I’ll review The Shack later, but I did have a look at the two sites.  Sadly, the everystudent link is pretty weak in the strength of its arguments.  Being the easiest to critique, I thought I’d offer some responses here.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks…all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

A bit of a cheating, to begin with.  The author asks us to accept the premise right from the beginning.  It’s as if she realises that her arguments lack strength from the beginning.  In philosophy, the greatest burden of proof is on the person making the most ontologically positive statement.  Let me borrow an example from Wikipedia:

The reasoning for this argument should be fairly obvious.  It’s far easier to prove than an apple exists in the fruit bowl (all you have to do is present 1 apple), than it is to prove that there are no apples in the fruit bowl (you need to present all the fruit in the bowl and eliminate each as “not an apple”).

In the case, the ontologically positive statement is that “god exists.”  Marilyn would have us begin on the same side of the fence with “God possibly exists,” rather than the opposite position.

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Not really.  This is another version of the famous watchmaker analogy.  If you find a watch lying on the ground, you naturally assume (because of the complexity of the device) that it was created by a watchmaker, not came together of its own accord.  Thus, the argument goes that because human beings and our planet are vastly more complex than a watch, there must be a creator to have created it.

As other have pointed out, this doesn’t answer the question; it only moves it back a level.  If we know from the sheer complexity of humans that there must be a creator, then god must be more complex than we are – so who created god?

There more to that argument on their page, but I’ll save the response to that, because the godandscience.org link presents a much stronger argument for this in the first place.

2. Does God exist? The universe had a start – what caused it?

Marilyn’s main argument here is “The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.”  This is poorly argued.  Just because science does not have an answer (I would add “yet” here, since we are currently studying this), does not mean that god did it.

3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Here, Marilyn goes into an argument from wishful thinking.  “How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?”  She doesn’t present an answer; we are to naturally come to the same conclusion she did.  Me, I’d rather go looking to see if I can find out why it’s so orderly and reliable.

4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell’s behavior.

Back to the watchmaker analogy.  See my response to point 1 above.

5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Now we move into an argument from wishful thinking, and a failure of logic.  We know that god exists because he’s pursuing us?  Pursuit pre-supposes existence.  You know what?  First establish existence, then you can go into pursuit.  Her argument here that that because we focus so much on it, that’s proof that it exists.  Preposterous.

You know why we focus on it?  Because it affects us in negative ways.  Because we have people in America standing in the way of things like gay marriage, based on their understandings of religious doctrine.  Because we have paedophilic priests who use the institutions of church and religion of cover up and escape from justice.  Because we have things like women who have been raped who are then tried for the crime of being raped and are stoned to death under religious law.  Great evil is done in the name of religion.  If it were all sweetness and light, then I wouldn’t care about it.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Okay, here we go.  Firstly, there is no proof that a person named Jesus ever existed.  Most of the stories about him can also be found attributed to other deific figures in other religions.  Look at Krishna, from Hinduism:

• Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
• Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
• Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
• Krishna’s adoptive human father was a carpenter.
• A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
• Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
• Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
• Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura.
• Both Jesus and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
• Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.”
• Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.”
• Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.”
• Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
• Both were “without sin.”
• Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
• They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
• Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.”
• Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
• Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
• Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
• Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
• Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
• Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Given that Krishna was reportedly born around 3200ish BCE, and Jesus is traced to well, 1 CE, and that the early Christians were known to steal from other religions to spread their own (look up December 25 and the Roman Holiday Saturnalia), and it’s far more reasonable to say that details from Krishna’s life were attributed to Jesus rather than the other way around.

In a nutshell, it asks the question: how can heaven be heaven if we know our loved ones are in hell?  There’s a lot of supposition and guesswork in there – hell, it’s ALL guesswork when it comes to the supposed afterlife, but it’s a piece designed to make you think, and it did that for me.

Link: http://www.smh.com.au/world/childtrafficking-accused-claim-innocence-as-trial-awaits-20100202-n97o.html

Where have we seen this before?  Have we learned nothing from history?  Isn’t this pretty much the same thing that happened with the missionaries of the Age of Discovery?  What about the Stolen Generation?

There’s an inherent sense of superiority I see in here that irks me.  I don’t know why.  Could it be a case of simple lack of forethought?  Even if the parents of these children had died in the quake (which is disputed quite strongly, if you read the article), surely they had extended family.  They’d certainly be better off with grandparents, uncles, even cousins than with a random family full of people they don’t know.

So is this sinister, or very very badly misguided?  I don’t know.  Make up your own mind.  Just think very carefully and do your homework before giving money to relief funds.  Doing research on the funds is harder than just giving and hoping for the best, but honestly, if they deserve your money, don’t you think they deserve as much attention as well?