Okay, people are entitled to opinions, and I’d be okay with her saying that this is her argument for her view. But she tries really hard to come off as some sort of authority representing a wide consensus (Just look at the name or her organization: what name could be more official sounding?). Sure enough, there is one regarding evolution. But there isn’t one, at least in the philosophy of science, about methodological naturalism (which she proudly teaches to her audiences as if it were an axiom of geometry). In fact, I think there are very good arguments against this view of science, and not from theists, mind you. Richard Dawkins, I believe, even disagrees with the principle that science and religion deal with separate magisteria. He says that God is a scientific hypothesis, just a very very bad one.

However, she can make her case a lot less objectionable to me by simply saying that as a country that practices freedom of religion, we can’t invoke God in public schools; and she can do this without having to make comments a priori about what can or can’t be supported with empirical evidence, or to get into an area in which she’s not really an expert, and in which she has no right to claim any authority, the philosophy of science.

When will they realize that babbling random Bible verses makes them sound incoherent?? Hopefully your words got through to him.

The use of a detached random or at least seemingly irrelevant quote of scripture is so common around here it has its own name, a “drive-by.” Probably not a good idea. It makes you appear to be unhinged or drunk because there is no logical context for why it’s stated. If, under a pseudonym I visited one of your posts about your religious ideas and tossed out “The sun is on average 93 million miles from the Earth,” you’d think that was some geeky nut case.

Your longer comment of 625 words contains 76 percent your words and 23 percent bible stuff. Your most recent comment is zero you and all bible babble. I’m responding to the earlier, longer one. Of the part that is more or less your own thoughts, I’m sorry but I can understand only about half, I think. I’ll try to respond to the parts of which I can make sense.

Yes, I have often thought about the things that I am good at and that others are good at, and what makes us all the ways we are. What causes these differences is complex and subject to a great deal of debate in scientific, philosophical and religious forums. Some theories are interesting if not completely convincing, some are half-baked and some are just silly. We have a lot more to learn about ourselves.

Using certain terms to talk about people or the world around us can set us up to make misleading assumptions. For instance the word “gifts” to describe a person’s talents or aptitudes. They can also be called attributes, qualities or abilities but to call them gifts loads in the assumption of a gift giver. That’s a not-necessarily-so assumption pre-loaded by the term you have used. People use the term “creation” to describe all the stuff around them. It’s stuff. Animals, plants, planets, galaxies, are all stuff. Creation implies a creator, another Olympic leap to a conclusion. I try to use terms that are as neutral as possible so I don’t give myself unnecessary biases. It’s very difficult but at least some glaring ones can be avoided.

Thanks for the compliments about my intelligence but I don’t really think of myself as intelligent. The definition of intelligence is another of those vague concepts for which the jury is still hopelessly out. I’m really just articulate. My thoughts aren’t terribly profound, highbrow or original. I’m just good at expressing what thoughts I have very clearly. It’s an ability. If you want to call it a gift then you’re adding your own assumption for which I don’t see any evidence. Go ahead if you like, but don’t expect me to jump to that conclusion with you. When you say if it’s natural then a Naturer therefore has to be implied, no, not really. Seeing a cause-and-effect chain of events and conditions in front of you does not by necessity lead to the conclusion that a previous cause one or two or ten million steps back has to be a conscious intelligence, a super-duper mind modeled after a human mind with a sense of self, thoughts, feelings and intention. That is anthropomorphizing nature.

David, I like the little bits and pieces I glimpse of David the guy, not David the Agent of God’s Great Message. Let the loving, caring, generous aspects of your faith soak in to your personality until they become more second nature, more just a sweetness about how you relate to others and the world in simple, uncontrived ways. Right now it’s like an elaborate costume and headdress that almost entirely obscures you, hidden somewhere inside all that finery. Try just being David the guy. He’s nice enough to like, interesting enough to talk to and worthy of as much respect as any other guy or gal. I’m not saying don’t ever talk about religion, I’m saying try talking about your expression of it in real terms, simple stories about you and other real persons in your daily life, the way you did about your little nephew on your blog.

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” 2 Corinthians 4:3-6

yawn

One question about David post: what does ‘to exalt’ mean? Dictionary definiton is to glorify, honor.

David, keep in mind that for many people there’s next to no difference between Old Testament creation and many other creation myths.