TreesNightly

I see both atheists and theists finding a scientific study or paper from somewhere on the internet and posting it as a central support to their argument or claim. This study or paper might even be written by someone with a degree in a relevant field. That's great, but the internet is a big place and there are all kinds of people who use it. The interpretations of data and the conclusions to be drawn from them can vary as much as the agendas and biases of the article writers. The best thing to do is to only look at the data and apply your own encyclopedic knowledge gained from being an expert in the field to draw your own conclusions. Oh, that�s right, I�m not. I only know the broad strokes of evolution, TV cosmology and pop-quantum physics. In other words, I don�t know shit. I know a lot more than the average guy walking down the street, but it�s relative. If I know anything, it's my limitations. Which brings me to the conundrum. In order to talk about issues beyond my pay grad...

The following is a post from Tim O'Neill who is much more knowledgeable than I on matters of history, but I'm still pretty sure I have him beat in James Bond trivia. "History sucks." In April last year Grundy, the usual writer of this blog, posted History Isn't My Area, commenting on the release of Bart Ehrman's critique of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, Did Jesus Exist?: A Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth . Unlike the majority of actual historians, many prominent atheists find Jesus Mythicism convincing and many of them are unhappy with the generally sceptical and highly renowned Ehrman for criticizing this idea. Grundy, for his part, stated frankly "I honestly have little knowledge as to whether or not Jesus existed", though added "I tend to think he did". That said, he made it clear why the overwhelming consensus of historians and other relevant scholars that the Jesus Myth idea is junk was underwhelming for him: "History suck...

�God of the gaps� is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. (from Wikipedia) History has shown us that many gaps can and have been filled as scientific knowledge grows. So much so, in fact, that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there is a natural explanation for our remaining gaps. Theists tend not to come to this conclusion, for obvious reasons, but I wonder how long this conclusion may be avoided. I wonder how much longer this theological perspective will have any semblance of relevancy. The best example of a closed gap is Darwin�s shutdown of the argument from design. Of course, I realize there are still fringe individuals and backward denominations that dismiss evolution as a valid explainer of the world�s biological complexity, but if the slow-to-come-around Catholic Church is on board, it�s safe to say that the others are simply in denial. From most of my interactions with honest t...