Yesterday in ‘Haven’t We Always Been Creationists’, I showed that some ancient heavyweights were not creationists.
St Augustine, one of the greats, had some great advice, more relevant than ever 1600 years after he wrote it. (It’s heavy work to read, but well worth it)
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation”
(The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
If we discover something about the world, don’t go speaking idiotically against it because you cling to one particular meaning of obscure passages. Ouch. Good advice.
Augusting had lots more to say. Read some of it at the bottom of this page.
I don’t know if this is the same track but …
I’ve always been frustrated by the “we can’t explain how (insert random example here) hummingbirds fly, so it proves ID/creation”. Stupid logic. What if we figure out how hummingbirds fly? Does it disprove the existence of, and creative work of, God? Of course it doesn’t, but that’s the logical conclusion one would have to draw if one followed the aforementioned logic.
Yeah. God of the gaps doesn’t help anyone. Far better to look at how cool hummingbirds are and praise the God who designed both the birds and the mechanics behind it! (or the _____ and the evolutionary/cosmological process that caused it)
On the other side of that, I talked to a guy who doesn’t believe in God because all the arguments he’s heard used to argue for God have failed. That is, his reasoning is:
1. Arguments x, y, and z tried to prove God.
2. Arguments x, y, and z failed to proved God.
Therefore,
3. There is no God.
Anyone else see a problem with that? Maybe they were just bad arguments! In philosophy one needs to be constantly reminded that to find an argument invalid is not the same as to falsify its conclusion.
God of the gaps isn’t a good way to argue for God, but neither is the filling of those gaps a good way to argue against Him.
Agreed, though filling the gaps is the best way to specifically deal with the god of the gaps arguments. There are still plenty of those around; like Michelle says, the case for ID consists of little else.
“though filling the gaps is the best way to specifically deal with the god of the gaps arguments”
Ouch. Good point.
Thanks.