Einstein and Newton believed in God.

It is also interesting to see that the National Geographic Society can trace every single person alive today back to 1 Man in Africa with their Genome project.
Check it out on their website.

So I strongly believe that the truly intellectual ultimately become faithful and reach the same conclusion as Einstein.

I think the more we know about science and how the world works the more our faith is going to be deepened. Quantam physics is actually supporting the idea of the divine. I think our intellect is part of what makes us human and whole and I cannot separate it from my faith, anymore than I can separate my emotions or my culture.

Here is some quotes from a reviews of Dawkins book:

Like all evangelical atheists, Dawkins pretends that it is possible to obtain spiritual sustenance by contemplating the wonders of the universe. What he is essentially saying is "don't worry that you and your friends and family will die and you won't exist for ever and ever and ever, just look at that pretty butterfly. Isn't it wonderful that it evolved thanks to millions of years of unconscious natural selection."
Review by Sutton , on Amazon

It would be nearly impossible to enumerate the flaws of this book. From the chronic lack of depth in his analysis, Dawkins' focus on the largely enlightened (and declining) Christendom, his attempts to attack an inherently emotional and irrational topic with "logical" (sadly not first-order) arguments, his anticlimactic jabs at everything held sacred by anyone, and obvious and often expressed frustration that priests still haven't been put against the wall for their crimes against humanity (such as, perhaps, giving people hope),...
Review by Denis , on Amazon

A quote from another Amazon review:
Richard Dawkins is what I'd call a rationalist bully. His world view appears to be that anything he can't make sense of doesn't make sense and should therefore be ridiculed or defamed without compassion....But do read it, if only to see where a lack of poetry and an absence of compassion can take you in a field where such elements are so strongly indicated.
Peter Fyfe

But the vast majority of the Amazon reviews rave about this book and about Dawkins as though he were the second coming. And "The God Delusion" is at the top of the MacLeans non-fiction best-seller list. *sigh*

I think with just intelectualism there is something missing.
Me and my friends here at the anatomy lab discuss the
post-modern a lot and think too much luxury in universities
makes them all California crazy. Well, we signed up and
you can't eat information so it has taken a lot of the zip out
of life. Postmodernism will just bore us all to death.

Jonas; "Einstein and Newton believed in God."

Einstein spoke of his God, but not of a faith in God.

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws." -- Albert Einstein

Sir Isaac Newton believed in God and was considered by many to be one of the greatest lay theologians of his age -- he was also a heretic and believed that the Holy and Undivided Trinity, was false.

For many people, intellectualism is a vital part of their faith. While at its heart, faith is not logical and rational, but emotional, intellectualism will influence and shape the faith. I know intellectualism shapes my faith constantly; it's the main thing that keeps me questioning my faith, and helping it stretch and grow.
Dawkins should keep to biology. I do want to read "The God Delusion" but what I've read in reviews by people less enamored by his atheism, and even some who do agree with it, is that his logic only works so far. Some of his earlier works point towards this lack of clarity when it comes to religion, what comes to mind most to me is his reaction to the events of 9/11, where he argued that because religion is the label with which many people attack their opponents, religion is therefore bad. He dismisses rebuttals pointing out that evil can be done in the name of science or through science, by saying that that is just bad science. Apparently that's good enoughto vindicate science in his mind, but it's not good enough for a believer to point out that flying planes into buildings to kill infidels and get 72 virgins is bad religion. His treatment of the Bible is also weak, but common to atheists, who show themselves to be just as fundamentalist in their thinking as the people they argue so harshly against. Apparently, all stories in the Bible must be literally true, or they are worthless. Taking them literally demonstrates that God is evil and cruel (he loves pointing to stories like God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son), but he neglects the fact that
1) these might just be stories, full of truth, but not something that actually happened, and
2) he's looking at stories written 2000+ years ago through the lens of modern thought. Things that are heinous to us now might not have been considered so bad in a different time and place.
I guess I digressed from the original topic. But I have to say, reading Dawkins' books illuminated my understanding of biology, and I'm amazed at how easily many of the concepts came across, especially as I've never taken a biology course in my life. People like Dawkins challenge my faith. Their intellectualist attacks on faith force me to think of why I believe what I believe, and to check for internal logical consistency. If I find any, I then need a way to defend this inconsistency if it is needed. So intellectualism greatly influences faith, and I believe makes it much stronger.

I like your answer NightHawk, but have a few reservations. I love Christians that think and would be delighted if more would!! I do feel questions and discussions can deepen our faith. I very much encourage thinking and discussion. Intellectuallism though is not the same as a healthy deepening of faith and a questioning heart, it is a mind that puts thoughts and intellect above God. I think it depends on the nature of the questions and discussions. I do feel though that there is a danger of the rational and explainable trying to infultrate into a faith that is ultimately neither. There are many questions that we can not answer and only by faith can we understand them. For example - how has God always existed, how can Jesus be all man and all God, how can God be in three parts, how did the virgin birth happen? etc.

My point remains that Einstein believes there is some intelligence behind the Universe and I agree with his take on some organized religions.

tillytastic I believe if you try to encompass God with your mind, He ceases to be God. He is so much greater than that. I wonder why Jesus our Lord chose uneducated men as His disciples?

I am thinking....hum...maybe when a person feels teh wonderment, the amazement of the world, the complexities that a spiritual high point, mountian peak expereince cn happen. In fact, for me, I know..KNOW it to be true. The way I KNOW it is that I feel it. And when I think about it I am sure that my mind, my body, my spirit are all connected. To beleive blindly can be a faith expereince. But to expereince faith involves a lot more. Faith is either a noun or a verb, maybe that's where the confusion can lie.

"Intellectuallism though is not the same as a healthy deepening of faith and a questioning heart, it is a mind that puts thoughts and intellect above God."
Not sure where you're getting this definition from. Intellectualism to me is making sure we use the intellect that God has given us, to its fullest potential.

"There are many questions that we can not answer and only by faith can we understand them. For example - how has God always existed, how can Jesus be all man and all God, how can God be in three parts, how did the virgin birth happen? etc."

The idea of how God could always exist is indeed beyond real intellectual capacity to understand. As for the other questions, well those depend a lot more on your interpretation of the Bible.

Intellectualism (or at least a greater awareness of science) has pretty much killed my previous fundamental/evangelical faith. Like many others, I used "God" to fill in the gaps I saw in a scientific worldview. As these gaps grew smaller and smaller, my need for God also decreased.

I just can't bring myself to embracing any sort of non-fundamentalist approach to religion - for me, it's either TRUE or UNTRUE. The view that we're getting access to some truths out of a fictional work seems pretty unfulfilling to me. Why not study The Lord of the Rings instead of the Bible, then? If Jesus wasn't literally born of a virgin, died on the cross and was resurrected, as many here seem to hold, then why the heck should we care? Can we not be loving and generous without all the traditional baggage? Just do the right thing!

OK, that was my rant du jour. Sorry.

The reviews of Dawkins' book on Amazon may be raves, but the reviews elsewhere consider his approach to the subject to be ill-informed, poorly-argued, and even hysterical. The New York Review of Books, which is certainly not a religiously-oriented publication by the stretch of anyone's imagination, published a review, by a scientist no less, that was entitled something like 'Dawkins' Delusion." I recommend it highly. Other mainstream intellectual publications have come to similar conclusions. Dawkins is a fanatic and a true believer.

The major problem with Dawkins' approach is that he thinks religious thought to be irrational. His assumes that the only knowledge that is Knowledge with a capital "K" is scientific knowledge. This is not a reasonable assumption and no reasonable scientist thinks that. Religious thought asks different questions and seeks different answers. When religious thought pretends to scientific thought, it oversteps its domain; but when scientific thought pretends to be the measure of all rational thought, it too steps into water over its head.

Linden, here is the problem.

" for me, it's either TRUE or UNTRUE"

As Marcus Borg once said, quoting a Catholic priest, "of course everything in the Bible is true. Some of it even actually happened."

The big problem is in assuming that truth is the same as scientific fact and that all things which are not demonstrable scientifically are therefore not true. We live in world where far too many people assume this, but any scientist who understands the philosophy of science would never make such a claim.

It is not simply a question of fact vs fiction. It is one of living truth and I mean that as both noun and verb. "Living truth" means truths that guide us in ways that simple scientific fact cannot; "Living truth" also means living out truths in our daily lives. This has nothing to do with science which, by the way, is one of the most incredible human developments of all time.

Uneducated men as disciples....uneducated does not mean the men who followed Jesus were not thinking, rationalizing human beings. Thinkk about tax collectors, fishermen and the rick women who provided for Jesus' ministry. Knowledge and being intelligent have nothing to to with formal education. In fact, I would argue that formal education takes away from creative thought.
Education today tells people what to think rather than offering them a freedom to wonder. Science as a study gives me that sense of being a part of a wonderfully created, interconnected huge galaxy where on the other hand, we small minded humans think we are the centre of the world.
In the beginning God created...how do we emulate being part of that creation?

Linden..you see things in black or white when reality is almost always shades of grey.
Jesus and God are real but our understanding of them is not fully developed yet,
regardless which religion claims to know the whole story.

Some great comments here. But religion and faith are two different things.
I have faith that God exists. Can I prove it ? Of course not. Mankind and God have had a close relationship for a lot longer than Mankind and organized religion has.

I always wanted to get a T-shirt made up that says: "God knows position AND momentum." from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The fact that mysteries are built into science, that we cannot know everything, strengthens my faith. Einstein must have believed in some kind of God, because he rejected quantum mechanics saying "God doesn't play dice." referring to the probabilities involved and the fact that there are things we can know.

Enough geek-talk I don't think that studying science and learning all that we can about the universe necessarily leads to rejection of God. For some of us it brings us closer.

"Not only does God roll dice, but sometimes he
keeps them hidden from view"
- Stephen Hawking (Contradicting Einstein)

It sounds like there may be different kinds of intellectualism: Type 1 is the closed mind intellectualism which seeks far and wide to collect data for arguments for what the person wants to justify. There is the refinery intellectualims which seeks clarity for beliefs. Open minded intellectualism has a sense of direction, but iw willing to take in formation that could change that direction. And there is wandering intellectualism, snacking on ideas all over the place without selectively uding those ideas to actually build any concepts.
Shalom,

I love wandering directionless intellectualism that leads
down blind alleys because I love nonsense like one might
like a good bag of pretzels. I think it is a false assumption
that arguments actually go anywhere. I have no idea who
made this a test of philosophy!

Some excellent books germane to the subject, all by C.S. Lewis:

Miracles
The Abolition of Man
Mere Christianity

Lewis was true intellectual and a devout Christian; his dissertations are models of logic and clarity. I can't recommend these books strongly enough.

G.K. Chesterton was another great thinker and Christian, and JRR Tolkien was instrumental in Lewis' conversion. None of these could be considered intellectual lightweights. I could go on...

I often wonder if many are ignorant of the depth of intellectual thought that supports the Christian faith. Lewis' particular gift is that he cuts away the dross and gets to the heart of the matter in a wonderful way.

nighthawk made some interesting comments: " ... Apparently, all stories in the Bible must be literally true, or they are worthless. ... "

It's rather sad that some religious people have become so defensive about Scripture that they take the bait of this argument and waste a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to prove the literal truth of everything in the Bible, historically and scientifically. The intellectual handstands required to do this are painful to watch.

This also has the unfortunate effect of making the practitioners of all this fervent activity look foolish in many people's eyes, turning many of them completely off to religion. As some people have said, it makes them feel like they have to check their brains at the door of the church.

If only more people could accept what nighthawk said next, we could probably have much more civil and productive dialogue among people all along the spectrum of faith:

"these might just be stories, full of truth, but not something that actually happened"

We could all then "[look] at stories written 2000+ years ago through the lens of modern thought," honoring those stories and seeking out the truth they contain without checking our brains at the door.

Albert Einstein Quotes:

If this being (God) is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also his work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an Almighty Being. In giving out punishments and rewards, he would to a certain extent be passing judgment on himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to him?

According to the theological principles man is created arbitrarily and without his desire and at the moment of his creation is either blessed or damned eternally. Hence man is either good or evil, fortunate or unfortunate, noble or depraved, from the first step in the process of his physical creation to the moment of his last breath, regardless of his individual desires, hopes, ambitions, struggles or devoted prayers. Such is theological fatalism.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

The way I see it, the problem with assuming that the Bible isn't factual, but rather simply contains some truths (excuse the poor synopsis, but hopefully I've captured the "liberal" Christian POV) is that the Bible seems to present many of the important topics as factual, and not "merely" as poetry.

Consider the depictions of Christ's birth, miracles, death and resurrection. It's not like these topics are written in Psalm form, where we can simply consider them as poetic images, but they're presented instead as witnessed, factual events.

Am I wrong in this assumption?

Let's face it - this is one of the biggest differences between a fundamentalist approach to religion, and an approach that is farther to the left of the spiritual spectrum, as seen in the UCC. I came out of denomination where "factual" passages of the Bible were treated as "factual". Things tended to be presented from a black/white, true/false viewpoint, making contrary scientific/intellectual claims quite hard to deal with.

If these miraculous events didn't actually occur as described in the Bible, then why bother with Christianity or the Bible at all? Why not just look to modern secular motivational works for inspiration and guidance?

To imagine that the intellect is somehow inherently opposed to the will of God is not only naive, it's outrageously blasphemous.

It is saying God's creativity really screwed up when it came to allowing people to explore the beauty, harmonies, interconnectedness and outworking of creation... but the moment something like evolution puts the frighteners to people here we see people reacting to that as though it is the purging of the faithful because it does not correspond with an ancient creation myth that has origins if pre-philosophic paganism? In Canada? People don't want to exercise their curiosity, love of life and celebration of faith past a 2000- year-old mindset when the rejection of Baal's golden calf was the height of theological attainment???

Has God been DEAD in the world ever since the publication of the King James Version of the Bible with its 'thees' and 'thous'? Is it God's will that humanity be locked into archgaism and superstition and a rejection of any fresh releation of Godness since the first century???

Some of the stone age anti-intellectualism expressed in this thread is staggering in a country like Canada where people have educational opportunities people in many countries can only dream of. It's disgusting, in fact, and it's blasphemous.

"If these miraculous events didn't actually occur as described in the Bible, then why bother with Christianity or the Bible at all? Why not just look to modern secular motivational works for inspiration and guidance?"

Linden, you are quite right and, sadly, I think this where a lot of people in liberal protestantism are going. I think that eventually there will be no liberal protestant church at all.

I also think that there is a mistake in this kind of thinking. The idea that there is only factual truth with everything else being fiction and therefore irrelevant is really a product of the Enlightenment (and Cartesian thought). Scripture occupies a rich territory beyond the categories of factual truth and fiction. Christian thought is, at it's heart, mystical thought. Scripture provides us with a way of entering into a relationship with that which is not completely definable.

I have heard John Crossan say on a number of occasions, in public lectures, that asking whether something in scripture occurred exactly that way or not, is the wrong question. I heard a person in the audience argue with him about whether or not Jesus literally walked on water or not. After quite a long exchange, Crossan simply said, "If you think that Jesus actually walked on water, literally, then good for you and good for Jesus."

However, dismissing the story as mere metaphor also misses the point (as Crossan and others often argue). We are to enter into the stories and follow them where they take us, allowing ourselves to be transformed by them. If faith is based only on fact, then it misses the profundity of scripture and the ways in which it can transform us. Scripture is not merely fact, nor is it merely metaphor. It is a system of thought that we enter and engage through story.

You have to remember at the time that lines of philosophical reasoning among most cultures and people were not relavent.

In a time where a message was spread to "love thine enemies" where all they wanted was to expel the oppressive rulers or a regime, if you didn't add some sort of myth to it, it would not be taken seriously.

So when Jesus was siad to "walk on water", it was a justification for the message. In modern times, we are (supposed) to have philisophical thought, processes and a fairly good (not perfect but well enough) so when someone says "Love thine enemies" we can take it as, well if we do not treat our enemies well, it leads to civil unrest, sooner or later, a disaster will strike and and civil unrtest will lead to violent reform (ex. WWII) which will lead to open world rebellion

Donny: well put "” no "” brilliantly put.

Culturally we have moved a long way, I think, from understanding the nature, purpose and transformational power of narrative; "metaphor" is too weak and trite a way of describing it; literalism misses the point: entering in is the path to meaning. And that is very difficult to explain to people.

But we are supersaturated with "entertainment" these days and narratives there are often nonsense, or with "factuality" which negates meaning.

As a a writer, I boil over this issue and so often frustrated when narrative is unperceived in life as well as in art.

Mike, I so agree. It is as if our minds are re-structured by entertainment as not to be thinking at all. The creative aspect of relating is even gone down th eubes. Not to sond old fashioned, but when is the last time anyone read a poem to someone on a Friday evening and hung onto each word.
Maybe the irish or the native in me, but sitting around a fire telling stories and looking at the surroundings of nature..well, nothing can give the old senses a jolt like that.
Intellect does not have to relate to facts and figures..or
maybe i'm shooting the breeze...
I am also a writer but can't spell

Finding something of spiritual importance in a poem is all well and good, but aren't we doing a disservice to the text when we read something that clearly seems to be written as a factual, eye-witness account,and treating it like it's a Psalm?

Does that mean we have to beleive in books like Harry Potter or myths from Ancient Greece? They claim many similar themes as the Bible (especially mythology). Do we take the literalist view then?

Friends,
Might I humbly suggest that there is no such thing as "just stories"
and that in everyday life "fiction" is more true than fact. The idea
that a "myth" is an untruth quite silly, why do you think I am still
hanging around? By the way, does anyone know where I could get
some oil for these rusty hinges after the sun goes down?

Oh some of you were thinking about the Bible, well read the song of solomon to your loved one then with a fire in the fireplace and alittle glass of wine...

alucard, the wine will oil the hinges, and the heat will help

Thank you DG for the comments by John Crossan. When we argue (since none of us were there at the time, that is the best we can do) about whether something in the Bible happened, we are avoiding the work Crossan points to: exploring the question, "What does this story say to me about God/Jesus/ my life / other issues in my life or this world?" One of my instructors (an awesome Catholic nun) said our task, as clergy, is to find a response to the scriptures we have, regardless of whether it really happened. Being an open-minded intellectual, I hesitate to declare what God might or might not do. "Scientism" has too often tried to put false limits on the possibiities that exist in this world.
The comments about the story of Jesus walking on water reminds me of the story about the search committee that was interviewing a prospective candidate for their church. They decided to take her out fishing. One of the members snagged his hook on a log. She got out of the boat, walked over to the snag and released the hook, then walked back. One member said to another, "I guess she can't swim."

Dear Tillytastic,

I am finding now as a mature(read over the hill ) believer who is struggling to read this fine print searching, learning, and trying to find answers does not negate our faith. I find that it is the the absence of searching that one stagnates . Personal and spiritual and intellectual growth is always changing and adapting. I would be concerned to find someone who does not search and professes to be a Christian. I am not bothered by people who have questions and are struggling with faith and intellectual concerns. I encourage them all the more to keep searching and if possible point them to the area where they may get information.

Sincerely, GG777

How about I bring a little common sense to this argument:
What if most events happened in the New Testament and because of translations problems, polical correctness of the day and just plain the writers "take" on a story being scewed or intentionaly distorted, resulted in an altered story.

Example: some scholars believe the "rejected stone"parable that likens Jesus to a "cornerstone" is really meant to say "keystone".
A keystone is an odd shaped stone that is unusual yet it is the most important stone in forming an arch. If it is truly "cornerstone" then it is a base that supports the whole.
1 word makes all the difference...and that is just a small translation issue.

So maybe taking the Bible literally is not the best idea.
If you read it with a grain of salt and seek the reoccurring themes, it makes sense.
Killing is wrong, loving each other and the Father are the most important are some examples.

I have noticed over the years a great mystery:
People who are successful/intelligent in Life almost always have faith that God exists.
Seriously, there are exceptions but it really does seem to be the case.

Jonas said: "How about I bring a little common sense to this argument:
What if most events happened in the New Testament and because of translations problems, polical correctness of the day and just plain the writers "take" on a story being scewed or intentionaly distorted, resulted in an altered story."

A very common sense approach. Problem is that many people don't buy it. If the Bible says that it is the inerrant word of God, it must be, so people couldn't possibly have their own "takes" on events, because God told them what to write. You say common sense, some say "satan spawned blashpemy."

Aww shit, I've tried three times to get this topic working for me and I can't. Everything I write comes over as being mean to people of faith and that won't help or change anything at all.

I'm a big fan of rational thinking and we live in a world filled with its' fruits and horrors. We also live in world of faith and it too has yielded its' own fruits and horrors so I'm not taking sides on that basis.

It's just that faith avoids explaining the nitty gritty details of the Universe - a God did it, question answered - while rationality in the form of science and mathematics (and I assume that's what you mean by intellectualism) struggles really hard to tease out these very knotty problems into a framework that's logically sturdy and equally illuminating to all.

To struggle to understand and explain this Universe, isn't that a glorious goal worth striving for?

As Jesus so nearly said: "the daft shall laugh and the last laugh made dafter."

intellectualism is showing the general human race is evolving into Aetheists. We are so advanced that we have stopped believing in gods the same way a kid grows up and figures out their's no Santa Clause. Let's just let nature take its toll.

"That rabbit's dynamite"

"Father Abbot, bring out the Holy Hand Grenade..."

-The Python Book of Verses

Yes, intellectualism does indeed cause a lack of faith in the thinker. I think that's the idea. Faith, as Dawkins says, is belief without evidence. One may go about with willing ignorance, or dismiss the 'ambiguity' of god's existence because of his immense incomprehensible complexity, when the only reasonable thing to do is believe evidence and not just words and ritual. Life is about learning, and if someone or something or some institution tells you that it's bad or detractive to learn truths that put what you've been told into question, then you have a problem. Intellectualism CAN be harmless curiosity, but in that case thinking and reasoning doesn't mean anything. If you're not asking hard questions, maybe you're being too easy on yourself or your parents or your religious leaders.

IF intellectualism means working at finding, examining and responding to ideas and information, it results in letting go fo beliefs that do not fit what one believes most likely true now. For many, this kind of intellectualism leads to deeper faith, not loss of faith. ( Most scientists are able to distinguish between observations, hypotheses/theories that have proven their usefulness through accurate predictions and carefully thought out guesses. Unfortunately, many/most people without training in science often do not see the differences and treat all information in science as being equally authoritative. This is similar to those literalists who claim to treat all scripture as equally authoritative and factual. )

Just how literally should one take the words of The Bible?

I am fond of Northrop Frye's interpretation on this outlined in his book "The Great Code: The Bible and English Literature"

Frye points out that not only has language changed over time, but the way we use language has changed. He defines three types of language: metaphor, metonym, and descriptive.

Metaphor, as Frye defines it, is "This is that". When you say something, you mean it completely. If you use the phrase "He is a lion" describing Odysseus at the time of Homer, you would mean that the man and the lion are one and the same. The man has the same strength, courage, ferocity and aggressiveness as the lion. He is a lion in human form.

Metonym comes later. Frye calls it "This is put for that". In this use of language the symbol of the lion denotes a quality - bravery. At the time of Richard the Lionheart, when you said "He is a lion", you meant that he was a very brave man.

With the coming of the Italian Rennaisance, and the development of perspective geometry, which gave us the ability to measure things at a distance, descriptive language arose. This is the first time there was an idea of an objective, measurable, reality outside of oneself. Now, when you say "He is a lion" you are talking about Clarence the cross-eyed lion in the old TV show Daktari. Fur, mane, tail and roar are mandatory inclusions. Otherwise, it's not a lion.

The point, here, is that the phrase - "He is a lion" - has not changed. The way we interpret that phrase has changed - dramatically.

The first two forms of language, metaphor and metonym, are poetic forms. They are rich in imagery and underlying meaning. They are not literal, although they may contain literal elements. They rely on cultural context for their correct interpretation.

At the time the Bible was written, descriptive language did not exist. It is a collection of poetic documents written by people of faith attempting to understand God and their relationship with Him. When we attempt to take passages of the Bible literally, interpreting them as descriptive language, we fail to grasp the richness and depth of the writings, and open ourselves to error and misuse.

Novelist Shane Dennison once said to me: "All writers, but particularly writers of fiction, are seekers after Truth. Now, there's a funny thing about Truth. You can't get at it directly, You have to say, 'Well, its sort of like this,' and you tell a story."

Jesus taught in parables, not because he wanted to obscure the Truth, but because it is the only way to completely reveal the Truth.

I get a kick out of the idea that the more one studies and learns, the more one should become an atheist. I have a Phd and converted to Christianity while I was working on it. And what led me into Christianity was some pretty intellectual material on Christianity, particularly the early history. I was convinced enough to let faith take me where it would, and here I am.

I think Dawkins' "rationalism" is pretty thin stuff and, I would argue, not particularly intellectual.

DonnyG - what material are you referring to? Any titles in particular stand out?

I think we should be discussing how many people who believe in the God that Dawkins demolishes can dance on the head of a pin.

He is a fundmentalist scientist who earnestly attributes to the religious all of his prejudiced stereotypes. and then purges himself of them. I'm not a psychiatrist but... was he abused or something as a kid? He certainly seems to have been warped by some trauma and have some fundamentally emotional disturbance about religion.

Poor guy.