re: Venial Sin my butt!

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46228 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 2:53 pm to catholictigerfan

quote:
There is a disagreement here that will probably be never overcome, I think it's a problem with most protestant vs Catholic debates in general, not just this one.

I agree with you. These debates always go back to a fundamental difference: ultimate authority.

quote:
Catholics believe and have always taught that Jesus gave the Church authority over matters of faith and morals.

Protestants also believe this, generally, but I'll limit my comments to the Reformed tradition, since I don't wish to represent all Protestants, as many have completely abandoned the principles of the Reformation, taken from the Scriptures, themselves.

From a Reformed perspective, we believe that Jesus certainly did give the Church authority over matters of faith and morals, but where we disagree is that the Church is ultimate in terms of its authority. We recognize that, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, "All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as a help in both." (WSC 31.4)

We believe that our faith and doctrine may continually be reformed and purified to be conformed to our ultimate authority in the Scriptures. This recognizes that while the Church does have authority to rule, that the Church, itself, is subject to the rule and authority of Jesus Christ according to His Word. Christ is Lord, not the Church.

quote:
Being that the content of the scriptures is a matter of faith, and morals too. It has the authority to dogmatically define what books are contained and what books are not contained in the canon. Protestants as far as I understand believe that no-one has that authority, or no person has that authority. The scriptures alone have the authority on faith and morals.

Again, I'll say that authority does exist in the Church, but that authority is derived from Christ's authority and does not have an intrinsic and separate authority from that of Christ's. The authority of the Church is not to define, per se, but to recognize. The Church isn't to create but to apply and clarify.

This is just as true in regard to the Scriptures. It's my understanding (and is supported by your words) that Rome claims to have defined the Scriptures whereas the Reformed view is that the Church has merely received and accepted what God has defined. That's an important distinction, because it recognizes the difference between God's Word being authoritative in itself and the Church having the authority over even the Scriptures.

quote:
Catholics see an error in giving the authority alone to the scriptures. Without the authority of the Church, the scriptures would just be someone's personal opinion on what is included or not.

Again, God's Word is God's Word, regardless of man's opinions. There are several characteristics that God's Word has that enables the Church to identify it as God's Word and receive it as such.

On top of that, it can be argued that the canon that has defined (rather than received) is just the opinion of several men who have claimed authority over the Scriptures who then imposed that definition on the rest of the faithful who have had no choice but to believe it as such, at least since the Council of Trent (there was freedom to disagree prior to then).

quote:
Yes the scriptures are the Word of God, but God didn't come down from heaven and give us a finished scripture for us to believe, instead Jesus gave authority to the Apostles and their successors, which subsists in the Church, and that Church defined which books are inspired by God and which books are not.

I agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that God didn't provide a completed book with all of its contents included from Heaven, but used men carried along by the Spirit to write the Scriptures and other men to recognize Scripture for what it is to teach and instruct the Church and to govern according to that Word. I disagree that those men defined the Scriptures. I believe the Church received what was Scripture, and eventually added to it, which is why the Reformation was so aptly named: it was a reformation of the Church.

quote:
Ok, I've given my two cents in this discussion. Have a nice day!

Thank you! I had a wonderful day in worship and fellowship. I hope you had a great day, as well!

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46228 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 3:09 pm to Champagne

quote:
Foo, the matter is settled since 382 AD.

Really? Many theologians and church leaders didn't think so prior to the 16th century. There were faithful Catholics who disagreed that it was "settled" in terms of authority, because there was a distinction made between canonical/authoritative books and ecclesiastical books. There wasn't a uniform belief about which "Scriptures" were authoritative for the teaching and doctrine of the Church until the Council of Trent ended the debate by dogmatically defining what the full canon was by adding an anathema on anyone who disagreed.

quote:
The links concerning that Church conference in 382 establishing the Bible Canon are earlier in this thread.

I'm aware. I've read it.

quote:
Once they discovered Hebrew-written copies of some of the books left out of the Jewish bible in 1946 among the Dead Sea Scrolls, your position becomes untenably weak and unable to stand.

Is it your assertion that 1) the Essenes represented the majority or even the "best" representation of the Jews of their day in terms of their writings? and 2) that the DSS contained all of the Catholic canon (in terms of the deuterocanon)? I hope not.

Please take a few minutes of your time and list for me the books accepted in the Catholic canon and then provide to me a list of biblical writings from the DSS collection (include the deuterocanon, obviously). I want to see the perfect alignment that you are alluding to.

Here's a nugget for you: the DSS included Psalm 151, which is viewed as canonical in the Orthodox tradition but not the Catholic tradition. Perhaps you'd like to explain why I should use this evidence to believe Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy.

quote:
Take your "L" and move on.

I'm not sure where the "L" is yet, so please let me know.

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46228 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 3:17 pm to Champagne

quote:
Foo and people like him can under no circumstances accept the Bible of the Church in 382 AD because to do so, Foo would have to adopt a host of Catholic Theology that Protestantism rejects.

There are many reasons why Protestants like myself reject the apocryphal works as authoritative, inspired Scripture that have nothing to do with the contradictory theology that may be derived from them.

I can turn that statement around, though, by saying "Catholics can under no circumstances accept the Bible without the false books added or else they would have to abandon a host of doctrines that Catholicism has created".

There are also a host of doctrines that Rome has defined that have zero Scriptural support, so I'm not so worried about the apocryphal texts by themselves, as that wouldn't change Catholicism an awful lot, especially because Rome teaches that Scripture (including the apocrypha) isn't the ultimate authority anyway. So even if I conceded the apocryphal books as authoritative, it wouldn't make me a Catholic. Perhaps I would be Eastern Orthodox.

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46228 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 3:36 pm to Foch

quote:
The Protestant cannot logically explain how the faithful were given any deposit of Faith or authoritative instrument for instruction/Christian formation in the years between AD 33 and AD 382.

Certainly can. The Scriptures were completed by 100 AD. Prior to that, some NT Scriptures existed and the Apostles, themselves, were providing teaching that were later written down and received as Scripture.

quote:
They have to either dismiss the period all together or invent a man-made "Scriptural Precursor" period which affords the early Church with a different version of Scripture.

Why dismiss that period? The Apostles were alive, teaching the Church what God wanted them to know. Those same teachings that were necessary for faith and life of the Church were written down in letters and manuscripts that would be received as Scripture.

quote:
No Protestant will honestly answer what Scripture means in 34 AD, just as they won't answer any serious questions concerning Apostolic Succession.

I'm happy to answer questions about those things.

Scripture in 34 AD was likely just the Old Testament. Recall that Jesus, prior to His ascension, was able to teach about Himself solely from the OT Scriptures.

The NT doesn't do away with the OT, but sheds light on it. Jesus expected the Pharisees to know what the Scriptures were (He held them accountable to them) and how they pointed to Himself. He taught morality from the OT. Essentially what was being done in the NT was documenting historical fulfillment of OT prophecy and provided clarity of the OT teachings on salvation and sanctification (what true obedience looks like) through the lens of Jesus Christ.

What God preserved for His Church to know for faith and life, He preserved in the Scriptures, both the OT and eventually the NT.

quote:
Surely Jesus/the Trinity provided the Christians of AD 40, 50, 60 with sufficient means to know, practice, and carry on the evangelism of the Faith without a closed, complete, bound, and common Bible.

God certainly did. There was a unique period of time in the life of the NT Church where God had spoken through the Apostles to evangelize and build the Church until the Scriptures were closed. It was the same for the OT, such as with Moses prior to him writing the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch, I'm sure, left out a lot of teachings of Moses to the people that God did not preserve for future generations. Likewise, Jesus said many things that were not intended for the Church to have. Even Catholicism doesn't claim to have a record of everything Jesus said.

What these sorts of statements you are making are betraying is a fundamental misunderstanding of sola scriptura. That principle doesn't deny that God ever spoke in an authoritative way verbally, but that only God's Word as recorded in the Scriptures remains as the only authority for faith and life that all Christians must submit to.

quote:
In a time when universal hostility towards Christians was at its highest, doesn't it seem interesting that the Faith was sustained and grew without the Protestant's alleged "sole source" of Faith?

Not at all. The Apostles had a unique role in the building of the Church.

I don't deny that the Apostles taught things orally to the Church. I deny that what was necessary for faith and life of Christians was something other than (or in addition to) what was later recorded in the Scriptures.

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1617 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 4:36 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
PS, explanations based on verifiable direct physical evidence are different than fabricated excuses which are used as “plausible” ways which can explain otherwise irreconcilable contradictions.

I’m confused.

I said that Dawkins claims the illusion of design. You said he doesn’t. I posted a quote (with a link) of him actually saying: “The beauty of biology, really, is the illusion of design.” To which you replied “I think you are misinterpreting him. Maybe he means that those ignorant of science has delusions of intelligent design.” Are you telling me, that if we switched positions, you wouldn’t call that mental gymnastics?

By no means am I arguing that Dawkins believes in design, but that in his own words he admits to believing in the illusion of design.

He does not even refute the possibility of design- only that it can’t be God.
It could be aliens though

2 ...

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46228 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 4:53 pm to Stitches

quote:
Dr. James White sort of touched on this in a debate with Trent Horn last weekend.

Yep, it was a good debate. Dr. White is a good debater and has been doing those debates with Catholics since at least the early 90's. I've listened to most of them.

quote:
During cross-examination, Dr. White admitted that sola scriptura couldn't have been true during the period of Apostolic Revelation, because not all of what would become scripture had been written.

(I would argue that if sola scriptura were true, the period of Divine Revelation is precisely when God would have made this known, yet he didn't)

quote:
He further admitted it was not able to be practiced prior to the late 4th century councils, because the canon wouldn't be defined until then.

Not exactly. He admitted that the Scriptures weren't fully known by the Church until that time, so that not all of those in the Church would have the complete Scriptures until that time, though many did. Sola scriptura doesn't require every Christian to have every book available to him in order for the principle to be true. The Scriptures ("the book of the law") were the authority in the Old Testament even when they were "lost" for at time (nearly 60 years, presumably). The people not having access to it while it was hidden in the Temple to be safeguarded from the evil Kings didn't mean the Scriptures didn't exist or weren't authoritative. Likewise, the NT Scriptures were authoritative even if not all of the church knew them.

BTW, Trent Horn admitted that the canon of Scripture was infallibly defined until the "17th century" (16th century).

quote:
Finally, he failed to show from scripture or any early church father when sola scriptura became the authority.

I thought he did. He certainly did before in other debates. Essentially the argument is that the example of sola scriptura is throughout the Scriptures themselves, from Jesus to Paul. Jesus treated the OT Scriptures as authoritative and held the leaders of Israel accountable to it (even though they didn't have a council declare which books were Scripture). Paul's words were compared to the Scriptures by the Bereans as a test to make sure they were really God's words. Paul wrote to Timothy saying that the Scriptures (not anything in addition to them) were able to make him complete for every good work. There are many arguments to support sola scriptura from the Scriptures alone. In addition, White mentioned in the debate the early church fathers who quoted Scripture and not oral tradition to support doctrine. Athanasius, for example, appealed to the Scriptures to support the doctrine of the Trinity, not oral tradition.

quote:
Instead, he stated that scripture was the sole authority for the Jews who lived after Malachi (even though there were several different groups of Jews, all with WILDLY different canons) but before Jesus, and so it necessarily followed that it was also true immediately following the death of the last apostles, totally contradicting himself in the process.

Not at all. His point was that Jesus knew there was a canon of Scripture and held the leaders of the Jews accountable to it even though there wasn't a decree that "infallibly defined" the canon. His point was that the NT canon formed in the same way the OT canon formed, and it wasn't the "church" of Israel that defined it just as the NT canon wasn't "defined" by the Christian church. As I've said, receiving is different from defining (or creating!)

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46228 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 5:12 pm to Foch

quote:
Trent went directly to it in his opening comments. White (and Protestantism) must accept that there was some "middle Truth" that existed to govern, instruct, and bind actions of believers AFTER Christ's resurrection but BEFORE Scripture was canonized.

Of course, and White addressed this. Sola scriptura speaks to God's revelation being ultimate, and that when it is codified, it forms the authority that all further revelation (or claimed revelation) must agree with.

The oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles always conformed to the existent Word of God. Once Jesus ascended to Heaven, God's revelation through the Apostles' teachings were authoritative for the Church, and those authoritative teachings were then codified in what we call the New Testament, which is the "deposit of faith" that the Church is bound to obey and believe.

Sola scriptura actually teaches that since the death of the Apostles, God has ceased providing revelation and the Scriptures that were written for instruction of the Church are final. The canon was closed with the last writing of the last Apostle, and those writings are what God has given the Church in terms of ultimate authority, not some undocumented oral tradition that Rome can't even document to this day.

quote:
Overall, I find Dr. James White to be tiresome and too willinging to fall into the no true Scotsman arguement. He comes off as petty and shallow. Ortlund is also false, but appears more reasoned in his approaches. I see a chance that Orltund will evolve and accept Rome. White on the other hand is a direct descendent of the peddlers of Black Legends. He is weak and inflammatory.

He has become more grumpy as he has aged and less patient with his debate opponents. He is certainly more prone to make personal attacks, but he has had many great debates against enemies of the truth for decades. I find him entertaining at times, as well, even though I don't agree with him on everything.

Posted by Stitches

Member since Oct 2019

1243 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 6:10 pm to FooManChoo

quote:
Yep, it was a good debate. Dr. White is a good debater

Agreed. His anti-KJVO work pulled me away from fundamentalism. I watch all of his stuff, even though I disagree with him on many things.

quote:
The Scriptures ("the book of the law") were the authority in the Old Testament even when they were "lost" for at time (nearly 60 years, presumably).

They weren't though. Trent pointed this out as well. The Revelation of God through Moses didn't suddenly only become authoritative if it was written down at some point in the future. It was authoritative as soon as it was orally taught.

quote:
Trent Horn admitted that the canon of Scripture was infallibly defined until the "17th century" (16th century).

He also pointed out, rightfully so, that most things are not infallibly defined until someone starts a movement that goes against the orthodox view, and as a result, pulls many people into heresy. The canon is no exception. It wasn't infallibly defined until it needed to be.

quote:
Jesus treated the OT Scriptures as authoritative

He also held the teachings of the Pharisees as authoritative, since they sit on the seat of Moses. Funny enough, what constitutes the seat of Moses isn't taught in scripture, yet the 1st century Jews presumably understood the reference since nobody questioned it.

quote:
Paul's words were compared to the Scriptures by the Bereans as a test to make sure they were really God's words

And then they accepted the apostolic authority and oral preaching of Paul, and were considered more righteous than the scripture studying Jews in Thessalonica as a result.

quote:
Paul wrote to Timothy saying that the Scriptures (not anything in addition to them) were able to make him complete for every good work.

No. He told Timothy that the scriptures were USEFUL in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It is the teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness that MAY make a man complete, but scripture is never described as being solely and completely sufficient at doing that.

quote:
There are many arguments to support sola scriptura from the Scriptures alone.

I disagree. It's a self-defeating doctrine. It doesn't even pass its own test, that it be expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (according to the WCF).

quote:
White mentioned in the debate the early church fathers who quoted Scripture and not oral tradition to support doctrine

Irenaeus appealed almost exclusively to tradition (apostolic succession and the monoepiscopacy specifically) to battle it out with the early Gnostics, because they shared a lot of the same scriptures.

Showing a church father quoting scripture doesn't automically mean they believed in sola scriptura. I quote scripture all the time and don't believe in sola scriptura.

quote:
Athanasius, for example, appealed to the Scriptures to support the doctrine of the Trinity, not oral tradition.

He did quote scripture. He also loved him some apostolic oral tradition as well. For example:

"But after [the devil] and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. . . Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians, because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions" (Letter 2)

"But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old" (Letter 60).

This post was edited on 2/26/24 at 6:13 pm

Posted by Squirrelmeister

Member since Nov 2021

3508 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 6:26 pm to Prodigal Son

quote:
Dawkins claims the illusion of design. You said he doesn’t. I posted a quote (with a link) of him actually saying: “The beauty of biology, really, is the illusion of design.” To which you replied “I think you are misinterpreting him. Maybe he means that those ignorant of science has delusions of intelligent design.” Are you telling me, that if we switched positions, you wouldn’t call that mental gymnastics?

Let’s looks at the Oxford dictionary.

Illusion (noun):

quote:
1. a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.
2. a deceptive appearance or impression.
3. a false idea or belief

I honestly don’t know or remember what your argument is, but rest assured, Dawkins does not belief in intelligent design and if you’d read The Blind Watchmaker you might understand if you read it with an open mind.

quote:
By no means am I arguing that Dawkins believes in design, but that in his own words he admits to believing in the illusion of design.

Maybe I should have read further down your post first. Sorry it’s been a long day. I think what you’ve got is sort of an oxymoron. You say you don’t think he believes in design, but he does believe in the false idea of design? I don’t get it. I’ll refer back to my original thought on the subject that he may be acknowledging that to untrained uneducated persons, life and nature could look like it was designed… which is what the great majority of people have believed about nature and life especially before the advent of modern science in the 20th century.

quote:
He does not even refute the possibility of design- only that it can’t be God.

No, you misunderstood. I watched the video. He said it is possible that someday we could find evidence of something that has been designed. So far though, every shred of scientific evidence about the natural world indicates it is not designed.

Boy, Foo has been hard at work this afternoon. He’s sort of moved on to

“prove to me why Catholic canon is correct, you spawn of Satan!!” and still can’t admit the Protestants deleted books of the canon all the while no one else is denying there are differences in the canon of the Essenes, the Catholics, and Greek Orthodox. They’ve all deleted books but obviously his sinful pride won’t let him admit it.

Posted by Mo Jeaux

Member since Aug 2008

62699 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 6:57 pm to Prodigal Son

quote:
Prodigal Son

I don't think you understand the Dawkins quote that you posted.

2 ...

Posted by Squirrelmeister

Member since Nov 2021

3508 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 7:38 pm to Mo Jeaux

My cousin Vinny explains intelligent design and religion:

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1617 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:14 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
Let’s looks at the Oxford dictionary. Illusion (noun): quote: 1. a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses. 2. a deceptive appearance or impression. 3. a false idea or belief

So, we agree. Great! Dawkins believes in the illusion of design. Thank you.

quote:
Maybe I should have read further down your post first. Sorry it’s been a long day.

I hear ya! Me too. My dogs are killing me!

quote:
You say you don’t think he believes in design, but he does believe in the false idea of design? I don’t get it.

Yes. He agrees that life appears to be designed, but denies that it is. Hence, the illusion of design. Don’t play coy with me, Newman!

quote:
I’ll refer back to my original thought on the subject that he may be acknowledging that to untrained uneducated persons, life and nature could look like it was designed…

Yes, again. He looks at something that literally everyone says appears to be designed, then agrees that it appears to be designed, but denies that it could have been designed.

quote:
quote: (mine) He does not even refute the possibility of design- only that it can’t be God.

quote:
No, you misunderstood.

quote:
He said it is possible that someday we could find evidence of something that has been designed.

Right. So, like I said- he doesn’t refute the possibility of design.

I honestly didn’t expect this to be so difficult for you. I thought you were smart.

quote:
So far though, every shred of scientific evidence about the natural world indicates it is not designed

Oh sure, sure. It just really really looks like it. Gotcha. (We really need a winky-face emoji)

Your offense is great. But your defense?

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1617 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:17 pm to Mo Jeaux

quote:
I don't think you understand the Dawkins quote that you posted.

Posted by Squirrelmeister

Member since Nov 2021

3508 posts

Posted on 2/26/24 at 10:48 pm to Prodigal Son

quote:
He agrees that life appears to be designed

He does not. I’m genuinely confused about why you would make such a statement. I thought you had some integrity that the other apologists lacked. Hope you can clear that up.

quote:
He looks at something that literally everyone says appears to be designed

You don’t believe this. You know this is false. You taking some swings from the devil’s liquid tonight?

quote:
then agrees that it appears to be designed

I’m not amused.

quote:
he doesn’t refute the possibility of design

If he found evidence of such a thing. He’s a scientist, remember? Always searching for better understanding and constantly testing what we think we know. He also doesn’t refute the possibility of there being a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

quote:
It just really really looks like it

Like a cetacean - that looks like a fish and lives in the water its whole life, but can drown because it must breath air, and has front flippers, but hidden beneath are finger bones and leg bones without legs. Complete with recurrent laryngeal nerve just like you and me.
RLN- evidence of unintelligent design

quote:
Your offense is great. But your defense?

What am I defending? Reality?

If you really want to be ignorant, go ahead - this is America. They do say that ignorance is bliss. If you want to learn something about your actual reality that is evidently true, try reading the book I mentioned. Another excellent read is Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth.

Edited to correct a “their” to “there”.

This post was edited on 2/26/24 at 10:50 pm

Posted by Mo Jeaux

Member since Aug 2008

62699 posts

Posted on 2/27/24 at 3:20 am to Prodigal Son

quote:
K.

Nice snippy retort.

quote:
He agrees that life appears to be designed

I was correct. You don't understand the Dawkins quote that you posted.

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1617 posts

Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:02 am to Squirrelmeister

(Me)

quote:
quote: He agrees that life appears to be designed

(You)

quote:
He does not. I’m genuinely confused about why you would make such a statement.

(Dawkins)

quote:
Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. — Richard Dawkins

quote:
You taking some swings from the devil’s liquid tonight?

Guilty.

I apologize ( to you, and Mo) for the manner in which I have responded, regarding Dawkins’ stance on ID. While I was only trying to be funny, I see how it could be construed as petty. I thought that you and I were on good enough terms that I could cut loose a bit and have some fun. I hope we still are.

I know that Dawkins vehemently opposes any semblance of intelligent design. All I’m saying, using his own words, is that he explains the appearance of design as an illusion; thereby accepting the appearance of design. Maybe I’m wrong, but a straightforward reading of his own words gives me the impression that he agrees that life appears to be designed- but is completely convinced that this appearance of design is a mere illusion. Is that not a fair assessment?

Posted by Squirrelmeister

Member since Nov 2021

3508 posts

Posted on 2/27/24 at 2:23 pm to Prodigal Son

quote:
I thought that you and I were on good enough terms that I could cut loose a bit and have some fun. I hope we still are.

All good.

quote:
straightforward reading of his own words gives me the impression that he agrees that life appears to be designed- but is completely convinced that this appearance of design is a mere illusion. Is that not a fair assessment?

I can see how you might interpret it as such, but allow me to use this example:

Take a squirrel. It almost appears as if it is perfectly designed to climb and navigate trees. It seems perfectly designed to crack pecans and walnuts with its powerful jaws and specialized teeth. But it is an illusion. In reality, the ancestor rodents of the squirrel-like species were accidentally exposed to an ecosystem where there was room in the trees to expand and to live there, and food was plentiful but bound by tough shells that were difficult to crack. Random mutations in their ancestor population groups that were passed to their offspring that had a positive effect or advantage to their survival were retained and passed along. Over millions of years a rat-like rodent had evolved into a squirrel like animal… it then split and continued to evolve into different species of squirrels, marmots, prairie dogs, and chipmunks. Squirrels continued to adapt over many generations to the trees and nuts using a process we call natural selection (it is one of, but not the only, mechanisms by which evolution operates).

Before we had access to modern geological theory, evolutionary theory including genetics, knowledge of anatomy, the fossil record, and so on, someone might conclude the squirrel seems purposely and perfectly designed to live in a tree and eat nuts.

Dawkins is definitely not saying that life scientifically or evidently appears to have been designed. It’s more about looking at it non-scientifically at a first glance that life could appear to be designed. That is the delusion that he speaks of. He isn’t saying anything like “boy this sure seems like it was all perfectly designed by a creator but that can’t be because there is no God”.

This post was edited on 2/27/24 at 2:37 pm

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

1617 posts

Posted on 2/27/24 at 8:32 pm to Squirrelmeister

quote:
All good.

I’m glad to hear that.

quote:
I can see how you might interpret it as such

Thanks. I mean, he literally said the illusion of design, many times on many occasions. If he truly doesn’t think that life gives the appearance of design- then you would think it’d be easy to find a quote of him saying something like “life doesn’t even appear to be designed.” But, haven’t found one yet. To the contrary, over and over, I read quotes from him saying things like:

‘Designoid objects look designed, so much so that some people – probably, alas, most people – think that they are designed. These people are wrong. . . the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very different.’

And…

”The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion.”

Or…

”The feature of living matter that most demands explanation is that it is almost unimaginably complicated in directions that convey a powerful illusion of deliberate design.”

And, he defines biology as:

‘the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’

quote:
allow me to use this example: Take a squirrel. It almost appears as if it is perfectly designed to climb and navigate trees. It seems perfectly designed to crack pecans and walnuts with its powerful jaws and specialized teeth. But it is an illusion.

So, like Dawkins, you also believe in the illusion of design? Just messing with you.

quote:
Over millions of years a rat-like rodent had evolved into a squirrel like animal… it then split and continued to evolve into different species of squirrels, marmots, prairie dogs, and chipmunks. Squirrels continued to adapt over many generations to the trees and nuts using a process we call natural selection (it is one of, but not the only, mechanisms by which evolution operates).

I don’t dispute natural selection and/or adaptation. It’s evident- like how dogs evolved from wolves, right? What I find questionable, is the claim that all life on earth shares a single common ancestor, and that this is all the result of a blind, unguided process. We have millions of fossils, dating back hundreds of millions of years. Where are the transitional fossils? Where is the missing link? How does Darwinian evolution account for the Cambrian explosion? I admit that I am wayyy out of my depth of understanding in this field. But, I think that there are a few guys who aren’t, and they do a good job of explaining the subject matter in terms that I can understand. Stephen Meyer, James Tour, to name a couple.

quote:
Dawkins is definitely not saying that life scientifically or evidently appears to have been designed. It’s more about looking at it non-scientifically at a first glance that life could appear to be designed. That is the delusion that he speaks of. He isn’t saying anything like “boy this sure seems like it was all perfectly designed by a creator but that can’t be because there is no God”

Well, you might want to tell him that he is giving off the wrong impression then. Because, it definitely seems like he admits to at least the illusion of design, and he definitely refuses to allow for even the remote possibility of the designer being God.

“I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” — Richard Dawkins

3 ...