Pascal's Wager

[PRmerger]

Several myths in the OT borrow from myths from previous cultures with the purpose of explaining the nature of god and distinguishing the Hebrew god from those of other nations. It’s not as if the creation myths (there are two, after all) in the OT are completely unique, even though they offer what is arguably a unique theology (i.e., out of nothing). What the OT does is put a spin on the Creation myth to make clear the presence of an all-powerful god who does not struggle to produce the heavens and the earth. Compare this with the Enuma Elish, and you see the difference.

Did you just recently read this in Wikipedia, Jocko? The reason I ask is because I just googled this Enuma Elish myth and the above is info I read on Wiki!

 

[Jocko_VT]

Did you just recently read this in Wikipedia, Jocko? The reason I ask is because I just googled this Enuma Elish myth and the above is info I read on Wiki!

Good to know Wiki is accurate, but no. This is common material. I read about it for the first time in an Old Testament class in undergrad 18 years ago. Karen Armstrong covers it in a couple of books, which I’ve read through numerous times. I think it may even be mentioned in the notes in my Bible. All the discussion of creation myths, at least in the Middle East, center around a battle with chaos through which “creation” occurs. What distinguishes the Hebrew god is that there’s no battle–he says the word, and that how it is.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

are you saying this similarity between pagan myths and Christianity is an indictment of Christianity?

Not by any meaning of the word that is familiar to me. But as I mentioned before I the information contributes to why I don’t see myself returning to having a belief in Christianity or Yahweh. It did not play a role in my de-conversion.

That is, if the Babylonian creation story is a myth, then the Christian creation story is also a myth?

By itself I don’t see the myth / non-myth status of the Enuma Elish by itself as being suggestive of the myth/non-myth status of Christianity. But it is not being considered in isolation.

Or are you merely being, like a search engine, a fact finder?

The ability to find similarities in information is a part of what is involved in evaluating the information but not the totality of the evaluation.If the computer simile were extended for the purpose of describing part of my thought process the “fact finding” would be one stage in a parallel workflow and would include other processes.

 

[PRmerger]

Good to know Wiki is accurate, but no. This is common material. I read about it for the first time in an Old Testament class in undergrad 18 years ago. Karen Armstrong covers it in a couple of books, which I’ve read through numerous times. I think it may even be mentioned in the notes in my Bible. All the discussion of creation myths, at least in the Middle East, center around a battle with chaos through which “creation” occurs. What distinguishes the Hebrew god is that there’s no battle–he says the word, and that how it is.

 

[PRmerger]

Not by any meaning of the word that is familiar to me. But as I mentioned before I the information contributes to why I don’t see myself returning to having a belief in Christianity or Yahweh. It did not play a role in my de-conversion.

By itself I don’t see the myth / non-myth status of the Enuma Elish by itself as being suggestive of the myth/non-myth status of Christianity. But it is not being considered in isolation.

Yet it “contributes” to your atheism, then?

If so, then, again, I suggest that you re-consider. That there are similarities (very vague and general) between a fictitious story and Christianity is, well, simply that: a similarity. Perhaps it is a foreshadowing and actually *affirms *the truth of Christianity.

IOW: if there may be numerous references in ancient pre-Christian cultures to a Messiah-like figure simply points to The Real Thing, no?

(And I get that this is not the only piece in the puzzle that made you reject Christianity, but I don’t believe it should be a consideration at all.)

The ability to find similarities in information is a part of what is involved in evaluating the information but not the totality of the evaluation.If the computer simile were extended for the purpose of describing part of my thought process the “fact finding” would be one stage in a parallel workflow and would include other processes.

'Tis true, this.

 

[PRmerger]

Not by any meaning of the word that is familiar to me. But as I mentioned before I the information contributes to why I don’t see myself returning to having a belief in Christianity or Yahweh. It did not play a role in my de-conversion.

Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft writes:
Examples…of similar miracles in pagan myths, include multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and raising the dead. These miracles also appear in much myth and fiction. These similarities do not prove that they do not also occur in reality, any more than the appearance of apples or battles in fiction proves that all apples or battle are fictitious.–Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

 

[Jocko_VT]

Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft writes:
Examples…of similar miracles in pagan myths, include multiplying food, turning water into wine, walking on water and raising the dead. These miracles also appear in much myth and fiction. These similarities do not prove that they do not also occur in reality, any more than the appearance of apples or battles in fiction proves that all apples or battle are fictitious.–Handbook of Catholic Apologetics

You’ll admit that it’s suspicious, though, won’t you?

 

[PRmerger]

You’ll admit that it’s suspicious, though, won’t you?

Could you be more specific. friend?

Do you mean it’s suspicious that all cultures have a creation story? Or that there are pre-Christian stories of a god who becomes man? Or that the Egyptian god Horus was a crucified savior?

 

[Miriam1947]

I mean no offense when I type this, but I am hoping to provide the understanding of a perspective. There are those that feel part of the sentence that followed the above is equally applicable to Yahweh, Alluh, Zeus, and others…

In just limiting my consideration to the Abrahamic religions even if I consider Pascal’s Wager something that convinces me to go monotheistic it doesn’t provide any assistance in deciding which one of the religions or denominations. Check out Wikipedia’s list of Christian Denominations , branches of islam, or list of modern divisions of Judiasm.

I’m not convinced by Pascal’s Wager. I had been a Christian from childhood indoctrination for the first twenty years of my life. Having already encountered information that made belief in Yahweh something that I cannot sustain I doubt that I’ll encounter something that will re-convince me to believe that a deity name Yahweh exists any more than I expect to encounter something that will re-convince me that an arctic dwelling immortal magical man named Santa Claus exists.

paracletepress.com/the-christ-connection-how-the-world-religions-prepared-the-way-for-the-phenomonen-of-jesus.html

The Christ Connection: How the World Religions Prepared the Way for the Phenomenon of Jesus

*I feel that I can more fully explain the history of my Catholic faith after reading The Christ: Connection: How the World Religions Prepared the Way for the Phenomenon of Jesus.

• Raymond Flynn, Former Ambassador to the Vatican, Mayor of Boston and political analyst.
  In The Christ Connection noted apologist Varghese (There Is a God, co-written with atheist-turned-Christian philosopher Antony Flew) offers a comprehensive and compelling formulation of the monumental discovery that Jesus of Nazareth is God and man, Messiah and Savior. The book explores:

• The pre-Christian religions – from native peoples to Egyptians and ancient Judaism – pointing the way to the Messiah to come
• Jesus as a phenomenon unique in human history
• The Christ connection as a rendezvous of the religions
• Fifteen grounds that lead us to affirm Jesus as God and man and Savior
• The foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity in human experience.*

Perhaps this book will give you some answers. I haven’t read it yet but I will be ordering it for my bookstore. I heard an interview yesterday with the author and it sounds like an awesome book.

 

[Pieman333272]

Good to know Wiki is accurate, but no. This is common material. I read about it for the first time in an Old Testament class in undergrad 18 years ago. Karen Armstrong covers it in a couple of books, which I’ve read through numerous times. I think it may even be mentioned in the notes in my Bible. All the discussion of creation myths, at least in the Middle East, center around a battle with chaos through which “creation” occurs. What distinguishes the Hebrew god is that there’s no battle–he says the word, and that how it is.

I don’t know if you saw my resources a few pages ago, but the idea that the Hebrews ripped off another Middle Eastern Culture, or they all follow some basic archetypal template, is numerous decades old and, while once the scholarly consensus, now considered inaccurate. Karen Armstrong is not a reliable source, while I haven’t read her book I’ve read multiple reviews on it and it’s clear that while she is well-researched she has no professional basis or credentials in OT or NT Or Qur’an Studies. I don’t know why you learned that in collage in your OT studies class but it is simply outdated and inaccurate. The creation story is NOT a rip-off or based on a template, PERIOD.

tektonics.org/af/babgenesis.html
christianthinktank.com/gilgymess.html
christianthinktank.com/phoney.html
christianthinktank.com/iaonot1st.html

 

[Frankenfurter]

Pascal’s wager is stuck in an immature understanding of love, namely: Love of God for the sake of what can God do for me.

As St. Bernard describes, coming to a relationship with and ultimately a knowledge of God involves higher levels of love including, love of God for his own sake, an finally love of others for God’s sake.

However, when arguing with an atheist, you have to meet them where they are, so as arguments go, Pascal’s wager can get one from the very low levels, love of self, love of other because of what they can do for me, to one step up, namely, love of God because of what he can do for me.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Could you be more specific. friend?

Do you mean it’s suspicious that all cultures have a creation story? Or that there are pre-Christian stories of a god who becomes man? Or that the Egyptian god Horus was a crucified savior?

I mean that when it comes to deciding that a particular miraculous story is literally historically true, it makes it more difficult when very similar stories are common. If, say, god-like beings are born of virgins quite regularly in myth, then it’s not unreasonable to view any claim of virgin birth with suspicion (at least to the extent that the claim is meant in the most literal, historical sense as opposed to being a mode of presenting a spiritual truth).

Let me put it a different way.

The fact that the miracles presented in the Gospels and attributed to Jesus are the same miracles attributed time and again to other figures (both historical and mythical figures), while not evidence that those miracles did or did not ever occur, could lead any individual to reasonably suspect that they simply never happened, but instead were used to tell a truth that is beyond the capacity of ordinary language to tell.

In this sense, the gospels could be seen just as Genesis can be seen, as presenting a familiar story in a new way to present a spiritual rather than an historical truth.

I think Joe Campbell covers this material in Hero With a Thousand Faces. Lord Raglan’s The Hero covers it very explicitly.

 

[PRmerger]

I mean that when it comes to deciding that a particular miraculous story is literally historically true, it makes it more difficult when very similar stories are common. If, say, god-like beings are born of virgins quite regularly in myth, then it’s not unreasonable to view any claim of virgin birth with suspicion (at least to the extent that the claim is meant in the most literal, historical sense as opposed to being a mode of presenting a spiritual truth).

Let me put it a different way.

The fact that the miracles presented in the Gospels and attributed to Jesus are the same miracles attributed time and again to other figures (both historical and mythical figures), while not evidence that those miracles did or did not ever occur, could lead any individual to reasonably suspect that they simply never happened, but instead were used to tell a truth that is beyond the capacity of ordinary language to tell.

In this sense, the gospels could be seen just as Genesis can be seen, as presenting a familiar story in a new way to present a spiritual rather than an historical truth.

I think Joe Campbell covers this material in Hero With a Thousand Faces. Lord Raglan’s The Hero covers it very explicitly.

Quick response. (8 yr old DD is asking me to make her pancakes…)

Do you have a difficult time discerning whether “apples” in a story are mythical or reality?
(See reference to Peter Kreeft quote).

IOW: surely a rational human being can determine what’s a myth and what’s not.

More later!

 

[Jocko_VT]

Quick response. (8 yr old DD is asking me to make her pancakes…)

Do you have a difficult time discerning whether “apples” in a story are mythical or reality?
(See reference to Peter Kreeft quote).

IOW: surely a rational human being can determine what’s a myth and what’s not.

More later!

I have personal experience with apples. I have *no *experience with miracles (by which I mean I’ve never witnessed anything that didn’t not fit with what I recognize as the natural world). At the same time, depending on how it’s presented, the apples could be myth in that they represent something else!

Ha! It’s funny you say “apples.” Was that purposeful? I just Wikid Snow White for an example of a “mythical apple,” and linked to “poison apples” in the article, only to find a lengthy discussion of mythical apples!

I don’t think this is about being rational. Even within the Catholic Church, some people believe in the literalness of the creation story (i.e., it’s literal historical fact), while others recognize that Earth is billions of years old (which makes the Genesis account something other than literal historical fact). I do not believe that reason alone (or at all) will lead anyone to conclude that the virgin birth of Jesus is *not *myth while the virgin births of, for example, Krishna or the Buddha are myth.

Yes, I’d seen your Kreeft citation. It’s true, of course. All I said is that it still makes it suspicious, doesn’t it? That William Tell shot an apple off his son’s head doesn’t mean apples are not real. Of course, I’ve eaten a few apples in my time, and they grow on a few trees on my property. I’ve even seen people shoot apples of others’ heads!! There’s a difference between apples and resurrection or walking on water, though, isn’t there?

 

[Jocko_VT]

However, when arguing with an atheist, you have to meet them where they are, so as arguments go, Pascal’s wager can get one from the very low levels, love of self, love of other because of what they can do for me, to one step up, namely, love of God because of what he can do for me.

I don’t think you’ll get many atheists with this argument. I find the argument off-putting. If anything, it repulses me.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course, I’ve eaten a few apples in my time, and they grow on a few trees on my property. I’ve even seen people shoot apples of others’ heads!! There’s a difference between apples and resurrection or walking on water, though, isn’t there?

But isn’t this an example of begging the question, Jocko?

“I don’t believe in the Creation story because it’s a miracle; I don’t believe in miracles because they aren’t true.”

You are assuming the very thing you’re trying to prove!

At any rate, according to Scripture and many other sources, people actually have experienced miracles, just as you have actually “eaten a few apples in” your time.

(And you’ve actually seen someone shoot apples of others’ heads??? Now, here I am a skeptic and I say, “Nope. Not possible! No one would be that stupid to actually put an apple on his head and let someone near him with a gun!”)

 

[Jocko_VT]

I don’t know if you saw my resources a few pages ago,

I didn’t–came in very late and didn’t take the time to read the whole thread.

but the idea that the Hebrews ripped off another Middle Eastern Culture, or they all follow some basic archetypal template, is numerous decades old and, while once the scholarly consensus, now considered inaccurate.

Well, I don’t have time to read all that material (perhaps if there was a good book on this issue that covers a lot of ground–do you know of one? But I can’t read lengthy information on a computer screen, unfortunately), but what I read didn’t seem to say that exactly.

From: christianthinktank.com/gilgymess.html

“The current situation might be summed up this way: The more a scholar sees borrowing (in the details–not the themes, frameworks, or genre structures), the more it is seen as repudiation–not adoption. I might could graphically illustrate the current situation in a chart:”

SEE CHART

“what borrowing there may be is all rejected, repudiated, or even semi-ridiculed in the Genesis account”

Now, I could have read this all much closer, because it says *much *else, but this part agrees with me exactly. The parallels are not the Hebrews just cutting and pasting and stealing previous theological arguments, but instead, to use the article’s language, rejection and repudiation!

Furthermore, having read Genesis, Gilgamesh, and at least part of Enuma Elish, I don’t need anyone to tell me whether there are or are not parallels–there are!

Karen Armstrong is not a reliable source, while I haven’t read her book I’ve read multiple reviews on it and it’s clear that while she is well-researched she has no professional basis or credentials in OT or NT Or Qur’an Studies.

As someone with a set of credentials (in another academic area) who knows a lot of people with those same credentials and a lot of people without them, that Karen Armstrong lacks professional credentials does not bother me in the least. She may or may not be reliable, but her professional credentials are irrelevant.

I’m not convinced the ChristianThinkTank author is more qualified. His copious citations/quotations are problematic–cut and paste is not useful–perhaps smoother prose with extensive end notes would make it more readable?

I don’t know why you learned that in collage in your OT studies class but it is simply outdated and inaccurate. The creation story is NOT a rip-off or based on a template, PERIOD.

I don’t think what I learned was inaccurate. But I’m willing to be corrected, and will look for some reading material if you’re not aware of anything. Even my Bible says of Gensis 6 that:

Both [the Yahwist and Priestly] sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of the great flooe, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. The latter account, in some respcts remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it.

p. 7, The New Americn Bible, New Catholic Translation Catholic Bible Press

(Mind you, parts of this are from the late 1960s through the early 1980s, so your criticisms may be valid and not incorporated)

I said earlier, I don’t think this is problematic unless you take, for example, Genesis’ Creation and Flood stories and the Tower of Babel to be literal history. I don’t. The Creation story can’t be literal because we know the Earth is very old and that, for example, the order in which different lifeforms appeared on Earth is different from Genesis’ presentations, etc. Likewise, the Flood story isn’t believable as a literal truth. Catholics don’t have to believe this either, as I understand. In fact, to me, these stories are much more meaningful as refutations of earlier theologies/cosmologies.

 

[Jocko_VT]

But isn’t this an example of begging the question, Jocko?

“I don’t believe in the Creation story because it’s a miracle; I don’t believe in miracles because they aren’t true.”

You are assuming the very thing you’re trying to prove!

It’s not really begging the question, I don’t think:

Premise 1: Miracle stories aren’t true in a literal sense.
Premise 2: Genesis Creation story is a miracle story.
Conclusion: Genesis’ Creation story is not true in a literal sense.

But, here I’m being a bit of a smart alec because I always chuckle when people use that logical format!

But, either it is circular, or you just disagree with the premises. Regardless, I’m not trying to prove anything. Either Creation is literally true, or it’s not, but I think it’s completely reasonable to believe that it’s not–and I think the Catholic Church agrees with me.

Furthermore, I don’t feel the need to disprove miracles anymore than I think anyone should feel the need to prove them. It can’t be done, after all. I’d have to see such a thing as, say, a flood that covers every inch of the Earth, or a universe teaming with life created in just 6 days, or a man walking on water and raising the dead, or a sea split in two, to believe they were actual events rather than mysteries that present spiritual truths.

Increasingly, it’s occurring to me that when people ask, for example, “Did God really create the Earth in six days!?!?” or, “Was the Roman soldier’s servant really healed?” or even, “Was the Buddha really born from the right side of his mother?” they have already missed the point. I may be wrong, of course, I freely admit. But most of the arguments over the sorts of things are increasingly meaningless to me, and get in the way of everything that matters.

At any rate, according to Scripture and many other sources, people actually have experienced miracles, just as you have actually “eaten a few apples in” your time.

(And you’ve actually seen someone shoot apples of others’ heads??? Now, here I am a skeptic and I say, “Nope. Not possible! No one would be that stupid to actually put an apple on his head and let someone near him with a gun!”)

I’m aware that there are many sources for miracle stories. There are also many sources for creation myths, and they differ from one another. Also, I know plenty of people who say they see ghosts or UFOs and the like. But, again, there’s a difference between apples and miracles, aren’t there? An important difference is that,right now, if someone comes to my home, I can not only give them an apple, but show them a few trees upon which hang probably 1,000s of green apples. They don’t have to do anything for the apple, or be in a certain mind set, or be open to receiving an apple. In fact, I can take it to them if I know where they are. Not so easily (and I’m being generous) can someone give me a miracle. Miracles don’t grow on trees, after all.

 

[Pieman333272]

Now, I could have read this all much closer, because it says *much *else, but this part agrees with me exactly. The parallels are not the Hebrews just cutting and pasting and stealing previous theological arguments, but instead, to use the article’s language, rejection and repudiation!

If that is your argument, than I agree as well. HOWEVER, if that is your argument, and unless you have some addition to it that the author the CTT lacks, than that really doesn’t do any damage to the idea of God creating the universe or the theological ideas found in Genesis.

Furthermore, having read Genesis, Gilgamesh, and at least part of Enuma Elish, I don’t need anyone to tell me whether there are or are not parallels–there are!

To be clear, I am not disputing that there are similarities. Any two texts in the same genre are BOUND to have similarities of some type. What I’m disputing is:

1. That the similarities are significant, neither being so large they are meaningless nor found in petty details.
2. That this is necessarily an example of the Hebrews ripping off the Canaanites or them sharing a source, not the other way around, a coincidence, or the Hebrews quoting the Canaanites as refutation or source of ridicule. Also, it is possible for events like the flood and Babel, and note I do not take them literally, that both parties reported an event that both of their ancestors saw independently.
3. That this necessarily provides evidence against, or other reason to disbelieve, Genesis.

As someone with a set of credentials (in another academic area) who knows a lot of people with those same credentials and a lot of people without them, that Karen Armstrong lacks professional credentials does not bother me in the least. She may or may not be reliable, but her professional credentials are irrelevant.

I’m not convinced the ChristianThinkTank author is more qualified. His copious citations/quotations are problematic–cut and paste is not useful–perhaps smoother prose with extensive end notes would make it more readable?

I agree you don’t need credentials per se to be right or to write on the topic, but if one, such as Armstrong, has a thesis that clearly contradicts the current consensus and is not built mostly or wholly on professionals’ work (either with alternate interpretation or direct quote/citation), I have reason to doubt them. This is especially the case when the thesis clearly supports a certain agenda. I’m not saying Christians are flawless - numerous popular apologists and commentators commit the same fallacy; nor am I saying that Armstrong should not be considered. I’m saying, there is little reason to believe her thesis on the issue is based on a full study and knowledge.

(Mind you, parts of this are from the late 1960s through the early 1980s, so your criticisms may be valid and not incorporated)

I don’t know exactly when the consensus on the issue changed, but whatever the point, it is known that the NAB has a liberal bias in commentating.

I said earlier, I don’t think this is problematic unless you take, for example, Genesis’ Creation and Flood stories and the Tower of Babel to be literal history. I don’t. The Creation story can’t be literal because we know the Earth is very old and that, for example, the order in which different lifeforms appeared on Earth is different from Genesis’ presentations, etc. Likewise, the Flood story isn’t believable as a literal truth. Catholics don’t have to believe this either, as I understand. In fact, to me, these stories are much more meaningful as refutations of earlier theologies/cosmologies.

I don’t take them as literal myself. But if they ripped off the stories of another culture, and we don’t believe in that culture’s paganism, why should we believe the theology behind our faith, if it is merely a rip-off? That’s the problem. The theology in Genesis still stands if the history doesn’t. But if that theology is just a rip-off, it is meaningless, and we are at a contradiction if we believe it but not Pagansim.

 

[Jocko_VT]

If that is your argument, than I agree as well. HOWEVER, if that is your argument, and unless you have some addition to it that the author the CTT lacks, than that really doesn’t do any damage to the idea of God creating the universe or the theological ideas found in Genesis.

Indeed. I don’t think the question is whether God created the universe, or whether the theological ideas are sound. But, I do think it throws a wrench in the *literal *interpretation of Genesis. Genesis was written not as an historical or scientific text, but as a theological text and a story of the relationship of humans to God. The authors used known myths to make their argument, and the validity of that argument is separate from the historical/scientific validity of the story.

What I’m disputing is:
2) That this is necessarily an example of the Hebrews ripping off the Canaanites or them sharing a source, not the other way around, a coincidence, or the Hebrews quoting the Canaanites as refutation or source of ridicule.

I think it’s definitely a refutation. It’s an intentional use of a well known myth/set of myths to make a point.

Also, it is possible for events like the flood and Babel, and note I do not take them literally, that both parties reported an event that both of their ancestors saw independently.

I don’t believe they were reported independently. I think the Tower of Babel story is a direct response to the Epic of Gilgamesh. I suspect the Noah story is a uniquely Hebrew twist on the flood stories in the Enuma Elish and in Gilgamesh. Yes, the ziggerats were real, and perhaps there was a major local flood, but the stories themselves must be related, I think. They speak to clearly to one another.

I suspect similar devices, like snakes in trees stealing life from men, were just common symbolism.

1. That this necessarily provides evidence against, or other reason to disbelieve, Genesis.

But to believe Genesis in what way? I think it leaves no doubt that Genesis is not to be taken literally. At the same time, I agree that it’s not evidence one way or the other concerning the spiritual truths in Genesis.

I agree you don’t need credentials per se to be right or to write on the topic, but if one, such as Armstrong, has a thesis that clearly contradicts the current consensus and is not built mostly or wholly on professionals’ work (either with alternate interpretation or direct quote/citation), I have reason to doubt them. This is especially the case when the thesis clearly supports a certain agenda.

I’m still not convinced that Armstrong’s argument contradicts consensus, but I’ll look for a book. Her agenda, though, is admirable, at least. She’s pro-myth, pro-god, pro-spirituality, pro-compassion.

I don’t know exactly when the consensus on the issue changed, but whatever the point, it is known that the NAB has a liberal bias in commentating.

Which just goes to show that there’s plenty of latitude for Catholics on this issue, doesn’t it? Anyway, I’m a pretty liberal guy, so I guess it suits me!

I don’t take them as literal myself. But if they ripped off the stories of another culture, and we don’t believe in that culture’s paganism, why should we believe the theology behind our faith, if it is merely a rip-off? That’s the problem. The theology in Genesis still stands if the history doesn’t. But if that theology is just a rip-off, it is meaningless, and we are at a contradiction if we believe it but not Pagansim.

Agreed. I don’t think most atheists, anyway, are saying that the theology is a rip-off, just that the stories themselves are based on early stories that are themselves myths. I think what they’re arguing against are the arguments of some for a literal interpretation of Genesis. And I think, at least in the US, that the non-believers’ argument is only audible because of the push to place things like creationism and intelligent design in public-school classrooms, and to pretend that evolution is not established science. The entire argument goes well beyond theology and religion, and is driven primarily by politics, I think.