Re: [asa] Greetings from a new member

> 1. I long ago made peace with the idea that God could
> use evolution to form our physical bodies. What was
> new to me, from the atheists' perspective, was the
> idea that the intangible aspects of us, like feelings,
> emotions, consciousness, etc. (which I had equated
> with the God-given, eternal soul) could also arise
> (ala emergent properties) naturally. Thus, I've
> acquired a new-found interest in the fields of
> pyschology, neurology, and computer science as I try
> to reconceptualize the idea of a "soul".

A couple of points:
Arising naturally in no way removes God from the picture.
"Could arise naturally" includes a very wide range of possibilities.
Specific reasons to expect the observed patterns are more convincing.

> 2. The historicity of Biblical events also remains a
> challenge. Although I've never taken the Bible
> literally, or have assumed that it was 100% accurate
> in terms of historical events, the atheists raise good
> questions (they claim that temporary burials were
> common back in Jesus's time, and that Jesus could have
> been reburied without his disciples knowledge), and
> even some Christians seem to take the Bible much more
> figuratively than I do (i.e. Jesus was in the desert
> for a long time, not necessarily 40 days, etc.); thus,
> I'm not quite sure through what eyes I should read the
> Bible at this point.

There are a couple of issues here:
Is the Bible broadly historically accurate?
Are the specific claims of theological interest historically accurate?

The former is certainly the case. The cultures, nations, fauna,
flora, languages, customs, etc. depicted in the Bible are those of the
ancient near east from ca. 2000 BC to 100 AD. Many politically
prominent people are mentioned in extrabiblical sources. This
contrasts with the blatant fiction of the Book of Mormon or the
mistakes in the Koran. However, many of the key archaeological
sources are the records of surrounding cultures in which polytheistic
religions are invoked in ways similar to the Bible's claims about God.
 Thus, this evidence supports the Bible as a valuable historical
source (though of course written to achieve particular theological
goals, not to provide a history textbook), but does not do much to
authenticate the specific theological claims.

Given the general historical credibility, the evidence suggests taking
seriously the theological claims, but there is limited outside
comparative evidence. In large part, one's views on Jesus will
determine how such claims are assessed.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.