My point was that the sort of belief Madnak was referring to has no bearing on one's character.

I think the belief in Hell does, to some extent.

I don't think that most Christians actually endorse the idea of eternal torture, and they distance themselves from it whenever confronted, so to me it's a small issue. But if someone sincerely believed in the justice of such an idea, that would concern me.

I think Collins quickly goes from genius to idiot when talking about religion, but I don't see much to be concerned about with this choice.

Who said that he (or anyone) desires this state of affair? Again, realizing a natural outcome means nothing. Just as Aaron pointed out about a doctor that believes death is the most like outcome should not be seen as a bad thing.

The Book of Revelation and its interpretation as a literal sequence of events.

If death were not inevitable, then some of the decisions doctors make on the basis of death being inevitable would be disastrous, yes. And I would prefer a researcher who believes that we can eventually live long enough to live forever (whether in this lifetime or not).

But the human organism has a tendency to decay, whereas scientific knowledge does not. And the goal of a doctor is more to maintain good health as long as possible than to improve health per se. There is no "progress" in the treatment of a human being, if I go to a physical and am in tip-top shape my physician will not discuss with me how I can be even better, he'll just send me home until my next physical. The NIH mission is about continual and consistent improvement, and someone who is trying to hold us in stasis is doing great harm in terms of that goal.

It is if you believe God created nature.

But we know that, according to evangelical Christianity, God does not have to destroy anyone or judge anyone or punish anyone, that's not a "natural consequence," it's a decision of God. It is described in the Bible as God's "justice," and in terms of his literally dividing those who make the grade on one side and those who need to be tormented and then destroyed on the other according to his personal judgment. It's a scenario I've had nightmares about. (Wouldn't it be nice if God had saved the torment for after I'm dead?)

And yes, if you believe this is "just," more just than God creating a pocket universe for each "tainted" soul and letting them have some relief there (when we're dealing with human beings, I generally prefer quarantine to destruction - maybe we should tell doctors that destruction is more appropriate), then I think that implies you consider it desirable. The alternative would be that justice is not desirable, and if you want to go down that path we can, but I doubt you will.

It should if the doctor is in charge of helping the person live forever. If he disagrees with the basic goal of treatment and thinks it is a hopeless endeavor, then he should not try to be in charge of that treatment - even if it does give him money and fame.

Can you cite evidence that he believes this text to be a future prophecy intended to be interpreted as a literal seqeuence of events?

What is the importance of this belief with respect to executing the mission of the NIH?

What evidence do you have to support this accusation?

He's an Evangelical. He believes in the Fall and in Adam and Eve. I don't need any greater evidence that he also believes in the end times, the Rapture, and so on.

Death is a medical problem facing everyone. Someone who believes that everyone must die is unlikely to provide much support for research on ending death by natural causes.

I'm showing why your analogy is not valid. If his approach to medical research is the same as a doctor's approach to patient death, then he will be disastrous. I would hope that he at least expects some short-term improvement, but he's not even in full support of stem-cell research. There is no way in hell he can really support medical innovation and progress as we already know that he supports restricting some of that progress on the basis of his personal opinions.

Have you read anything by Collins madnak?

How do you know he personally takes a literal interpretation of the End Times?

He doesn't take a fundamentalist interpretation of evolution. He's in the theistic evolution camp.

God did not chose a set of arbitrary rules and then force everyone to follow them "or else". God, as the creator of life, knows how life works. He has revealed to us what it takes to maintain life, as well as warned us what causes us to lose life. You assume that things could be different and that every path can lead to life and that God just arbitrarily chose to make it difficult. That is just not the case (at least with the God that is revealed in the bible). God wishes that all are saved and that none should perish.

I don't think that this would be better. But it really depends on what your view on this pocket universe is, and also what your view on the natural consequence of sin is. I do not believe that it is possible that certain people even if allowed to live forever could ever be in a better situation then destruction.

Well, personally if I had a terminal illness that was causing me excruciating pain and it was only going to get worse, and there was no possibility of getting better, I would much rather be put out of my misery.

I don't see how you think this follows.

You would trust a doctor that thought he could make you live forever? Wouldn't that make you a little nervous? Do you think that because doctors right now who believe that everyone will die, actually work less hard to make life as good as possible?

Do you believe that someone who devoted their life to science, would think that it is a waste of time? Because that is exactly what you are implying. I find this absurd.

You believe that God is both omnipotent and the creator of everything. If there are "rules" about life, then yes, God did choose them. They may not have been chosen "arbitrarily," but you are suggesting that God chose them - out of all the infinite possible sets of rules he could have chosen.

Now, you can ask me to believe that in all those infinite sets of possible rules, none of them resulted in a better outcome than this - a hellhole world, followed by torment and then destruction for a large proportion and paradise for everyone else.

But let's not forget that God is described as personally making the choices, as personally judging people, and sending them to torment, wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc etc etc.

What about free will? I thought everyone had a chance at salvation, and that all they had to do was choose with their free will to accept God. Now are you claiming that some people are predetermined not to accept God ever? I mean, given an infinite span of time, it stands to reason that everyone would eventually choose God, as long as they have free will and there is a non-zero likelihood of their doing so at any given moment.

If there are some people who could not possibly experience anything better than destruction, then why did God create them in the first place? And why didn't God create humanity such that everyone can eventually choose to accept him? Why create a humanity such that some people have absolutely zero chance? Is this another case where your all-powerful God had no choice?

You say that now, but research shows that you would probably change your mind if it happened. Most terminally ill patients, even those in excruciating pain who go through a suicidal period, ultimately make some kind of peace and report a sense of contentment.

But there are numerous problems with this. First, I would love to be put out of my misery. But it would be better not to have ever been born. If there is absolutely no chance that I will achieve anything better than destruction, then I should not have been created in the first place. Perhaps the cruelest move of God, if such a being exists, is forcing us into existence in the first place.

Second, the Bible doesn't just talk about destruction. It makes clear mention of suffering and torment and regret and so on. You aren't just talking about God destroying people, you're talking about God torturing them and then destroying them. How could it possibly do anyone any good for these people to suffer before being destroyed? Yes, putting them out of their misery would be far more merciful than dragging them through the "punishments" for how they've lived only to then destroy them.

And very few people claim to want destruction - if those are the only people destroyed, it's not so bad, but this is not what the Bible seems to suggest. People who want to live, who enjoy living, are going to be destroyed. Now, God could just make a Matrix-like world for these people, or just make a separate world for each of them, populated by automatons, or probably do something much better than I can think of. Provide them with the sustained existence they want to have, the sustained existence that makes them happy. But instead you are suggesting that God will destroy these people who don't want to be destroyed.

God could choose to be merciful instead of "just," and not torment these people. Would you prefer that? If so, then you disagree with God. If not, then it sounds like you have a preference for the nasty outcome, because you think that outcome is "just."

If Aubrey de Grey were to get his research off the ground, and it were successful, no it wouldn't make me nervous in the least. And yes, I think doctors would largely show more concern for patients if they believed those patients would live. I think when a patient is dying, there is some tendency in the medical community to distance from that patient, often to the patient's detriment.

I don't believe he considers science a waste of time. I do believe that he is very much capable of harming scientific progress. I also suspect that he is more motivated by ego than by a passion for the work itself, and his obsession with genomics as the tool to find God's master plan is irrational and not conducive to effective scientific inquiry. I don't think he is attracted to science because he believes it can make the world a good place to live for everyone. I don't think he believes the world can be a good place to live for everyone. I think he is attracted to science because he ascribes a kind of mystical quality to it, and I think part of the reason his own scientific perspective only scratches the surface is that he feels it's more important to preserve his sense of God in science than it is to accept the truth, lumps and all.

Isn't the atheist approach to Collins inconsistent when you contrast the position they take on Dawkins?

So Collins holds personal beliefs. So what? Everyone holds personal beliefs. He's the guy that put science in the driver's seat and mapped the genome at a phenomenal rate of speed. Without his intellect and methodologies the Human Genome Project would probably still be snailing along.

Richard Dawkins holds opinions and second rate philosophical ones at that and nobody questions his science and tons of philosophers say his philosophical stances are weak. Yet everyone thinks his work on evolution is quite good.


I don't think you have to have a first rate philosophical mind to be a first rate scientist. There are very few Renaissance men that are qualified in all disciplines.

I am not suggesting that God chose them at all. But that the exist inexplicably as part of God. So it is not that it could have been "this" way instead of "that" way. There was not any other way that it could be.

It amazes me that you always consider the state of the world to be solely God's fault. It could have been different, as people could have chosen to make it different.

I don't think that this is the case. I think that there are a lot of hints around the bible that would seem to say God punishes passively, not actively. Oh, and gnashing of teeth denotes anger, not pain.

What? How did you get that from my post. This is not what I was saying at all. I am very much against the idea of predestination.

I am not saying that certain people as in specific, but as in once anyone got to a point where they were no longer able to accept God's love that they would be in a place where it could not possibly be better than destruction. In other words, the natural consequence, if one was allowed to exist, would be so bad that a loving God must allow them to be destroyed.

I have more to say, but work calls, be back later.

what makes you think this?

Argument by caricature and ignorance isn't very powerful.

Huh?

It's possible that the pursuit of human cloning will result in medical/scientific innovation. Does this make the pursuit of human cloning a worthwhile pursuit, and if so should the director of the NIH lobby to influence international policy to allow human cloning?

It is a dangerous path when the any community decides that the ends justify the means.

But this is not what I have said. there is a chance that you can have eternal life in paradise. Now if you were talking about the God of Calvinism, then I would agree wholeheartedly that said God is not loving.

It is really hard for me to comment on what may or may not happen after death and what exactly the purpose is. But you continue to use words like "torture" as if God is punching some guy in the face simply because he wants to. That may be your version of God, but not mine, and I contend that is not the God of the bible either.

There could be a state after death that must be gone through. Just as life must be gone through. But you don't bother to leave that as a possibility...

What I am saying is that once someone is so far down the path away from God, that the natural consequence of their choices will lead them to a state in which they would not want to continue to exist.

I would agree, if it were God doing the active punishment of these people, and that there was a true choice in God's part to not punish them. But that is not what I believe.

From things he wrote in his book describing the mapping effort.

How could people have chosen to make the tsunami in 2004 which killed >200,000 people not occur?

wtf, biggest non-sequitur ever? this is, by definition, what evangelical christians believe.

Whose definition are you using? Is there some "evangelical Christian council" that defines the theology of all evangelical Christians?

lol is that where you think definitions come from?

hint: there is no official council for definitions of any words, but that doesn't stop us from having them

You've described a broad category of persons to all have a specific theological position "by definition." Your "definition" is about as good as defining all Mexicans (Italians, whatever) to be Roman Catholic.

The following is about to happen:

1. Aaron will proceed to define evangelical Christianity as broadly as possible.

2. You will proceed to refer to what you believe to be the most commonly used definition.

3. Aaron will cite other possible definitions or simply reference their existence.

4. Repeat with different verbiage.

/argument with Aaron.

there's nothing in the definition of "Mexican" that indicates having to be catholic, however part of the definition of "evangelical christian" is a literal interpretation of the jesus storyline. blah blah meow cheow i'm asserting this but i'm not going to spend 20 posts explaining my whole reasoning while you nitpick the definition of "definition" so if you disagree, tell me what your definition of "evangelical" is or just don't respond plz.