For 2,000 years, the biblical stories in which God changes the course of nature were called miracles. Indeed, that is the very definition of a miracle. And miracles were the defining feature of the deity, the ineluctable proof of God's existence and power. Yet since the rise of the Enlightenment in 18th century, with its commitment to scientific inquiry and its opposition to superstition, the nature of biblical miracles has been called into question. Events that were scientifically impossible were deemed ... impossible. Yet at the same time, for millions of people the Bible retained and retains its position as a repository of truth, both abstract (moral, ethical) and literal (historical).
The conjunction of modern scientific inquiry and allegiance to the Bible has led to an interesting turn of events. We see an ongoing attempt to find a rational basis for some of the more unbelievable biblical events, to "explain" them scientifically. Examples of this abound. The flood of Genesis 6-9, in which the whole world is covered with water? That was the result of a massive comet or meteor crashing into the ocean, creating a worldwide tsunami and killing almost everyone on earth.
The plagues in Egypt of Exodus 7-10? They were a natural chain of events instigated by a very modern culprit: global warming.
The splitting of the Red Sea in Exodus 14? A coincidence of a very low tide and a very strong wind.
The manna with which the Israelites were fed in the wilderness? Nothing more than a naturally-occurring desert lichen, or perhaps the sap of the tamarisk tree, or, least appetizingly, perhaps the excretion of the tiny bugs that feed on tamarisk sap. The list could go on.
For the skeptical modern, these sorts of theories, produced by scholars and glossed with the veneer of rigorous scientific research, are attractive because they prove the idiom (ironically enough from the Bible itself, from the great skeptic who wrote Ecclesiastes) that there is nothing new under the sun. Science explains all. At the same time, these theories speak also to the biblical literalist: science, that great enemy of faith, does not undermine but in fact confirms the Bible's truth. The two camps converge in a rare moment of harmony: What the Bible says is actually what happened.
The problem, however, is that none of these theories about what happened are, in fact, what the Bible says happened. The Bible doesn't say that a comet struck the ocean, or that there was global warming, or that it was low tide or that the Israelites ate lichen (or worse). It says that there were miracles, originating entirely with God, to punish or protect, to destroy or to save. Miracles cannot, by definition, be natural occurrences, no matter how rare or remarkable. It is not that the Bible reflects the state of knowledge in an earlier, pre-scientific culture, and that we who are more enlightened have the capacity to understand the events in the Bible more accurately. The Bible is not a record of ancient observations; it is a grand theological statement about God's interaction with humanity and the world. Rationalizing its stories does not "explain" the Bible. Rationalizing, in fact, obscures it.
And that is because these theories do not illuminate the biblical text in any meaningful way. Even if it were proved that a comet did cause a massive flood event at some point in the past, our understanding of the biblical story of the flood would remain unchanged: it was God's punishment for the wickedness and violence of humanity. Even if there are various edible substances in the desert, the biblical story of the manna is still a story of divine providence at a time of intense need. Attempts to find some middle ground are precarious at best. For example, the great Orthodox Jewish biblical scholar Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) suggested that the splitting of the sea was indeed an explainable coincidence of tide and wind, but the miracle was that these occurred precisely when the Israelites needed to cross. This is neither a literal reading nor a scientific one, despite its attempts to be both. The power of the Bible comes not from its scientific veracity, but from precisely the opposite.
We cannot have it both ways. The Bible cannot both be a foundation of faith and conform to modern notions of scientific rationality. Nor should it. For true believers, naturalistic rationalizations undercut a central message of the Scriptures, that God intervenes in human affairs. Skeptics must wonder why any attempt is being made in the first place to prove that biblical events really happened. The Bible may be couched as historical narrative, but the claims it makes are claims of faith, which no amount of positive or negative data can alter.
In this holiday season, we may consider the two stories at the heart of Hanukkah and Christmas (although Hanukkah is not a biblical holiday, but the point still stands). According to Jewish tradition, the miracle of Hanukkah is that after the Temple in Jerusalem was sacked by the Syrian king Antiochus in the second century B.C.E., the tiny amount of unprofaned oil remaining, enough to last only one day, lasted instead for eight days. According to Christian tradition, the miracle of Christmas is of course the birth of Jesus to the virgin mother Mary. If we could prove that somehow one day's worth of oil could last for eight by some hitherto unknown natural property of oil -- or if we could prove that somehow it is medically possible for a virgin to give birth -- who would benefit from such an explanation?
Miracles are articles of faith, for true believers today and for the Bible as well. Whether they actually happened or not is debatable. But to chalk them up to freak occurrences of nature is fundamentally to misunderstand the nature both of the Bible and of belief in it.
From that angle the Abrahamic god (that of the three sects of a single religion Judaism, Christianity, Islam) fails miserably.
You mention Exodus. Each time the Pharaoh wants to let the Hebrews leave Egypt, god hardens his heart so he can punish the Egyptians. The fact that this is a myth is irrelevant. What is the moral teaching here?
Or murdering all animals (even kitty cats and puppy dogs) in a flood (bar two of each kind) in a flood because human beings are evil. That in my book is pure evil. The fact that it could not have happened again is irrelevant.
We do not need science to reject the bible but ethics and morality.
Instead, their posture of doubt is the one thing that is never doubted.
Come on, you guys. You really can't believe it both ways and truly be sane.
Did he make a mistake and have to do something to fix it? Of course not. That is not even the point. Here is the point: All of his creation he made to have free will, the ability for them to choose freely what they want out of life. As an all powerful being he would know that they would not choose like robots, automatically making the best possible choice for themselves. They would need guidance by him, but they also would need to understand why his choices were in their best interest. They would have to come to realize that they could not operate just selfishly, but have to think of the best way to live to make sure that ALL would benefit, not just the individual. And God, in his infinite wisdom, has allowed us time to learn this. But, the time is almost up. God's kingdom is about to be in full control.
Oh sure, we can choose freely, but what happens when we make the choice your god doesn't like? How about this:
"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Yet more love and wisdom for Sue's wonderful god. She will ignore this passage, as she does all the others from the Bible that don't fit into her cookie cutter "God is Love" ideal. Or maybe she will say it's the atheists' fault for taking these passages out of context. Nah, she will just pretend it's not in the Bible, as usual.
Or are you just here to throw insults at people in an effort to persuade yourself and your friends how "smart" you are?
However, peer pressure does stand a chance. I'm just part of the society that is working to "fix" the broken people who need an artificial construct of "god" to live their daily lives. If your "faith" is so weak that someone pointing out the outlandish, illogical inconsistencies in your articles-of-faith feels like an attack, you should take it as a sign that you need to review why you have what faith you do have.
No it isn't.
They didn't happen.
And no- I do not have to prove to you that they did- you are the one that made the statement that they didn't, without proof to back your statement up!
And now we're advancing to a point as a species where we don't need it for either, which's a blessing as it's done a poor job of both.
Perhaps the problem is not religion--perhaps the problem is that some people just can't (or don't want) to stop having power over others.
Your first sentence shows the extent of your willful ignorance under the guise of "faith". Science doesn't claim to have information on everything. If it had such, there wouldn't be any need for scientists any more. It is people of faith who claim to have an answer for everything. The erroneous statement you made which implies that science somehow claims to have all the answers is an attempt at discrediting the things it has found that undermines your unsubstantiated articles of faith.
That kind of misdirection is very close to willful lying. Is your soul still safe. You should be worried.
I think you finally got the answer but not in the way you seem to think. The simplest interpretation of your statement is:
God doesn't exist. Therefore, "God doesn't need anything."
"But we do." because we want power or we want control or we want to avoid having to own our own responsibility for our own lives.
Hope the light went on for you. (yeah right!)
===============================
Utter nonsense backed by zero evidence - just like the Bible. Shame on Discover magazine for even printing it.
I find it more humorous that we are working from the standpoint that we accept the claim that the flood was "world wide". As far as I understand at that time, there were NO civilizations that spanned the world to make such a claim. It seems much more likely that the survivors of a tidal-wave type event would subjectively feel that the world was overrun. Why are we trying to come up with explanations for something that most likely didn't happen as described?
That is not to say that there is no truth to the Bible. There is, but I find people who take the Bible literally quite irrational. I believe it was written to explain how those people at the time understood their world. Nothing wrong with that. But over the centuries, we have learned so much more about our world and how it works. I don't see that as a conflict between science and the belief in God.
I used to be an agnostic, and still believe in evolution. I believe that religion is a man made concept. But if you peel the layers farther and farther back, how does one explain where the gases came from to create the Big Bang. Something had to kick it off.
The Earth is not 6000 years, the Flintstones really didn't have dinasaurs to use as their household appliances and they did not exist at the same time as humans.
I agree, we don't know.
How can the universe always exist? A concept of science is that energy can not be created or destroyed. It simply changes form. That is how I like to believe what happens to us when we die. We don't simply disappear. But where did the original energy to create the universe come from?
The multiverse is metaphysics, a belief system requiring faith, a theory that cannot be scientifically tested.
Christianity would then have to also accept the existence of all the other gods that made miracles. Imagine the quagmire.
As for the loaves and fish, what other source (besides the Bible) of information do we have that such an event ever happened? And if you know any witnesses, please give us their names and credentials.
This always used to bother me in hebrew school. God, killing the innocents yet again.
A tsunami hitting the coast of Egypt and allowing the Jews, on higher ground, to avoid drowning is a happenstance. It is not a reason to see a heavenly favor in every incidence of life; similar coincidences have happened millions of times since then, without having been interpreted as favors from a god.