of Canaan to start this mission of blessing (remember, Noah cursed Canaan). There are ups and downs and we see God stepping in to put his people back onto the mission of blessing. The calling of one man grows into a larger family. jacob has 12 sons and a total of 70 people end up in Egypt by the end of Genesis living a good life with positive relationships with Pharaoh and Egypt. It seems like a good spot for them to be in (high status in a land like Egypt), but God wants them in Canaan.

Exodus 1-18: God's people are seemingly on their way to being that great nation and being as numerous as the stars of the sky that God promised, but a new Pharaoh feels threatened by them and enslaves them. The people cry out and God hears their cry and calls out to one man, Moses, to partner with in the rescue. The specific request is to let God's "firstborn" go. Of course, Pharaoh refuses the request to let these slaves go. Why would he let them go? He's the most powerful man in the world and he's never even heard of this YHWH god that Moses is talking about. So, through some signs and plagues, God proves who he is and his superiority over the Egyptian gods. At each step, God desires that Pharaoh just lets them go and recognizes him for who he is. Of course, Pharaoh continually refuses. Even the death of the firstborn doesn't really convince Pharaoh. Sure, he lets them go, but then he also chases after them. He'll never really let them go. So, we reach the scene where a group of slaves is stuck between the world's mightiest army on one side and a body of water they can't cross on the other side. God tells his people to just sit back and let him take care of this. He parts the sea so that they can walk across on dry ground. Then, as Pharaoh's army tries to go through the sea, their wheels get stuck in the mud and the waters come crushing down on them. God's "firstborn" had just left doorways covered in blood and have now passed through water. They've been born again.

Exodus 19-40: God brings his people to Sinai and enters into covenant with them. He becomes their king and metaphorical husband through the covenant. The people gladly accept this covenant offer to be a "kingdom of priests" (meaning their job was to show God to other kingdoms). A nation with their own god as their own king is being born, just as God promised Abram. As they went through the parted waters of the sea, we see (as we did with the flood) another recreation event in the birth of this nation. God instructs them to construct the tabernacle to be his home in their midst. The tabernacle is full of Eden language and they are taking this mobile Eden with them to Canaan.

Of course, the story continues. This is still really early and the audience is interested in seeing how God's elected "fristborn" will carry out the mission of blessing. Will they successfully play their part as a light to the world and bring all creation back to life in Eden?

 

[dgreen]

How do you explain the explosion of Christianity after His death and resurrection

After you attack a country, and murder its people, you get to install your religion. It's a really sweet side benefit.

And I think this is probably getting to the reason that many of us find these threads so offensive, the idea that we as individuals need to somehow be saved where honestly, I believe the big picture view would be that the world needs to be saved from religion.

So, while you don't think that you as an individual need to be saved, you do agree that the world needs to be saved? You say from religion, but I assume you'd agree that in the larger sense it needs to be saved from all evils regardless of the worldview that brings that evil?

 

[Captain Cranks]

I suppose the separation comes in where the story claims that power came from. In the Exodus, it came from the God character. As Sacks pointed out, it is a polemic against the thoughts of their day where Egypt, its Pharaoh, and its gods would have been seen as the greatest powers who were unbeatable. It is, without a doubt, arguing that this God of Israel is the source of the power.

Other stories exist about the power of the powerless (underdog stories) and claim that it can come from your own hard work, better weapons, intelligent strategy, teamwork, hope, perseverance, etc.

I feel like I know how you might respond to this,, but I think too often I make an assumption on where the conversation is going and try to give a pre-answer to a hypothetical upcoming question. So, I'll leave it like this for now and not try to do that.

Circling back to my previous point about philosophy vs theology, if we're just talking about literature that provides valuable insights about life through its storytelling, then getting into the weeds about the stories' science misses the point. However, I don't think that's what Rabbi Sacks is offering here. He wants you to accept that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose. That's not a concession someone like Dawkins is going to grant easily.

Are you saying the claim that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose means that it makes sense to get into the weeds about the stories' science? I think it would be good to work with an example here. I find things become much clearer in my mind when it is a discussion about a concrete example rather than abstract principles. So, if you can apply what you're proposing to a particular story, I think that would be helpful.

Not necessarily, Let's work through the parting of the Red Sea example. What are we supposed to glean from that?

I'm going to try hard not to be too long-winded here. There are a couple ways to look at this. There's the more zoomed-in focus, which is what I think Rabbi Sacks provided, and then the meaning within the larger narrative.

If we just open to Exodus and read a few chapters, I think Sacks provided a good summary of what should be gleaned. The powerless (Hebrew slaves) are given power over their oppressors. The power was provided by this God who heard their cries and rescued them. Most scholars believe the 10 plagues target 10 different Egyptian gods. The God of the Hebrews showed his power over their gods and over Pharaoh's army. Escaped slaves fleeing on foot got away from the world's mightiest army of horses and chariots. As Sacks said, it is a polemic against the prevailing thought of the day. It's a polemic against mighty, oppressive empires and in favor of the oppressed.

Like any good story, we can also jump back to the beginning to see where this stories falls in the larger narrative.

Genesis 1-2: God creates everything and it is good. He gives things function and purpose. He sets up humanity with a special job to be his physical presence in the world and to rule (justly) over creation. God has brought order out of chaos and he wants to partner with humans. This is seen as God establishing himself as king over his kingdom, which is all creation. Humans have everything they need, but they also have a choice in how they will carry out their special purpose.

Genesis 3-11: Humanity chooses to define good and evil in their own terms, a rejection of God's kingship. Humans are exiled from the special spot God made for them. Things get worse when Cain murders Abel and then the whole world descends back into total chaos by the time of the flood. The earth is filled with violence and corruption and creation has been ruined. God starts over with a new creation, but immediately Noah is cursing Canaan and the people of Babel (Babylon) are trying to make a name for themselves so God confuses their language and scatters them. It's clear, humanity will continually takes things in the wrong direction. The major problem has been introduced into the story and we need a way to fix that and to restore all of creation.

Genesis 12-50: God partners with one man, Abram, to initiate the rescue plan. God says that through Abram and his descendants, he will bring blessing to all the world. God will make Abram's name great and make him into a great nation. So God sends Abram to the land of Canaan to start this mission of blessing (remember, Noah cursed Canaan). There are ups and downs and we see God stepping in to put his people back onto the mission of blessing. The calling of one man grows into a larger family. jacob has 12 sons and a total of 70 people end up in Egypt by the end of Genesis living a good life with positive relationships with Pharaoh and Egypt. It seems like a good spot for them to be in (high status in a land like Egypt), but God wants them in Canaan.

Exodus 1-18: God's people are seemingly on their way to being that great nation and being as numerous as the stars of the sky that God promised, but a new Pharaoh feels threatened by them and enslaves them. The people cry out and God hears their cry and calls out to one man, Moses, to partner with in the rescue. The specific request is to let God's "firstborn" go. Of course, Pharaoh refuses the request to let these slaves go. Why would he let them go? He's the most powerful man in the world and he's never even heard of this YHWH god that Moses is talking about. So, through some signs and plagues, God proves who he is and his superiority over the Egyptian gods. At each step, God desires that Pharaoh just lets them go and recognizes him for who he is. Of course, Pharaoh continually refuses. Even the death of the firstborn doesn't really convince Pharaoh. Sure, he lets them go, but then he also chases after them. He'll never really let them go. So, we reach the scene where a group of slaves is stuck between the world's mightiest army on one side and a body of water they can't cross on the other side. God tells his people to just sit back and let him take care of this. He parts the sea so that they can walk across on dry ground. Then, as Pharaoh's army tries to go through the sea, their wheels get stuck in the mud and the waters come crushing down on them. God's "firstborn" had just left doorways covered in blood and have now passed through water. They've been born again.

Exodus 19-40: God brings his people to Sinai and enters into covenant with them. He becomes their king and metaphorical husband through the covenant. The people gladly accept this covenant offer to be a "kingdom of priests" (meaning their job was to show God to other kingdoms). A nation with their own god as their own king is being born, just as God promised Abram. As they went through the parted waters of the sea, we see (as we did with the flood) another recreation event in the birth of this nation. God instructs them to construct the tabernacle to be his home in their midst. The tabernacle is full of Eden language and they are taking this mobile Eden with them to Canaan.

Of course, the story continues. This is still really early and the audience is interested in seeing how God's elected "fristborn" will carry out the mission of blessing. Will they successfully play their part as a light to the world and bring all creation back to life in Eden?

OK, so is this story fictional or historical? If it's fictional, what makes it any more important than other fictional works with an inspirational or empowering lesson?

ETA - I'll cut to where I think the chase scene is. If the answer is it's fictional, why are we discussing it with Dawkins as the "why" of the universe. If it's historical, you're going to need to prove it. Thus the parsing of the science within the story.

 

[dgreen]

I suppose the separation comes in where the story claims that power came from. In the Exodus, it came from the God character. As Sacks pointed out, it is a polemic against the thoughts of their day where Egypt, its Pharaoh, and its gods would have been seen as the greatest powers who were unbeatable. It is, without a doubt, arguing that this God of Israel is the source of the power.

Other stories exist about the power of the powerless (underdog stories) and claim that it can come from your own hard work, better weapons, intelligent strategy, teamwork, hope, perseverance, etc.

I feel like I know how you might respond to this,, but I think too often I make an assumption on where the conversation is going and try to give a pre-answer to a hypothetical upcoming question. So, I'll leave it like this for now and not try to do that.

Circling back to my previous point about philosophy vs theology, if we're just talking about literature that provides valuable insights about life through its storytelling, then getting into the weeds about the stories' science misses the point. However, I don't think that's what Rabbi Sacks is offering here. He wants you to accept that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose. That's not a concession someone like Dawkins is going to grant easily.

Are you saying the claim that these stories are divinely inspired by a God who created the universe and gives it purpose means that it makes sense to get into the weeds about the stories' science? I think it would be good to work with an example here. I find things become much clearer in my mind when it is a discussion about a concrete example rather than abstract principles. So, if you can apply what you're proposing to a particular story, I think that would be helpful.

Not necessarily, Let's work through the parting of the Red Sea example. What are we supposed to glean from that?

I'm going to try hard not to be too long-winded here. There are a couple ways to look at this. There's the more zoomed-in focus, which is what I think Rabbi Sacks provided, and then the meaning within the larger narrative.

If we just open to Exodus and read a few chapters, I think Sacks provided a good summary of what should be gleaned. The powerless (Hebrew slaves) are given power over their oppressors. The power was provided by this God who heard their cries and rescued them. Most scholars believe the 10 plagues target 10 different Egyptian gods. The God of the Hebrews showed his power over their gods and over Pharaoh's army. Escaped slaves fleeing on foot got away from the world's mightiest army of horses and chariots. As Sacks said, it is a polemic against the prevailing thought of the day. It's a polemic against mighty, oppressive empires and in favor of the oppressed.

Like any good story, we can also jump back to the beginning to see where this stories falls in the larger narrative.

Genesis 1-2: God creates everything and it is good. He gives things function and purpose. He sets up humanity with a special job to be his physical presence in the world and to rule (justly) over creation. God has brought order out of chaos and he wants to partner with humans. This is seen as God establishing himself as king over his kingdom, which is all creation. Humans have everything they need, but they also have a choice in how they will carry out their special purpose.

Genesis 3-11: Humanity chooses to define good and evil in their own terms, a rejection of God's kingship. Humans are exiled from the special spot God made for them. Things get worse when Cain murders Abel and then the whole world descends back into total chaos by the time of the flood. The earth is filled with violence and corruption and creation has been ruined. God starts over with a new creation, but immediately Noah is cursing Canaan and the people of Babel (Babylon) are trying to make a name for themselves so God confuses their language and scatters them. It's clear, humanity will continually takes things in the wrong direction. The major problem has been introduced into the story and we need a way to fix that and to restore all of creation.

Genesis 12-50: God partners with one man, Abram, to initiate the rescue plan. God says that through Abram and his descendants, he will bring blessing to all the world. God will make Abram's name great and make him into a great nation. So God sends Abram to the land of Canaan to start this mission of blessing (remember, Noah cursed Canaan). There are ups and downs and we see God stepping in to put his people back onto the mission of blessing. The calling of one man grows into a larger family. jacob has 12 sons and a total of 70 people end up in Egypt by the end of Genesis living a good life with positive relationships with Pharaoh and Egypt. It seems like a good spot for them to be in (high status in a land like Egypt), but God wants them in Canaan.

Exodus 1-18: God's people are seemingly on their way to being that great nation and being as numerous as the stars of the sky that God promised, but a new Pharaoh feels threatened by them and enslaves them. The people cry out and God hears their cry and calls out to one man, Moses, to partner with in the rescue. The specific request is to let God's "firstborn" go. Of course, Pharaoh refuses the request to let these slaves go. Why would he let them go? He's the most powerful man in the world and he's never even heard of this YHWH god that Moses is talking about. So, through some signs and plagues, God proves who he is and his superiority over the Egyptian gods. At each step, God desires that Pharaoh just lets them go and recognizes him for who he is. Of course, Pharaoh continually refuses. Even the death of the firstborn doesn't really convince Pharaoh. Sure, he lets them go, but then he also chases after them. He'll never really let them go. So, we reach the scene where a group of slaves is stuck between the world's mightiest army on one side and a body of water they can't cross on the other side. God tells his people to just sit back and let him take care of this. He parts the sea so that they can walk across on dry ground. Then, as Pharaoh's army tries to go through the sea, their wheels get stuck in the mud and the waters come crushing down on them. God's "firstborn" had just left doorways covered in blood and have now passed through water. They've been born again.

Exodus 19-40: God brings his people to Sinai and enters into covenant with them. He becomes their king and metaphorical husband through the covenant. The people gladly accept this covenant offer to be a "kingdom of priests" (meaning their job was to show God to other kingdoms). A nation with their own god as their own king is being born, just as God promised Abram. As they went through the parted waters of the sea, we see (as we did with the flood) another recreation event in the birth of this nation. God instructs them to construct the tabernacle to be his home in their midst. The tabernacle is full of Eden language and they are taking this mobile Eden with them to Canaan.

Of course, the story continues. This is still really early and the audience is interested in seeing how God's elected "fristborn" will carry out the mission of blessing. Will they successfully play their part as a light to the world and bring all creation back to life in Eden?

OK, so is this story fictional or historical? If it's fictional, what makes it any more important than other fictional works with an inspirational or empowering lesson?

ETA - I'll cut to where I think the chase scene is. If the answer is it's fictional, why are we discussing it with Dawkins as the "why" of the universe. If it's historical, you're going to need to prove it. Thus the parsing of the science within the story.

How much of it has to be historical in order to be considered historical?

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

"Free will" and choosing religion, interesting idea. Those that acknowledge "free will" as part of their relationship with god and part of their Christianity, do you believe if your circumstances were different that you would still choose Christianity as your preferred religion?

Where you were born
Color of your skin
Inherent disease
Culture
Social status
Economics
Education
Dominant religion
Childhood trauma
Regional conflicts/lack of conflicts

Just a few factors in "free will" and how circumstances outside of our control play a large enough role that it's unlikely to be as "free" as some would like.

So the root of what I'm getting at is why Christianity specifically? I imagine very few commenting have converted from another religion (though if any have I'd love to hear why). How much of your choice to practice Christianity came from your "free will" vs beliefs that were already ingrained by influences in your childhood and before you were older and could actually entertain the idea of "free will"?

Religion isn't truth just because it's dominant in someone's situation. To suggest anyone else is wrong or that there's some universal truth seems short sighted. Nobody needs saving from their ideas, philosophies, religions anymore than Christians need saving from theirs.

My opinion as an agnostic, but I'd like to hear the why for Christianity over all the other religions and philosophies available to us in an interconnected world.

Coincidentally I watched a podcast on this very subject last night. Free will

Thanks for posting this. Skimmed it, but will give it a full listen when i get a chance. I find these ideas pretty interesting.