Who cut the String?

Welcome! I am expecting some of you are here because of the recent episode of Unbelievable? that I was on. I am writing this a few days before it goes live and publishing it the day afterwards.

This is strange for me as I very rarely release blog posts within a few days after writing them.

In fact, the blog is now officially two years behind… yeah. I write a blog post each week, sometimes two and I don’t count any book reviews towards that number. When I launched the blog in Jan 2020, I had close to a year’s worth in drafts and I now have far more than that as I write more than I release.

That’s fine, as the whole point of this blog is to track my journey from the first moment, I realised I no longer believed in the God I worshipped and preached about every day.

Anyway – with that brief ‘welcome‘ aside, I want to talk about a thought challenge I raised on Unbelievable? yesterday. I am calling it ‘Who cut the String?’.

The string image is trying to establish a possible time, event, moment or active decision when we humans knew God to be real and turned our back on him.

With that idea brought to the forefront I hope to delve into subjects such as freewill and moral praise, but the reflection piece is more around when ‘the fall’ took place and what we class as the catalyst and outcomes of the fall.

I hope that in that place I can dismantle a lot of confusion for people around sin and our need for redemption.

It will be a book one day, I hope, and I want to expand on what I said and reflect as honestly about it as I can. For reference, I am doing an MSc right now and should have it finished mid-2022, at this point I will begin to flesh out more of this, taking past blog posts and other writings I have, pulling them all together and then adding some fresh ideas into the mix. If a book happens, it won’t be for a while.

So… The basic idea is you start at the beginning of the measured universe, which most of us would agree is seconds after the Big Bang, and you place the start of a piece of string there, with a pin. You then pull that string all the way to you today, so you are sat there right now, reading this and holding the end of this bit of string.

The ‘cut’ element is the Fall or the moment that humanity, in whatever form, decided to reject the God it knew to be real and live as God’s themselves.

If sin is real, the piece of string you hold isn’t taught/tight, it’s loose/flexible. So, if it’s loose/flexible, like a Christian would imply via the idea of sin, well then, ‘Who cut the String’?

The main point I wanted to get across is that without a fall, we never had a choice, and if there is no choice then there is no ‘sin’ in the classic Christian sense. Unless you redefine sin as just ‘being conscious’ to the level a human is today, which brings a lot of other problems.

There are many areas I want to explore in this book, but for now I will keep them out of the public view so that I can work them through further myself first.

I want to keep bringing this back to the current dominant Christian view on Sin and the Fall, looking at Genesis for a guide and exploring all of this.

It should also be known that this won’t be a heavily footnoted book, I want it to be an easy read and a reflection piece. I will have sections for extra reading within the book, but the content needs to be accessible for as many as possible.

Towards the end I want to challenge everyone to ask if the string has been cut, and if so, who could really have cut it. I want to propose this as a thought challenge that it isn’t possible to settle within the framework of the God people need to make the concept of Sin plausible to start with.

The idea of sin is one that has haunted me since birth, and it’s only recently I’ve thought about all of this to the point where it just doesn’t make sense and doesn’t make sense in a structured way that I think most people can understand.

My hope is that this book helps those who don’t believe in God to explain why they don’t believe to those who do. For those who do believe in God, I want them to honestly stop and look at the possible options as to why the string they think they hold ‘has been cut’, and if they can really know for certain that it has…

As always, thoughts are welcome and I will respond to as much as I can, but I won’t be sharing much more about this until I near the end of the writing and revision process.

I will be looking for early readers and will be asking some of the guest I have had on the podcast to review, comment and reflect on it so that I can make this as good as possible before it gets published (probably self-published because no one buys books like this anymore).

Maybe I should write a book about wizards or werewolves & vampires… that shit always seems to sell…

_End of Blog Blurb_

Thanks for taking the time to read my blog. It has taken me a few years to get to a place where I am able to share my loss of faith and to start writing about the journey that I am still on for you all. I hope you find it useful.

Support: The podcast and blog will always be advertisement-free, and your generous support on Patreon will enable us to continue doing this effectively and to a higher standard over the years to come. Please consider supporting the work we do.

Alternatively, you can support this work with a one-off gift via PayPal.

Podcast: If you like what you read then you could always check out the podcast ‘When Belief Dies’, it is available on all major podcasting platforms or you can listen/watch via YouTube. I upload and publish via Anchor FM each Wednesday at 7 am. For early access, support me on Patreon.

Grammar, spelling, capitalisation and punctuation: I am massively dyslexic. It has taken me years to get to the level I am currently at with writing and I have done this mainly through reading. I want to be better and ask you, reader, to please forgive any errors in my writing. I hope you notice improvement upon improvement over the coming years.

Time Frame: This blog is roughly twenty-four months behind where I currently am at in my journey out of religion. It’s important to remember that when reading and commenting.

If you want to get every post straight to your inbox then you can do that by either following directly via WordPress or with your email address, whichever you prefer. The links for that and social media are to the right if you’re on a computer, or at the very bottom if you’re on a phone or tablet.

I’ll see you back here at the same time next week 🙂

-Sam

When Belief Dies #49 – 'Science is Life' with Lawrence M. Krauss When Belief Dies

The video version of this conversation can be found here on our YouTube channel 12 hours after the audio version goes live. I am currently fundraising for a new PC due to a major technical failure with my current iMac that will see it get decommissioned in the near future. If you can help, please donate here. This week Sam is joined by Lawrence M. Krauss, they talk about science, culture and religion. Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who previously taught at Arizona State University, Yale University, and Case Western Reserve University. You can find/follow Lawrence here: Website Twitter The Origins Project Foundation The Origins Podcast We hope you enjoy our show. When Belief Dies aims to honestly reflect on faith, religion and life. We blog and podcast. Your support on Patreon enables us to cover the costs of running this show and look to the future to make things even better as we build upon what we already have in the works. Please take a look and consider giving. Alternatively, you can support the show with a one-off gift via PayPal. Use this link to navigate to the website, to find us on social media and anywhere else we might be present online. #Podcast #Deconstruction #God #Agnostic #Christian #Atheism #Apologetics #Audio #Question #Exvangelical #Deconversion #SecularGrace #Exchristian
  1. When Belief Dies #49 – 'Science is Life' with Lawrence M. Krauss
  2. GoFundMe Ask – Podcast & Video Editing Equipment
  3. When Belief Dies #48 – 'Spiral Dynamics' with Phil Drysdale
  4. When Belief Dies #47 – 'Historical Insights' with Alec Ryrie
  5. When Belief Dies #46 – 'Evil and Postmen' with Stephen Law

12 thoughts on “Who cut the String?

  1. Hi Sam,

    I’m not sure I understand the question you are posing above: ‘Who cut the string?’
    1. Do you imagine the string as Time, a series of cause-and-effect events or a connection with God? It’s hard to answer this without having an understanding of what the string represents in your mind.
    2.”The main point I wanted to get across is that without a fall, we never had a choice, and if there is no choice then there is no ‘sin’ in the classic Christian sense.”
    Do you mean without a fall we have no free will? Not having had free will, we thus could not have freely chosen to reject God?
    If, so, why do you assume we have no free will without a fall? Is your post really on the question of free-will? Whether we can determine our own choices or not?
    3.”The string image is trying to establish a possible time, event, moment or active decision when we humans knew God to be real and turned our back on him.”
    Does this mean we, human beings, through reason determined there is a God, ‘God is real,’ and decided despite that insight, to determine our own lives? OR
    Does it mean, a human being or human beings actually met God but turned their backs on him?

    I was touched by your interview on Unbelievable. I think I understand what happened to you and why you are where you are. The answer lies at the very beginning of your journey INTO faith. It is here where a fundamental misunderstanding exists in your thinking.

    Aihesha.

    Like

    1. Forgive me, Sam. I realise now my statement must sound presumptuous and arrogant. It is not what I intended. I’m one of the Lord’s dumbest sheep and am sure, once again, He’s probably with his holy hands in his hair, yanking them out by their Jewish roots.
      I’m now at When Believe Dies Episode #10 (your podcast is a gem, I believe it will resonate with so many people) and having taken your rebuke to heart, will pay you the respect of trying to understand your journey better. As I should have done, before commenting…
      When I’m better informed, I would like to get into contact with you again, if you’re okay with that. I’m not a public person and am a little allergic to the spotlight. If you’ll allow me, I can share with you what I understand about Christianity and the Lord via email, where my stupidity is not so broadcasted. Not that I have any intention of being so, but I seem to have a knack for it. I have concern for the Lord’s few remaining tufts.
      I’m sure you’ve worked your way through all the Christian apologetics and I have no intention of offering you more of the same. Having studied the topic to exhaustion, I’m also a full blooded evolutionist. .

      We have read many of the same books. I don’t know many other people who’ve read Think Fast, Think Slow of Kahneman and Tversky~if this is the book your understanding of heuristics stem from. Predictably Irrational of Dan Ariely, is also a treat.

      Ps. Please say hi! To Christian Helen from me, a sister in the Lord.

      Aihesha.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hey Aihesha,

        Please don’t think I am offended or upset at all, I was just challenging you to dive in, which it sounds like you are!

        I am very happy for you to email me your story and thoughts, you can find a ‘contact’ link at either the top or bottom of the website (depending on what sort of device you are reading this on).

        I can’t promise to always respond, but I will when I can. I will always read though, so know that.

        I have JUST started ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’, and actually came across heuristics a few years ago from Bret Weinstein when he moderated a conversation between Jordan B Peterson and Sam Harris.

        Helen’s a gem, and I will pass on your love 🙂

        Take care,
        Sam

        Like

  2. Hi Aihesha, thank you for watching, reading and commenting. It’s good to hear from people who disagree with me 🙂

    I think it would be helpful to hear what you think happened to me, what you think the answer is and what the relationship between those two sections and the very beginning of my journey into faith is.

    I can’t help but think you might be claiming to know too much after a single episode of a podcast and this blog post.

    I can’t promise I will respond due to the business of life, but I am interested to hear what you claim.

    Cheers,
    Sam

    Like

    1. Dear Sam

      I think of this as a personal letter rather than as a comment on the thread of a blog post, but since there is no other way of ‘posting’ this, this will have to do for now. In any case, the title of your blog, “Who cut the String?” goes well with the doubts that you have and expressed with candour on the recent “Unbelievable” podcast, which I was able to listen to in one sitting, or rather, one two-hour walk which I took last Monday morning, using my headphones as I went along a route near my home (in a town near Barcelona) that I’d never explored before.

      The impression you gave was that you would change your point of view to a more ‘traditionally’ theistic one if there were sufficient evidence that would sway you in that direction, and it was refreshing to hear you commend Justin Brierley by prefacing almost every question he asked you with “Good (or great) question”! Of course, evidence itself is open to interpretation, so what would count as sufficient evidence?
      Perhaps our ability to ask questions would be a good place to start.

      How do we define Homo Sapiens? And when did Homo Sapiens arrive on the prehistorical scene? A few years ago, I had a kind of epiphany which I call the anthropic difference, that is, the ineluctable difference between human beings and every other kind of organism that inhabits this planet. Based on this, I think that one of the most cogent arguments for God’s existence is we ourselves. When your reading of Sapiens besides other sources prompted you to think, Well, what is it about humans that makes us think we’re so special?, the answer to that question is already embedded in the question itself. How is it even possible that ‘we’ can ask the question at all? What does ‘our’ being able to ask the question presuppose regarding ‘our’ capabilities?
      We can interrogate ourselves by asking the question, What does it mean to be human? A cat cannot ask what it means to be feline, a dog what it means to be canine, a cow what it means to be bovine, etc. Even our allegedly closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees, are not capable of asking what it means to be simian, or at least, we have zero evidence that they are capable of such self-interrogation. The same goes for cats, dogs, cows or any other organism you care to mention besides us. ‘We’ are ineluctably different: only human beings are capable of this kind of self-referential questioning.

      I think it was Bret Weinstein who argued that the fundamental difference between humans and non-human organisms is language. Of course, that depends on how broadly or narrowly you define language: in its broadest sense, language is a form of communication and since non-human animals communicate with one another, then in that sense language is not the unique provenance of human beings, but if we define human language as a complex system of communication which (usually) has a visual semiotic counterpart, we can narrow down the definition in such a way that it becomes the unique provenance of human beings. Language is complex across several different registers: lexically in terms of its vocabulary, syntactically in terms of its grammar, semantically in terms of the range of meanings conveyed by words, phrases and sentences (a single word can carry a range of meanings depending on the context it’s being used in), phonetically in terms of the pronunciation of individual sounds, and phonologically in terms of how those sounds are combined in speech patterns. The level of complexity of each register will vary depending on what language is being used, nonetheless, they give us a coherent rule of thumb when considered together.

      However, I don’t think Bret went nearly far enough in trying to encapsulate the difference between humans and nonhuman animals. I see that there is another fundamental component that ineluctably separates ‘us’ from ‘them’, which is the capacity to reflect. Not for one moment do I wish to deny that animals are not intelligent or lack cognitive capacities – all the scientific evidence demonstrates that they do, and I have seen YouTube videos of elephants painting, for instance (although they can only do so because humans have taught them this skill) – nor would I agree with Descartes that animals lack consciousness; indeed, how could they exhibit intelligence and cognition if they didn’t? A dog which responds enthusiastically when it sees its owner does so because it recognises its owner, and recognition is possible because of the synthesis of memory and cognition, which are both fundamental facets of consciousness. (I will leave AI to one side – that’s a completely different question.)

      We are of course capable of this synthesis, but there is another synthesis that I believe only Homo Sapiens is capable of carrying out, which is between language and reflective consciousness. Which other organism besides Homo Sapiens is capable of reflecting on its own origins, such that it can (via language of course) make a claim about how it originated, whether that claim be that Homo Sapiens came about through a gradual, protracted evolutionary process ‘upwards’ (Darwin) or whether we are a special creation of God which has fallen from perfection due to disobedience (Genesis)? Which other organism besides Homo Sapiens is capable of thinking and reasoning conceptually, affirming or denying the validity of truth-claims; to narrow it down even further, which organism besides humans has a sense of the supernatural or the divine, such that it can affirm or deny (or even take a half-way agnostic position between the two regarding) the existence of God? The answer is glaringly obvious.

      When Darwin argued in The Descent of Man that the difference between human and nonhuman organisms is a difference of degree rather than kind, his very ability to make the claim at all belies the content of the claim, since making the claim presupposes a synthesis of language and reflective consciousness, and it is this synthesis that separates us from nonhuman animals by a vast gulf. You might argue that this is arrogantly presumptuous of humans to make such a claim, but that just drags us back to the question of how it is that we’re able to make the claim in the first place. Darwin is also well known for claiming that Natura non facit saltus (“Nature does not make jumps”) which was a hallmark of his theory of natural selection as the driving force of evolutionary change, just as it was a cornerstone of natural philosophy for the earlier Leibnitz. If that is true, then what accounts for this vast gulf between humans and other organisms? More than anything else, ‘we ourselves’ defy the Natura non facit saltus so-called axiom.

      Darwin’s tree of life maps a phylogenetic scenario that begins with the ‘root’ of a single ancestral species and then proceeds from there through multitudinous series of splits over aeons of time resulting in side-branches, side-side-branches, twigs, and so on, leading to all the variegated forms of life currently extant, with numerous side branches having fallen from the tree as various species encountered evolutionary dead-ends and went extinct. If ‘our’ closest relatives are the hominids Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Erectus, which represent transitional intermediates between more primitive forms of life and the more complex form of life that is ours, why did these transitional intermediates die out? Is it because we outperformed them in the arms race for resources as we became more cognitively advanced and therefore more sophisticated in terms of tool use, agricultural management and so on? This is nothing more than a conjectural repetition of the Darwinian assumption that the difference between humans and other organisms is a mere quantitative difference of degree, rather than an absolute qualitative difference of kind, the latter a distinction which must already be assumed in every claim that purports to know how ‘we’ got here, and why ‘we’ were able to flourish. The assumption itself, however, goes uninterrogated.

      Neither the Darwinian tree of life nor the Genesis account can be empirically tested. The Darwinian process, if it is to be believed, is far too slow to be observed in real time. In this respect, the Darwinian paradigm represents one hermeneutic model, and the Genesis account of man as a special creation who subsequently falls from perfection and divine grace, as we read about in Genesis 2 and 3, a different hermeneutic model. Both models are fundamentally incompatible however much theistic evolutionists may wish to argue otherwise. (If you want to read a critical analysis of the enormous philosophical problems thrown up by the implications of a theistic evolutionary model, I thoroughly recommend Wayne Rossiter’s Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God.) Genetic relatedness between all organisms would favour common descent if you’re predisposed towards Darwinism and/or other macro-evolutionary models; on the other hand, it would favour common design if you’re predisposed towards the Genesis Account, where living, ‘soulish’ creatures (ne’phesh in the Hebrew) are brought forth from the earth according to their kinds (Genesis 1: 24,25), just as man himself is described as being made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; the Hebrew word Adham, the name of the first man, means something like ‘earthling man’). This would have included Lucy that you mentioned in the podcast, placed much earlier in the evolutionary tree of life than the hominids, as well as other bipedal primates. But since our being able to stand on two independent feet is not what defines us as human, then there is no evidence at all that bipedal primates who existed long before us would necessarily be our evolutionary ancestors; it simply depends on the hermeneutic model that you assume.

      The primary way in which we can determine that basic ‘kinds’ (in the Hebrew, min) of living things imply a limit to how much variety can be produced and discovered within these kinds, the limit constituting a boundary rather than a border that can be traversed – even allowing for extraordinary variety within such a kind – is determined by sterility. Even allowing for the genetic and morphological similarity between us and chimpanzees, that we cannot interbreed or cross-fertilize with them, or indeed any other ape, demonstrates that apes belong to one basic kind whereas humans belong to another. Darwin himself admitted in part 2 of The Origin of Species, “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.”

      Comparing these two speculative models, the Darwinian one and the Genesis one, neither of which, as I’ve said, can be empirically tested, is there one that has more credibility? The description of man as made in the image of God, the Imago Dei (Genesis 1;26,27) accounts for the ineluctable difference between humans and nonhuman animals, as I have laid out in the foregoing paragraphs, in the way that the gradualist evolutionary model does not. The synthesis of language and reflective consciousness enabled the first man Adam to understand the prohibitive commandment not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the negative repercussions (death) that would occur if he and his wife Eve were to eat from it (Genesis 2:16,17). The subsequent shame regarding their nakedness that they experienced once the man had eaten the forbidden fruit offered to him by his wife after she had already eaten from it herself, which led to them sowing fig leaves together to make loin coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7), can only be explained in terms of this reflective consciousness. That Adam recognised his accountability before God, as evidenced by his going into hiding and by the explanation that he offered for why he ate the forbidden fruit after God called him up on it, was only possible because both he and Eve were able to reflect on their actions (Genesis 3:8-13) as well as use complex language. Possessing both these extraordinary capacities, only humans can think counterfactually as well as hypothetically, that is to say, “Maybe I should have done this rather than that”, “I shouldn’t have acted the way I did”, and so on.

      At least where the Genesis account is concerned, we have a definitive ‘moment’ when Adam and Eve cut the string and effectively turned their backs on their Creator. If Adam were a distinct, special creation of God who was formed from the dust of the ground, whose genetic similarity especially to other mammals can be accounted for because they too were formed from the ground with the capacity to reproduce according to their kinds, this definitive moment is much easier to determine than if Homo Sapiens is just the latest phase in a long, protracted evolutionary process where its difference from its evolutionary predecessors is only measured quantitavely, to a lesser or greater degree depending on how far you go back into the past along Darwin’s tree of life.

      Notwithstanding, the question as to when ‘we’, this absolutely qualitatively different organism, appeared on the prehistorical scene is more problematic. But since I’ve gone on for far too long already, that question can be left for a different occasion if you feel this thread is worth running with. For now, let me take Voltaire’s famous statement “If God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him” and reverse it: “If God really didn’t exist, we would never have invented him, because ‘we’ would never have emerged.” If natural selection can be said to be concerned with anything, it is only concerned with ‘machines’ that are capable of surviving. All that is required are the basic characteristics of all living organisms that I learnt mnemonically during biology lessons at school by forming a name from the first letters of each characteristic: MR GREEN, i.e., movement, respiration, growth, reproduction, excitability (or sensitivity), excretion and nutrition. If we are nothing more than survival machines governed by MR GREEN, we would not even have the self-consciousness of this ‘we’. Language and reflective consciousness, much less the synthesis of the two, would be completely extraneous to what is required for survival.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi Shane,

        Thank you for this comment. I have read it twice now and been thinking about how best to respond.

        My concern is that it’s a very winding letter to reply to on a blog, and I don’t think I have the time to dive down all the rabbit holes that open up before me as I read this.

        If you want a more focused exchange – I would be happy with a single question with a bit of padding and we can slowly go from there, otherwise, we might have to let this one pass us by.

        You can email me by going to any of my social media channels – clicking on the link in my bio – then right at the bottom, there is an email option. Or hit the contact tab on the blog 🙂

        I appreciate you listening, thinking and responding though – it’s amazingly kind of you!

        Cheers,
        Sam

        Like

  3. Hey Sam,
    on the show talked about God only being around for about 2 percent of human history. I had a few thoughts on the subject. First, it is tough to tell how much God was involved in a general revelation type of revelation. Sam referred only to special revelation. It is very possible that people can be saved through general revelation in my opinion. I think many of the humans before the existence of the Torah would still know God through the power of creation and the moral law God puts on ones heart. Secondly, Sam, in my opinion, asked the wrong question overall. The question is not how much of human history was God involved via special revelation. The question is really how many humans has God been involved with since there are billions of more humans now compared to 200,000 humans. Thank you. Really enjoyed the episode. I also really enjoyed reading the blogpost. You may have thoughts on my response to this objection you raised. I hope you have a good journey in the study of God. Thank you for your humility and honesty on the show. Have a nice day.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Hi Caleb, thank you so much for reaching out and sharing your thoughts! Love it 🙂

    My gut reactions and that is all these are on your comments:

    1) What makes a person saved? This is a very nuanced question, as the further back in history the more you have to alter the bar based on the information people had available to them at that time.

    The ‘power of creation’ and ‘the moral law’ are metaphors for what people experience. Things appear created until you understand how evolution works, the moral law seems obvious to us, but go back 120,000 years and see if the same morals we claim to be universal today are in fact still universal.

    2) It depends on what you class as humans, do you just mean homo sapiens? Then sure, there have been a lot more since the start of our species, but that doesn’t explain why God hasn’t revealed Himself in a way to enable everyone, for all homo sapiens time, to know He is Lord and follow Him.

    People are under the impression that the hominins around at the same time as homo sapiens emergence, and before that, didn’t laugh, love, fight, weep, feel, protect, kill, fear and delight. Did they worship? Maybe, we will probably never know.

    We might have had more numbers since Jesus, but that doesn’t mean we’ve had revelation or clarity, in my opinion.

    Thank you for your thoughts, feel free to respond to these and push back – I can’t promise to have the time or space to respond, but I will read them.

    Enjoy the journey Caleb,
    Sam 🙂

    Like

  5. Having listened to your Unbelievable? and (I think) read all your blog posts, it seems that I’m not asking those questions, because I start from a different position. I believe in special creation – if it needs a label, I would probably settle on Biblical Creationist. So my answer to ‘Who cut the string?’ is Adam and Eve. I would start from believing in God (and, yes, the Resurrection is a key element in that belief), then seeing what the Bible says. Our presuppositions affect how we interpret scientific data, which is fine as long as we are honest about it, so someone who assumes that there is no supernatural input into the origins of the physical universe will interpret data differently from someone who is inclined towards a literal interpretation of the Bible where appropriate for the literary style of each section.

    It would be interested to know if you ever examined or even believed in a creationist explanation of beginnings.

    It seems to me that attempts to allow for evolution and keep the Biblical account (Gap Theory, Day-age theory, theistic evolution etc.) all have a tendency to drift towards atheistic evolution – of course that isn’t a argument for creationism, but gives a reason why I think the issue is important.

    And back on the subject of the Resurrection – someone else who attempted to disprove it and ended up neign converted is J. Warner Wallace who wrote the book “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels” which I found particularly interesting as his professional expertise was in examining old witness statements.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Hey Jeremy,

    It’s been awesome to see you reading the blog, and thank you for commenting on this post 🙂

    Here is my response, I hope it makes sense.

    ‘Biblical Creationist’:

    The issue is, there is a difference between God creating everything, and the account of Genesis being correct. Above you say Adam and Eve, who some think are literally, others think they are metaphorical. But the question then becomes, when did the literal or metaphorical Adam and Eve take the action to cause Sin to enter into the human story and result in the falls?

    You’ve got a lot of work to prove this is true. You say you ‘start from believing in God’, but which God? Because you need the Bible to get to the God you proclaim to be true by inferring the Adam and Eve story to be true (literally or metaphorically).

    So actually what happens is you (maybe) start with Christianity and then that God, and then the world and then the Bible and combine it all together.

    Creationist explanation of beginnings:

    Yes, but a strict creationist view doesn’t make sense again evolution, which I think has been proved on multiply level: DNA, universe background radiation, geology, animal development (to name a few).

    So I could understand intelligent design as Francis Collins or John Lennox would adhere to, but again – who cut the string?

    J. Warner Wallace:

    I am very unimpressed with what J. Warner Wallace and others don’t say, or look at. Paulogia has a lot of great videos exploring these thinks and highlighting them, you can hear him on my podcast as well. But here is a link to a video of his on this that I like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sr2CWP0RVE

    I hope this is all taken in love as that is how it is intended,
    Sam

    Like

    1. Hi Sam, thanks for your reply. I will watch that video. If it is possible at all for a believer to read apologetics and understand how that would appear to someone else, it must take a special skill, so I am interested in the view from the other side.

      I can empathise with the question in your previous blog about how much evidence is enough. I have read and heard loads of creationist material since as a teenager I read “The Genesis Flood”, the book that really sparked the Creation Science movement, but not so much from the evolutionist side – and anyway, they generally don’t engage with creationist arguments. So I really don’t know what would convince me away from my young earth, literal Adam and Eve position but I’m happy to read anything if you have any ideas. Ditto for the resurrection.

      I think the main point about evidences for the resurrection is that people have looked at the evidence, aiming to disprove it, and have been convinced, becoming Christians as a result – so Frank Morrison, Lee Strobel, J Warner Wallace and others have taken this path and written books as a result. Lew Wallace did the same and wrote a work of fiction (Ben Hur). All we can see is what level of evidence convinced them – we are all different.

      And, yes, I agree this is all to be taken in love.

      Jeremy

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Hey Jeremy,

    So if you want to start reading about something that might challenge your YEC worldview then I would suggest trying something that interests you – so what does? Space, Evolution, DNA, Geology? When you know that I can suggest a book or two 🙂

    I have no issues with these people coming to a belief in God after looking at the evidence – the issue I have with them is I don’t think they have been honest with the evidence or present it in an honest way. I am also very suspicious of anyone who becomes famous and continues to publish the same or similar books.

    Enjoy the journey 🙂

    Sam

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s