Stan Corso (not verified) — Fri, 08/22/2008 - 6:59am

As an Indonesia living abroad, I am forunate to have been able to discovere that one's belief is rather heavily determined by one's social conditioning, i.e. the community (family, friends, etc) that one belongs to. Whether one likes it or not, there are nontrivial social, political aspects of religion there is a recent decent article on the Economist on this issue) which one may not realize until she steps out of that "comfort zone" to which her mind is conditioned. One really should have an open mind to one's own religion as well others', try to discover more about one's belieif through personal prayer and, just as importantly, contemplation. Instead of reading/quoting well-known Dr X.'s book or Pastor Y.'s sermon , attempt to discover the hidden spiritual messages of one's scriptures by oneself. When we start to become people-centered rather than ideology-centered (war and violence is just the extreme consequence of this), the world should be a better place to live.

Bean (not verified) — Fri, 07/25/2008 - 2:23am

Allahu akbar (God is Great)

Iqra= read (the first word delivered to Mohammad "from God")

Let's READ it!

MERDEKA

Cai2 (not verified) — Wed, 06/25/2008 - 9:10pm

Interesting topic.

i saw a few people who are following some religion still making some mistakes in their life. If in christian they can give a mercy in easter day. then human being will not stop in making mistakes. So how we can human change their mistakes? . I think god (Jesus) are human actually before he raised. JUst a myth i think. undiscovered phenomenon
Life isnt that simple even the samarian people can do a good things better than the priest in Jerusalem.

Pritawaty (not verified) — Tue, 06/10/2008 - 3:31pm

I believe in what has been called the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis one - that is, that each "day" is actually a long period of time during which God created life. This interpretation is not figurative in any way, but adheres to the scientific method in its analysis of the biblical texts. At its foundation is a literal translation of the Hebrew word, yom, which can mean a twelve hour period of time, a twenty-four hour period of time, or a long, indefinite period of time. The biblical basis for the translation of the word yom as long periods of time appear on another page.

Purpose of the creation account

I would first like to point out that God has not revealed the entire creation process in the Genesis creation account, but only that which is particularly relevant to mankind. Many events in the creation account of the Bible have been intentionally left out (unicellular life forms, dinosaurs, etc.), I believe, because they would have been difficult to express in the Hebrew language, and would have lead to confusion, since they would not have been understood through the vast majority of mankind's existence (i.e., only understandable in the last two centuries). The interpretation of the Genesis creation account should not be made independently of the remainder of the Bible, as many "young-earth" creationists do. The interpretation presented here is based upon the creation accounts found throughout the entire Bible (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.1) as it relates to God's creation of the heavens and the Earth, and is consistent with all the biblical texts in addition to the revelations of science.

The Bible was the first written work to describe the expanding universe model for the universe (indicated by verses stating that God spreads out the heavens, 2), which is consistent with the Big Bang model.

Day-Age Genesis Interpretation Interpretation Day Genesis text (NASB)

Most people read the Genesis creation account without using the scientific method and, therefore, make assumptions that are not supported by the text. For example, the first rule of the scientific method is to establish the initial conditions, or the frame of reference. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the frame of reference is "the surface of the waters" of the earth. Most people have made the mistake of assuming the frame of reference of Genesis 1 is heaven or somewhere above the earth.
What does the text specifically say? The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first "day" (Genesis 1:1, ~16 x 109 years ago) (3). In other verses, the Bible says that the earth is controlled by the heavens, refuting geocentrism (4). In Genesis 1:2, God was "hovering or brooding" over the seas of the newly formed earth (4.4-3.8 x 109 years ago, 5). We know from science this is where the first unicellular life forms first appeared (6). The Hebrew word, rachaph, translated as "hovering or brooding" is used only twice in the Old Testament. The second reference is to an eagle caring for its young (7). Therefore, it seems likely that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 may be referring to God creating the first life forms in the sea.
D
A
Y

1 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Both science and the Bible (8) have told us that at the earth's creation, it was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, "darkness was over the surface of the deep." Next, God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness" (Genesis 1:4). It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5). D
A
Y

1 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

1:5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:6-10 describe the initiation of a stable water cycle (9) and formation of continents (10) through tectonic activity (~2.7 x 109 years ago) (11). D
A
Y

2 1:6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
1:7 And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
1:8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
Plant life was created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-13, ~1.0 x 109 years ago). These verses are probably the strongest argument for the day-age interpretation. The verse says quite clearly that the earth sprouted (or brought forth) plants and fruit trees bearing fruit. The process described is clearly similar to what we see today. Fruit trees take years to bear fruit, testifying that the third day was at least several years long, and could not possibly be just 24 hours. D
A
Y

3 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long. D
A
Y

4 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so.
1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
1:17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Birds (12) (~70 x 106 years ago), whales (13) (~50 x 106 years ago) and sea mammals ("swarms of living creatures," where "creatures" is the Hebrew word nephesh, referring to soulish animals - those that can form relationships with humans) were created on the "fifth" day (Genesis 1:20-21), which would correspond to the end of the Cretaceous period/beginning of the Tertiary.
The fifth day describes a period of time longer than 24 hours as swarms of living creatures are multiplying in the sea. D
A
Y

5 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
1:21 And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
On the sixth day God created the "beasts of the earth" (in Genesis 1:25 the Hebrew word is chayyah, which is best translated as "wild animal," usually referring to carnivorous mammals (14) (the extinct families Miacidae and Viverravidae, appeared ~50 x 106 years ago or current families Canidae, Felidae, Mustelidae, and Viverridae appeared ~30 x 106 years ago ) and the cattle (the Hebrew word is behemah, from which we get the word behemoth, the artiodactyls (large grazing mammals) appeared ~15 x 106 years ago) and the rodents (mammals that "creep on the ground"). Therefore, the wild and domesticated mammals and rodents were created on the sixth day. D
A
Y

6 1:24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
The last creation of God was mankind, who was also created at the end of the sixth day. What about humans and three million year old fossil remains of bipedal primates? I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, although I do not believe they lived millions of years ago. The Bible indicates that Adam and Eve had a relationship with God (Genesis 2-3) and the text says that unique among all the animals, humans are endowed with a spirit (Hebrew, ruach, Greek, pneuma), by which they are able to communicate with and love God. Scientists have found no evidence of religious artifacts before about 25,000 to 50,000 years ago (15), which is the point at which I propose God created Adam and Eve. The Bible states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (16). A biblical generation, described as being 40 years, would represent at least 40,000 years of human existence. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology). Therefore, I believe that bipedal primates that existed before Adam and Eve, were just part of the animal kingdom, and were not endowed with the characteristics that make humans distinct from animals. D
A
Y

6 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

1:27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Conclusion Of all the "holy books" the Bible is the only book that correctly describes the order of creation as revealed through science.

Agus K. (not verified) — Tue, 06/10/2008 - 11:37am

In his first chapter, Dawkins introduces us to the target of his book- theistic belief in a personal God. He does this is a round about way, primarily using the "beliefs" of Albert Einstein as an example. Einstein was at most a deist (one who believes God created the universe, but does not interact with it) or a pantheist (one who ascribes to "God" everything that exists in the universe). The title of the chapter, "A deeply religious non believer" is a partial quote from Albert Einstein, who described his "religion" as an awe of nature and its "magnificent structure." The main thrust of the chapter is that science deserves respect (which is doesn't get) whereas religion deserves little or no respect (which it receives).

Deserved Respect
The god of religions is a "little god"In attempting to prove his point that religions are stupid, Dawkins quotes Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot:

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is much better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander more subtle, more elegant? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."

What Sagan failed to understand (and Dawkins, by quoting him) is that there is such a religion that directly ascribes the magnificence of the universe to the glory of the God who created it. The Christian scriptures say that God created time and the entire universe1 from what is not visible,2 and, as immense as it is, it cannot contain Him.3 This is certainly no "little god." These same scriptures tell us that the awesome nature of the created universe reveals God's glory and power:

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalms 19:1)
The heavens declare His righteousness, And all the peoples have seen His glory. (Psalms 97:6)
Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:26)
Let heaven and earth praise Him, The seas and everything that moves in them. (Psalms 69:34)
Praise the LORD from the earth, Sea monsters and all deeps; Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, fulfilling His word; Mountains and all hills; Fruit trees and all cedars; Beasts and all cattle; Creeping things and winged fowl; Kings of the earth and all peoples; Princes and all judges of the earth; Both young men and virgins; Old men and children. Let them praise the name of the LORD, For His name alone is exalted; His glory is above earth and heaven. (Psalms 148:7-13)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)
The God of Christianity is only a "little god" to those who have not read and understood what the Bible says about Him.

Let's quote some obscure off-the-wall ChristiansAfter many words about the differences between "supernatural religion" (i.e. theism) and an awe of nature (i.e., deism or pantheism) Dawkins goes on to quote some obscure (and unnamed) Christians who attacked Einstein's view of God. Who are these people? Dawkins doesn't even tell us their names. Does Dawkins really expect us to believe that they represent mainstream Christianity? One particularly glaring example is a quote from a letter from some "president of a historical society in New Jersey," who says, "As everyone knows, religion is based on Faith, not knowledge." I am sure Dawkins must have searched long and hard to find such an off-the-wall quote. Does this idea really exist within the pages of Christianity's scriptures?

The Bible actually tells believers to test everything.4 In His revelation to Isaiah, God Himself stated, "Come now, and let us reason together..."5 God, the Creator of humans and human reasoning ability6 wants us to use that ability. Psalm 19 tells us that the universe "declares the glory of God" and that this "voice goes out into all the earth."7 In fact, the Bible says that the evidence for God's design of the universe is so strong that people are "without excuse" in rejecting God and His plan of salvation.8 The Bible says that God created humans and endowed them with a mind so that they would use it.9 The Bible says that God and Jesus Christ will test the minds (as well as the hearts) of people.10 One of the most important prophecies for Christianity, the coming of the New Covenant,11 fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth,12 describes the changes God does in both the heart and the mind of those who are transformed.13 The Bible says that those who do not believe do so, in part, because of deception in their minds.14 This deception leads to hostility to God and defiling of their minds and consciences.15 The Christian is encouraged to direct our "mind to know, to investigate, and to seek wisdom and an explanation."16 Christians should use their minds in all aspects of life17 and "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."18 Many verses from Proverbs discuss the importance of acquiring knowledge and wisdom,19 even to the degree of choosing knowledge over riches.20 Faith is of utmost importance to the Christian, but the Bible doesn't say to limit your belief to faith alone. In fact, it commands us to add first moral excellence then second knowledge.21 The Bible encourages believers to have a knowledge-based faith, built upon sound biblical doctrine.22 When Paul preached the gospel, he did it through reasoning from the scriptures and not an appeal to blind faith.23 In fact, he commended the Bereans, because they examined the prophecies to determine if what he was saying was the truth.24 Paul, in his letters to the churches told believers to do away with childish thinking and reasoning.25 Christians are advised to set an example for others in teaching by modeling "integrity, seriousness, and soundness of speech."26 Jesus, in one of His most famous quotes said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37) Blind faith is never taught in the Bible.

Dawkins' response to the letter from some "president of a historical society in New Jersey" is, "What a devastatingly revealing letter! Every sentence drips with intellectual and moral cowardice." However, only really naïve atheists are going to believe that some unnamed "president of a historical society in New Jersey" really represents what Christianity teaches about faith and reason. How does Dawkins really think he is going to get away with such deception?

Undeserved respect
The section entitled "undeserved respect" claims that religious ideas receive too much respect and tend to be "hands off" as far as being criticized or even discussed. On this account, I agree with Dawkins. Religious ideas should be up to debate and scrutiny. That is why on this website we discuss and refute all manner of religious claims that are not consistent with the facts.27

More "atheistic pride"Richard Dawkins likes to pat himself on the back throughout the book. He quotes the late Douglas Adams, "...We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much furore Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it!..." Such shameless self-promotion does nothing to dispel his image as a "bad boy" who is only interested in bashing religion to create controversy, instead engaging in intelligent debate.

Confusing group dynamics with religionDawkins goes on to explain how "religious conflicts" are mislabeled under group or ethnic strife. He cites the conflict in Northern Ireland, where the parties are labeled "Nationalists" and "Loyalists" instead of Catholics and Protestants. Likewise, Dawkins complains that the conflict in Iraq between the Sunni and Shia Muslims has been called "ethnic cleansing" instead of a "religious conflict." However, Dawkins fails to point out what part of these conflicts is truly religious in nature. Are these disputes over religious doctrines or principles or disagreements about the nature of God? If so, he should have pointed out exactly which parts of the conflicts were religious in nature. Of course these are not conflicts about religion. They are conflicts involving different religious groups, but as with virtually all conflicts, the disagreements are about power.

Dawkins seems to have forgotten his studies in psychology of human group dynamics. Groups of humans in power will oppress other groups, just based upon membership within each group. The membership could involve religion, language, or just geography. In fact, the demarcation could be as simple as labeling each group. Psychological studies of group behavior have shown that groups of people will become adversaries with others outside of their own group. Just watch your son's next soccer game. However, Richard Dawkins has only one daughter, so maybe he was never involved in sports. Even so, Philip Zimbardo's famous Stanford prison experiment showed that students assigned to the category of "guards" physically abused their fellow students just because they were labeled as "prisoners."28 In fact, the study went so much out-of-control that it had to be ended early.

Dawkins conveniently leaves out of the discussion the fact that atheists (who are not religious) have killed far more people than all "religious" conflicts combined. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens between 1929 and 1939. Mao Tse-tung killed 34 to 62 million Chinese during the Chinese civil war of the 1930s and 1940s. Pol Pot, the leader of the Marxist regime in Cambodia, Kampuchea, in the 1970's killed 1.7 million of his own people. In fact, the Pol Pot regime specifically preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. And, since atheist-led states were largely unheard of before the 20th century, atheists have just begun to get in on the killing rampage.

Let's find the most extreme court rulings regarding religious libertyDawkins cites as examples of the "privilege" of religion citing some rather surprising court decisions. The first involved the case where a small church, Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal sued to prevent the government from interfering with their religious practices (which involved ingesting hallucinogenic tea during religious ceremonies). Now, I agree with Dawkins that one is not going to find God by getting stoned. However, the supreme court decision involved application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which required the government to prove a compelling government interest in preventing the use of the controlled substance during a religious ceremony. The problem the government experienced was that the religious participants only used the tea during religious ceremonies and did not distribute it to those outside the group. So, the government failed to prove that they had a compelling interest in preventing the use of this controlled substance during a religious practice. The decision was 8-0, with both court liberals and conservatives agreeing that the government failed to prove its case.29 Similar court cases have found in favor of Native American religious practices, which involved the use of peyote, another controlled substance.

Dawkins cites a recent Los Angeles Time article30 that reportedly shows how Christian groups are suing to stop "universities from enforcing anti-discrimination rules, including prohibitions against harassing or abusing homosexuals." What Dawkins doesn't explain is that these "anti-discrimination rules" are really anti-free speech rules that were instituted to prevent discussion of non-politically-correct topics. A number of these rules have been overturned through court decisions (based upon free speech, not freedom of religion), and most other universities have modified or eliminated their speech codes. Harassment and abuse has always been illegal, whether it is directed against homosexuals or heterosexuals. Maybe something was lost in Dawkins translation from British English?

The second court case involved a student who wore a T-shirt stating, "Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder! Some issues are just black and white." Obviously, wearing such a T-short to school is in very poor taste, even if the student was a Christian (presumably). Dawkins goes on to claim that the reason why the student won was because he sued for his religious freedom and not free speech rights:

"The parents might have had a conscionable case if they had based it on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. But they didn't: indeed, they couldn't, because free speech is deemed not to include 'hate speech'... So, instead of freedom of speech, the Nixons' lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion."

Dawkins statement is a lie. In fact, the student won on the basis of his free speech rights. The district court ruled that the school would be in the right if the T-shirt contained "symbols and words that promote values that are so patently contrary to the school’s educational mission."31 However, they said that "Speech that contains a potentially offensive political viewpoint is not included in this category of regulated expression."31 (note the word "political", not "religious"). The court also found that the message was not hate speech, saying "there is no evidence that James' silent, passive expression of opinion interfered with the work of Sheridan Middle School or collided with the rights of other students to be let alone. Therefore, the Court rejects defendants' assertion that James' T-shirt invaded on the rights of others."31 So, Dawkins just lied that the case revolved around religious rights instead of free speech rights. He also lied that the T-shirt would have been classified as hate speech. He must have known that somebody would check up on his bogus claims.

Danish newspaper cartoons depicting the prophet MuhammadDawkins ends chapter one with a description of a recent incident in which Moslem reaction to certain Danish cartoons ended in murder and riots. As it turned out, certain imams added some more offensive cartoons and falsified the treatment of Muslims in Denmark to generate outrage throughout the Muslim world. Most of the targets of the murders were Christians, since we are obviously responsible for all the evil in the world. Of course the entire incident is cited as an example of typical religious reaction to insults. Obviously, we Christians need to step things up to keep up with other religious groups. Dawkins seems strangely unperturbed by insults leveled against religious people, since this is a clear case of free speech, whereas a few pages before, he was highly incensed that anyone would criticize homosexuality, since this is clearly hate speech. It almost seems hypocritical. No, Richard Dawkins would never be prejudiced!

Conclusion Chapter 1 of Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion uses all the classic disreputable techniques that Dawkins has complained about in his dealings with certain creationists. He misrepresents Christian understanding of God and the role of evidence and faith. In addition, he quotes from unnamed sources, representing them as standard examples of religious believers, when they are obviously not mainline. Dawkins mistakenly categorizes conflicts as being religious in nature, when, in reality, none of the disputes involve any theological issues at all. In fact, the examples all involve political power struggles of groups that just happen to be from different religious affiliations. He fails to to point out the atheists who have committed even greater atrocities. Finally, Dawkins lies outright about how the U.S. courts are protecting "hate speech" on the basis of "religious freedom," when the cases were judged not to be hate speech, nor even religious speech. Despite its popularity, The God Delusion has to be Richard Dawkins' most poorly written book to date.