'We'd be better off without religion'

Richard Dawkins was among the speakers at the debate sponsored by The Times and organised by Intelligence Squared at Westminster Central Hall in London last night. More details on The Times Faith Page, and you can also listen to the podcast. There is also an entertaining blog just up, summarising this post and some of the comments.

It was apparently sold out, even though I counted  more than 100 empty seats behind my front row on the side where I sat in glorious near-solitude, with one person to the right of me and none behind or to the left. This was only after I managed to squeeze past the slightly scary but fortunately very thin security guard barring the door and telling me there were no empty seats. I was barely able to see any of the speakers but I was at least able to hear them. And this was a debate sponsored by The Times! I'm telling you this just to prove that my employers are so fair-minded as to make sure conditions are such that no special treatment, reserved seating, pre-debate drinks, anything of that sort, could possibly influence their own staff to write a report prejudiced in favour of an event they've sponsored. And it worked. By the time the debate actually got going, I have to confess I was feeling pretty cross. I was looking forward to getting more fuel for my crossness from Richard Dawkins and going home in a right old temper to take it out on this blog.

But to my sorrow, Dawkins thwarted this intent.

The motion was: 'We'd be better off without religion.' On his side were Professor AC Grayling and Christopher Hitchens. Against were Baroness Julia Neuberger, Professor Roger Scruton and Nigel Spivey. The incomparable Joan Bakewell was in the chair. At these debates, styled along the lines of Oxford and Cambridge debates but disappointingly less hecklesome, a vote is taken at the start and another at the end.

The first vote was 826 votes for the motion, 681 against and 364 don't knows. By the end, the voting was 1,205 for the motion, 778 against and 100 don't knows. And would you know, so thrown into confusion was I by being almost convinced of the case by Dawkins that I actually voted for the motion at the end. Is God - I have no doubt that such a being exists at least - trying to tell me something I wonder?

The debate was not about the existence of God. It was about religion. But none of the speakers gave a proper definition of religion, not even those arguing in its favour, thus handing the opponents a gift. In addition, all the speakers for the motion spoke without a script. All those against it read from notes or a script. Keith Porteous Wood and Terry Sanderson from the National Secular Society sat in the 'congregation', grinning. 

At one point, when he was speaking, Dawkins seemed suddenly to realise that religion had not been defined in the terms of the debate, and that therefore its definition was up for the taking, and therefore religion could perhaps be broadened to include all kinds of things that he quite aproved of, such as worship of the scientific glories of the universe, or of the beauties of complex mathematical equations. He visibly faltered and a look of shock fleetingly passed across his face as he felt the pull of temptation towards this rational black hole. He quickly recovered. It was 'odd of God', though, that with the exception of Hitchens, they all seemed to veer half the time towards arguing for the opposing side. And I'm not sure I'd ever want Hitchens on the side of religion.

Nigel Spivey, who teaches classical art and archaeology at Cambridge and Rabbi Neuberger were particularly anxious to emphasise their non-religious credentials. Julia repeatedly emphasised that she was so liberal as to be almost near to dropping off the edge, and Spivey likewise was keen to make sure we knew he was not one bit religious himself. Oh no. He was just enormously appreciative of the enormous contribution that religion had made to art and archaeology. The religious instinct was an intrinsic part of human nature, he said. It was either there because it was necessary for survival, in a Darwinian sense, or because it was an ineradicable side-product of some other essential gene. I felt here that I was a bit like a monkey, still in thrall to this strange religious gene, and Spivey was a zoo keeper, observing the phenomenon and its benefits. He had evolved to the point where he was aloof to it all himself, but he was happy to nurture and acknowledge it, especially when usefully caged in the prism of arts and architecture. Spivey actually opened the debate on the side of religion! I knew then we'd lost it. 

Professor Scruton was the best for religion. I could have listened to him for hours. Central Hall is of course a place of Methodist worship and several of the speakers seemed to have long links with it. Rabbi Julia had been taken there for synagogue worship. It was used as the overflow by the West London Synagogue on festivals and highholydays. She described fasting during Yom Kippur and long services at Central Hall, having to smell the odour of fish and chips floating up through the wooden floorboards from the cafe below.

Scruton likewise had been introduced to Methodism at an early age by his father. 'When it crossed his mind that he could not bring his kids up totally without religion, he looked for the gloomiest chapel he could find and it was the Methodist chapel. We were sent there every Sunday and he did not attend. It had a profound effect on me.' His rebellion was to bunk off chapel, and secretly attend the nearby Anglican church instead. 'This was totally unrelated to the fact that there was a very attradtive girl there in a white makintosh. That was my first encounter with a transcendental religious experience.'

That's the thing that its opponents will never understand about religion. As this blog bears witness, so much of its appeal is that it is actually about drives and instincts related to love - love for our fellow humans as well as for the transcendent.

In a debate redolent with platitudes, Scruton was the least platitudinous, in spite of lecturing us on why Plato got it wrong in his Republic. Arguing on rational grounds that a society would be better off without religion was like arguing that society would be better off without love, he said. And as we all know, love is frequently irrational. He did not deny that there were wrong ways of pursuing the religious quest. But there was nothing irrational in looking for what is sacred. It was part of the human condition to search for meaning.

Hitchens, I thought, almost lost it for the anti-religionists when he interrupted Rabbi Julia with a vituperative: 'How dare you!' as she was speaking. She had been casting aspersions about the sensibilities of atheists. Joan Bakewell quieted the beast and reason took hold once more. And soon it became clear that the pro-religionists did not have a hope, given the calibre of Dawkins and Grayling.

ACGrayling, whose new book is called Against all Gods, was philosophic. By that I mean quick of tongue and logic. His mind at one point went too fast for his tongue and he lost me. But I got one paragraph down that contained the thrust of his argument: 'You do not need supernatural agencies or religion or scriptures to explain the fact that human beings are capable of good and that most of the good in the world has come from that source and not from some alleged supernatural source.'

Not surprisingly, Dawkins had no difficulty at all destroying Spivey's argument. I suspect that they are in fact on the same side. 'Speak for yourself,' he said about the allegation that the religious gene is in us all. 'It is not a part of me. It is not a part of the great majority of my friends in universities in England and the US and elsewhere.' (Dear Dr Dawkins, that's because you and your academic friends are all 'zoo keepers' in the Spivey sense. Spivey wasn't talking about 'people like you'! He was talking about people like me.) And as for Spivey's point that religion had given us the Sistine Chapel and other similar great works, Dawkins correctly pointed out that great artists painted about religion because the Church had the money to pay them. Even Hitchens was right to to note that every brick of St Peter's was paid for by a special indulgence.

It is strange how Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion and Channel 4's Root of All Evil programme, came over as an angry man. Because he is not at all like that in the flesh. Especially when seated next to someone like Hitchens.

'There are very good grounds to believe there is no actual truth in the claims of religion. I rather liken it to a child with a dummy in its mouth. I do not think it a very dignified or respect-worthy posture for an adult to go around sucking a dummy for comfort,' said Dawkins, perpetuating a common but gross misunderstanding of why people need religion. Some of us, I suspect quite a lot, are not religious for comfort. It is because we need to be battered, reduced, to have our monstrous egos squashed so we can control them properly. Speaking entirely for myself here of course.

Dawkins also compared giving children a religious education to erecting in their minds a firewall against scientific truth, rather like a computer firewall against viruses. He was particularly upset about a well-known Christian geologist who had abandoned his science when it became clear it was not compatible with a literal reading of the Bible. 'He said that even if all the evidence in the world pointed against creationism, he would still be a creationist because that is what the word of God pointed him to.' Well I'd be upset if my son became a creationist but there is no chance of that, not in the Church of England at least.

Dawkins did not have to work very hard to win the argument last night. His problem is that he takes religion too literally, and as many have pointed out, is too fundamentalist about his own atheistic creed. Apart from that fleeting moment of doubt I spotted, we are all creationists in his eyes. But I hope I might have the opportunity to explore some of these areas in an interview with him soon. I'll still be using in in my mind the nickname I have adopted for him: 'Mobius Dick.' But after last night I accept that Dr Dawkins does have more than two sides to his soul, more that two dimensions to his spirit. He just doesn't know it... yet.

(Update: Dawkins, who celebrated his birthday recently, has called me to reassure me there was no 'moment of doubt' whatsoever. More soon I hope.)

 

Comments

[Shiro OTA]

I think what the blogger may be mistaking about Professor Dawkins is that he has some childish vendetta against religion - understood to encompass all the myriad contradictory definitions we give it nowadays. Rather, Dawkins opposes religion proper - that is: religion as belief based on faith. And 'faith' is to be understood as a belief devoid of; or contrary to, the evidence.

When understood in this way, it's clear to see how Dawkins and other atheists like myself can retain all the good of religion (the rituals; the ethics*; the community; the wonder) while exempting ourselves of the anti-reason and progress-hindrance (to say nothing of the violence and unethical activity that is justified by the particular religions we're currently enthral to). I'm unaware whether or not you have read Dawkins' writing (I assume you have since you say he sounds angry, I don't recall noticing this myself), but he does go to great lengths to explain this in his book (The God Delusion), and the same idea is heavily elaborated on by the superb Sam Harris in his 'The End of Faith'.

(*There are plenty of ethical systems that require no reference to the supernatural, and, being modifiable by reason, are able to progress - rule utilitarianism for example)

Moreover, I think you have mistaken Dawkins' position on God. He is not CERTAIN there is no God in the sense of saying that its non-existence could not possibly be otherwise (as with logical facts such as '2+2=4', or 'a=a') - to be so would be to commit the same error as the religious people he is arguing against. Rather, as with all scientific positions, he is holding to the theory that is most highly probable (as he is with water being H2O; or evolution; or gravity; or his having hands). In the same way that you, I'm sure, are an afairyist (without being certain that there are no fairies), Dawkins is an atheist.

Religious 'moderates' present religion in a way that is hard to fathom. On the one hand they insist that it makes no comment scientifically or philosophically (used in the academic sense). They insist that it can progress; and that it is an entirely personal thing that makes no call on its followers to push it on others. But on the other hand, they're fully aware that it is a set in stone dogmatic doctrine (including myriad orders on how to live one's life, as well as how to treat those who don't comply); they suggest it gives an objective moral grounding; and that it can provide meaning; that it answers the 'why' questions; that it opens one's eyes to some spiritual sense that apparently atheists are lacking (I very much doubt it, but who knows); and that it's legitimate to feed it to one's children as something other than fairytale. It seems that such 'moderates' understand religion both in an entirely non-objective sense - like a favourite story book that brings the benefits of comfort and community etc., AND in an objective sense as something that can legitimately define morality; or meaning; or purpose to the universe. It's no good to reply that it doesn't insist on this objectivity, only that its followers 'subjectively' find these things in it, since in order to work; the followers would have to at least be attributing some semblance of objectivity to its claims: it's no good suggesting the benefit of your religion is that it gives you an objective moral code that nevertheless you're fully aware you're only following because of its compliance with your personal whim (and would alter if your personal preferences changed - isn't that what theists erroneously insist us atheists do?).

Whatever the case, if such moderates genuinely are not harming anybody else (including their kids), and genuinely would not stand in the way of moral progress; or science; or philosophy (reason) - then Dawkins would take no issue with them. His complaint is that they shield, propagate and glorify the frankly monstrous notion of 'faith'. Often theists like to point out that there have been secular fascists; secular dictatorships etc., but such observations are not genuine challenges to Dawkins position. Such regimes come about, and are sustained by, a 'faith' in their righteousness and the glory of those upholding them - they are just as shielded from reason as religious faiths and as such, are just as condemnable. Pointing out that humans are naturally prone to faith is no more a defence of it than pointing out that we're naturally prone to lust as a defence of rape. If there are parts of human nature that are damaging, they must be contained if society is to prosper. Faith is the enemy, not ritual; nor beauty; nor art; nor any other beautiful thing that has in the past been linked to religion.

Fundamentally, Dawkins' point is that religion brings a hell of a lot of bad, which it continues to be able to generate as its evils are not argued (and therefore vulnerable to reasoned counter-argument) but held on faith (thereby making them immune to reason), and that what good it does bring is entirely available from non-faith sources (the wonder from science and philosophy; the ethics from reason; the ritual from... well, non-religious rituals like carnivals etc., the community from non-religious communities, and so on). As such, he suggests we push faith and the religions that feed off it aside, as we have with other negative human activities we've upheld in the past (as well as all the parts of the bible and other religious books we now find too detestable to uphold - I wonder what ethical standards they could possibly have been conflicting with given that religion is the only source of morality).

Presenting Dawkins' position otherwise than here-in only serves to demonstrate that one either (1): has not read/understood his writing and is therefore unaware of his genuine position, or (2): is unable to earnestly respond to what he has said and therefore must resort to ad hominem attacks against him.

If you're a freethinker, in any sense of the word, he's not the enemy.

[Ken. Houston Scotland.]

I just can't help thinking, when I read anything to do with the bible, the story that came from world war one when the command given at the outset was,"send reinforcements we're going to advance" only to get to the end of the line and be given as, "send three and fourpence we're going to a dance" Given the time involved regarding the storys in the bible, the mind boggles at how they must have started out. How anyone in this day and age with a reasonable level of intelligence can take any of it seriously beggars belief.

[Christopher]

Jim, you are no doubt right about current scholarly thinking on the authorship of the gospels and I have no doubt people like NT Wright would have to agree. But here's a question that those of us who are not so informed about scriptural origins can still apply our brains to. It is set out on YouTube as "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

Also for Ian who raised the question of Dawkins's reference to the Sodom story, perhaps Dawkins is a bit out of date if he thinks the Sodom story is about homosexuality. I am sure Irene will agree with me that the Jews have never interpreted the story in that way and since these scriptures are theirs before anyone else's I think Christians and Muslims might take on board what the rabbis have to say on the interpretation. What the men of Sodom wanted to do was to humiliate the outsiders (the angels). By anally raping them they would have subverted the angels' masculinity (if angels have that). This is the point of rape - it is as much about control and theft of identity as it is about sexual pleasure.

Indeed if the angels had complied it would have taken away the point. When Lot offered his daughters he showed that he was complicit in what the men of Sodom wanted to do, but at the same time he recognised he had a 'higher' duty to protect the sexuality of his guests (because they were guests demanding his protection whereas his daughters were his property for him to dispose of? Or was it because men's sexuality is more valuable than women's so raping a man is more terrible than raping a woman? I think I heard the late Lord Longford say something dangerously like it when he said that if a man of 16 has sex with a man he is ruined for life but for a 16-year old girl it is just unfortunate.)

In the uncannily parallel story set in Gibeah found in the book of Judges, a certain Levite and his concubine find themselves looking for accommodation in the town square. They are eventually taken in by an old man. As in Sodom, so in Gibeah, once night falls the men of the city come clamouring at the door demanding that the old man bring his guests out that they may 'know' them. The old man offers his own daughter and the Levite's concubine, but like the men of Sodom the men of Gibeah really wanted to rape a male since that would emphasise their own patriarchal and heterosexist status and teach the despised foreign males who was boss. Playing the role of inserter did not impugn one's heterosexuality in the cultural mores of the time any more than it does now in Mediterranean shame culture. (Schmitt in Sexuality and Eroticism among Males in Moslem Societies has remarked that in Middle Eastern society 'it is the right of men and their duty to lie on top' and that 'sodomisation of one's slaves or of a Christian is not only sanctioned by public opinion, but some jurists as well'.) The man who is raped or who willingly undergoes penetration is entirely compromised and loses his heterosexual status because he has been treated like a woman (forcibly or volitionally does not seem to matter much). This shows that in both stories the citizens are about marking out the foreigner as 'other' and to demean him to a less than human status by the standard of compulsory heterosexuality. In the Gibeah story there are no angels to save the day, so the Levite grabs his concubine and shoves her out to save himself. The men rape her all night and she is discovered dead or dying on the doorstep in the morning. The Levite cut her body into twelve pieces (did he kill her or was she dead already?) and sent them throughout Israel. Both stories are about mob-rape, yet rape only gets to take place at Gibeah, where there is no divine retribution only a war instigated by humans. Sodomy is named for the would-be crime instigated at Sodom but Gibeahy (where a crime did occur) has not been coined for the mob-rape of the concubine. We may well ask ourselves why, but in the meantime for a fascinating discussion of how this biblical myth became one of the foundational myths of Christian homophobia it is worth reading Michael Carden's Sodomy: A History of a Christian Biblical Myth. So, the wickedness of the Sodomites wasn't because they were gay; quite the reverse, in fact.

[jim, sydney]

The gospels are not based on purely historical facts. There are scholars who highlight that the gospels are not four independent accounts penned by disciples or witnesses of Jesus, and that such an idea has been unsustainable for over a century. The gospels are biased novellas. They are designed to tell a tale about Jesus as Christ and Messiah, and as such outline a moral code from a prophet, and set out to record a story which supports his divinity. All 4 gospels are based on Mark, which itself has been said to have been written outside Palestine in a Greek-speaking environment. It seems to be based on the lost document Q, which was likely based on an oral story of the first century about a Jesus, who maybe, possibly or probably (and which of these is the case is unknown) lived in the early 1st century or earlier. Who he really was, and what his life really involved, is speculation.
Understandably, established Christian Churches shows little enthusiasm for telling people that what has always been taught as literal truth should now be discarded. The very earliest Christian records from Paul and others entertained a dramatically different picture of Jesus from that which we have long uncritically accepted from the gospels. These earliest witnesses to Christianity consistently and independently fail to corroborate, and often actually contradict, what we assume from the gospels.
Whether the gospels are over 95% mythical legend, or less, is unknown, but they are known by all honest scholars to not be historically accurate. I and many qualified scriptural scholars believe they are much more myth than fact. If the miracles, virgin conception, angels, old testament prophesy fulfillments and resurrection were embellishments, as common sense suggests, then the gospels are by extrapolation flawed, inaccurate and suspect in everything else they say. There may be a few facts, but they are not integral to the storyline or aims of the authors.

[Stephen Chin]

What's all this fuss about? Man is a child at heart. When adult he still needs to hold on to the hand of a parent. So he created God.

[Ian]

In 'the God delusion' Mr Dawkins talks about the men of Sodom wanting to and insisting on buggering someones house-guest. Mr Dawkins also talks of how the house-holder ofers up a virginal member of his house to appease the sodomites lust.
In the Revelation of St. John it states that Jesus was crucified in 'Sodom & Egypt', but he wasn't put to death by Homosexuals or pharoahs was he?
The Bible is a spiritual book and the likes of RD have no clue as to what it means, they know less than the priests they condemn.
A sodomite is a religious individual whose custom it is, to force his traditions upon all who enter his city
An egyptian is pilate, or those men who sit as rulers in goverment and rule according to men's will, today we call them politicians.
Dawkins is a sodomite, he has his atheist religion and he wants to ram it down everyones neck

[Ken. Houston Scotland.]

In a hundred years or so people will look back at our time and laugh at the nonsense of religion and the harm it did. Pathetic weak minded and easily led will be how they would describe us. It's a pity I won't be around because the world will be a much safer place.

[Ehsan]

I am a fan of Professor Scruton.

Bearing in mind that the whole universe is a Book written by a masterly pen,and thinking about the Chaos,the curling smokes in the darkness,the last Explosion,the two Couples,the forbidden tree,the skies,the winds designed to carry seeds in order to plant some new trees wherein no human can put them in the earth,the soft breeze making you fresh and make you cry of joy or sorrow,the tears itself,the complex anatomy of both humans and animals,the moon,the sun and their transitions to make us sleep and to wake us to work…
we will realize that all of them are lines of a poetic fiction tended to make us think.however,since human beings are relative in both knowledge and thought,that is,they can not reach the borders of truth by their own thoughts and brains,(nonetheless I do not deny the power of human thought,I just say it is relative)the intelligent designer or the master writer determined to send some interpreters for his book.that is all.and Religions(some human-made,some ethereal and transcendental)was born.
all I can say is that reading about the debate I remembered lines of a poem by Simon Armitage:
You`re beautiful because you believe in coincidence and the power of thought/ I`m ugly because I proved God (or here ,Religion) to be a mathematical impossibility.
The very subject of the debate,and the true answers to problem of Religion,leads us to some philosophical question about Life and Death,...

[alan]

The fact is, believers, that although you can think up a god, give him all the attributes you wish, let him say what you want to hear and make him promise to reward you with afterlife etc.etc.etc., nevertheless, when you die, your god dies with you - why? BECAUSE HE ONLY EXISTS IN YOUR MIND. (Or do you think Zeus and Thor really existed except in their believers' minds?)

[jim rogers, sydney]

So Mohammed, you believe God deliberately kills? Strange vile God.
Good and evil are adjectives, and pertain only to human, not animal behaviour. (Though you seem to attribute evil to God as well!)
Moral development commenced before religion (see other explanations in my long posting May 3rd.)

[Richard Steel]

The arguments that condemn religion to be the source of a multitude of evils are generally fallacious. Some of the most evil despots and dictators the world has ever seen were atheist, Stalin and Mao being two notable examples. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, and forgive them. That doesn't sound like the fuel that lights fundamentalist fires of visceral hatred, carnage and murderous mayhem does it? Moreover, there is very compelling evidence for Jesus providing veracity for God from both a historical and contemporary perspective.

[Mohammed]

Humans before religion can be compared with dinosaurs before meteorites (savage cannibals, living without purpose). If humans go back to their savage ways, they'd also be next on Gods extinct list.

[luke]

Jonathan, Revelations is the nuttiest book in the bible, and written for schizophrenics and lunatics

[jim rogers, sydney, australia]

JP Walsh should read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The Extended Phenotype and Unweaving The Rainbow.
Then he'd understand his blog is rubbish, as he doesn't understand Dawkins' explanation of genes and evolution.
Peter, read those, and you'll be a wiser man....

[don]

a true understanding of franklin and freedom would end the debate

[Joshua]

Kamal, I agree. And what a brilliant list of thinkers!

[Kamal]

The organisers of stuff like these really need to get eminent conservative Christian philosophers, scientists and theologians -- like Alvin Plantinga, Francis Collins and N Thomas Wright -- to participate in these discussions.

[Jonathan harvey]

The word hell by the way is discribed in the Bible, for a shallow grave,not a place of firey torment where people go after death,the interpretation was put apon this word was to frighten people with supperstitious nonsense.Hell was therefore translated for the words Hades, and She'ol, both means the common grave of mankind thats all.

[Jonathan harvey]

religions record down through the centuries has been one of apalling blood shed,this has not gone unoticed by God who will shortly call to account in the near futre her conduct, by using the political elements of this system to bring her down fall.The book of Revelations chapter 17 and 18,describes a harlot in symbolic terms, who has a name written upon her forehead,Babylon the great,the empire of false religion, she sits on many waters and has authority over the kings of the earth, these political leaders will come to hate and turn on her shortly and will deverstate her.Because of her meddling in political and inteffering in world affairs.The rulers of this world will see no use in her any more,and thereby bring her to her end.As she lives in sameless luxury whilst many of her worshipers are impoverished living in squallar and appalling conditions.Past and presant she has supported wars and her influence has caused the deaths of many,as Revelation discribes the situation, her sins have amassed to the heavans and the blood she has caused has reached to horses bridle.Mind you there are some very sincere and nice people comitted to religion and do some very good works,but the God of heavan is encouraging peopel to get out of her before her downfall, and before its to late.A similar situation was seen during the last days of the Jewish system of things in 70,CE.This was when the ruling empire used its millitary force to dispell the up rising of religious zelots in Jerusalem thereby bringing an end to many centuries of pure worship in that city.The events surrounding then, at that time has also a greater fullfilment in our time,Matthew 24:

[J.P.Walsh.]

Richard Dawkins writes about selfish genes.Some of the genes are selfish enough to result in malignant disease.But in the field of proliferative disease, scientists have made a major contribution,that of nuclear weaponry and its radiation damage to the genes of those unfortunate enough to have survived a nuclear attack or Chernobyl-like incident.
But Dawkins'public standing now gains recognition from his proselytising promotion of his Darwinian-derived atheism.As a scientist he is well aware of the lack of proof for Darwinian evolution.But as an atheist he holds the view that Darwinism has summarily dismissed God.Dawkins is embarked on a manifest crusade to rid humanity of an irritating tendency to persist in religious adherence.Atheism is the way forward.
But the Dawkins'hypothesised problem is a pandemic and persistent virus-like gene -the "mene" (sic) - which confers religion on any that it infects.
Now we are,indeed, in "Fairyland"
and Dawkins has fairies at the bottom of his thinking.
Peter Walsh.

[Joshua]

Thanks, Denis.

And, yes, let's debate more on another thread - this one takes an age to load now (and yes I did a cut and paste into Word then took out all the 'Denis Collins' posts, one doc was 65k, your doc was 30k words).

Here is one thought to end with tho'. The argument about God is not that there is another mystery beyond the universe/matter that requires explanation - the 'so where did the designer come from' problem. It is, I believe, about something which is not matter but other dimensional - much as Dawkins muses in 'Dawkins transcendant'.

[MaryC]

So, Son of King Kong accuses Alistair Mcgrath of cashing in on his name. Really! the hypocrisy of the man beggars belief.
If God doesn't exist, then both Dawkins and his bank manager must be eternally grateful that someone had the foresight to invent him.

[Denis Collins]

I doubt many people are still looking at this blog so I'm reluctant to answer Joshua (I'm sure nothing I say will change HIS mind), but since he asks for a response I suppose I should give it.

He says:
'Denis, thank you for responding to my comments and for calling my metaphor stupid. It makes an excellent start to my post.'

I called it 'stupid' because, well, it is, but also because you called my earlier (valid) point 'silly'.
If you can't take it you shouldn't give it out.

'Re, the long-windedness of ahteists, I must apologise to the atheists on this blog. Apart from Denis that is. In a blog of 90k words I think Denis you have written about 30k of them,'

I haven't bothered counting but I know I haven't posted anything like one third of the material on here. One tenth might be more accurate, and that is because, as I have said before, there is so much faulty logic, ignorance of facts and even downright dishonesty on here from some (not all) of the religious brigade that it takes a while to respond to it all adequately.
Ironically, however, about a third of the material on here is made up of the mindless cut-and-pastes of Christians.

' which makes my point and as Mary Shelley said:

"1) Denis Collins is *extremely* long-winded. Unbelievably long winded! He could do with a good editor, or two, or three."

So maybe it is just you Denis who is the hobby debater. You certainly entertain.'

I also inform, as a few comments on here and more e-mails I have received about this blog show.
Moreover, I have to wonder what exactly blogs like this are for if not for 'hobby debating'? Perhaps Joshua is just annoyed that I do it better than him! hehe

'And you certainly misunderstood the Tidal Wave metaphor. Of course it begs the question! Duh.'

Indeed it does, which is why it is stupid- performing a logical error in an attempted parody of a statement by myself which does NOT contain any such error is, I'm afraid, stupid.
I understood your metaphor, and it doesn't work- see below.

'I say there is a Tidal Wave coming and, yes, I believe in Tidal Waves. You don't. So what. I am not going to wait around to prove it to you, I am off!'

OK- I never asked you to! You can believe what you like, I'm not stopping you.
When I said the onus of proof is upon you- which indeed it is- I meant if you WANT to convince me that your particular deity is real THEN you need to do so. I'm not ASKING you too.... the Jehovah's Witnesses come round to my door, I don't go round and pester them at home!

'If you don't want to believe in Tidal Waves it is entirely up to you and furthermore you have to prove to yourself there are no Tidal Waves not me. The onus of proof is on you to prove to yourself something that as important as a Tidal Wave is not there. To sit back and say, as you did say, 'Yeah, right! I'll believe in these things once you tell me where I can find some evidence for them'. is to my mind much more stupid.'

Yes, 'to your mind' it is much more stupid- which just demonstrates the limitations of your mind.
There are an infinite set of possible 'dangerous things' which, should I not believe in and take heed of them, could conceivably cause me harm- the Yettie for instance, or Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster, or alien abductors, or poltergeists, or Allah......
Oh, by the way, if the world's one billion or so muslims (they will outnumber Christians by the end of this century) are right then YOU, Joshua, are destined for the eternal fires of hell for not heeding the words of the Prophet!
You see, to take your (dodgy) metaphor a stage further, Tidal Waves aren't the only things that come out of the blue and kill- have you considered earthquakes? The muslims have.... is the onus on them to convince you that such dangers exist? Hmmm...
God (your version as well as all the others) is a member of this hypothetical set, and so I treat him the same as all the others- show me some evidence.

'Now you may feel that God is an entirely different matter but the argument holds - if you understand it that is. (or maybe you were just spinning it out of all recognition - your entertaining flair again!)'

Ironically I understand it a lot better than does Joshua, which is why I know it is specious.
This is simply Pascal's Wager restated- that it is better to play it safe by believing in God than not, *just in case* he does exist- because if he does exist you will then not incur his wrath after you die, while if in fact he doesn't then you haven't really lost anything anyway.
With the excepton of Plantinga (we'll come onto him) few if any contemporary professional philosophers accept this argument as valid. There are lots of things wrong with it.
One is that belief is a state, not an action- you cannot FORCE yourself to believe in something, either you believe or don't believe. And it is no good simply PRETENDING to believe in God- God (by definition) would know this!
Worst of all, Pascal- and Joshua after him- assumes that the only such thing you need to 'play safe' and believe in is God, that is, the Christian deity (and even he is available in various flavours among the 30,000 or so extant Christian denominations- how do you know that you believe in the right one?). But what about Allah? Or Krishna? Or Zeus? Or Thor? Or...... an infinite number of deities that people have believed in or else *could* believe in, all of whom by definition could punish you after death for not believing in them? Of course, we have no evidence for their existence- but then we have no EVIDENCE for the Christian God either- just, as Joshua admits, question-begging. So this approach simply doesn't work, even as a wager or a 'hedging of bets'.

'Also I don't think you realise quite how silly Dawkins 'meme' hypothesis appears to normal rational beings (that will be me then).'

Someone who thinks that a watered-down version of Pascal's Wager is valid and Plantinga is a reliable logician does not strike me as very rational, I'm afraid.

' I once heard Daniel Dennet in a debate saying that memes were like words - so why not use the word 'words' or 'ideas' - why make up a new word if what you really mean is, as you say, consciousness or ideas.'

Because memes have something in common with words (Dennett actually says their mode of existence is LIKE that of words, not that they ARE words- I know because I chaired the first talk in the UK that he gave on this subject), and with consciousness, and (especially) with ideas- but they are not identical to any of these things. So Dawkins, for the sake of clarity, coined a neologism. This is something that happens all the time in every field of study- check out the annual supplements to the OED.

'Did you read Palntinga on Dawkins? I think you would like him. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html'

No, I shall do so at some point. Having read and heard Plantinga in the past, though, I shan't hold out much hope of any sense emerging. For one thing he doubts evolution- and I've made clear above (as has Dawkins) how ignorant (at best) are people who still do that today.
For another there is his infamous 'Valid Ontological Proof' which claims to logically prove God's existence..... except that it is simply a sophistic restatement of Anselm's mediaeval supposed proof, and though people like Joshua who read and quote from Christian websites might be taken in by it, to my knowledge no other contemporary logician is.

'Denis you say "SOMETHING like memes MUST exist- consciousness could not operate without them. "

They "MUST"? No evidence, no proof, no experiment, they just must.'

I was making a statement not offering a proof, on something which is only tangentially concerned with the question set in this blog, but which someone else brought up. Memetics is a complex subject which I don't have the time or inclination (since few people are reading this blog now anyway) to go into here.

'So for you some things MUST exist, and " Dawkins recognises that things 'exist' (a loaded word that!) which are not themselves physical entities."

Er...like God?'

No, not like God. I gave a list of things previously which certainly exist in SOME sense, but which are nevertheless not themselves physical objects. Here are some more of them:
Christianity, the Second World War, politics, pronouns, prostitution, charity.
But all of these things certainly *pertain to* physical objects in some way or other. The same is true of memes, but not of God.
(I'm reminded of the witty aphorism of David Papineau, a philosopher who once spoke to CUAAS: 'Ontological discussions should only be held behind closed doors between consenting philosophers'! hehe)

'Are you saying that a logical proof is enough to argue for the existence of something immaterial?

Um...like God?'

No I'm not...though that is an interesting question actually. I suppose one day someone just might come up with a valid logical proof of God's existence, but so far- after many centuries of trying- no-one has.
What I am talking about is looking at physical objects and processes and seeing what, if any, non-physical things must exist (that weasel word again) pertaining to them. Our Parliamentary system demonstrates that something non-physical called 'politics' exists; our Churches and what goes on inside them show that something called 'Christianity' exists; and our minds and the consciousness they produce shows that something LIKE 'memes' exist (although our understanding of consciousness is presently so limited that we cannot say for sure how accurate or not the meme model is).
Alas, we don't have any such indirect physical evidence for something called 'God', only faith and the claims of ancient books written by people who were clueless about how the world really is, as demonstrated latterly by science.

'You say that "The same is not true of God. Despite many centuries of effort no-one has ever come up with anything in the physical world which REQUIRES a deity for its existence or operation- all such claims have turned out false."'

Indeed.

'Like matter? How did that come about?'

No-one knows. Perhaps Allah made it..... so why don't you believe in him?

'Did the universe just pop out of nothing?'

For all we know, yes.

'Where is your evidence?'

Go and read a book on cosmology- any from the last forty years will do- and cure your ignorance. The more that has been learned about our universe the more clearly it is seen that it bears no trace of 'design' or the fingerprints of a 'creator'.
(Oh, and please don't quote me, from your Christian websites, statements by the likes of Philip Davies or John Barrow, physicists who in their POPULAR books claim that physics has uncovered the 'mind of God'- they've had their thirty pieces of silver for this nonsense in the form of bigger book sales in the US and $1million+ Templeton prize money.)

'Or are you back to a logical or philosophical rather than empirical proof ?'

No. The Big Bang is a unique scientific question in that, unlike every other scientific question, there is nothing else to compare it against; we cannot conduct an experiment upon it, or re-run the original event with controls; we cannot judge it against other, similar events (we don't know of any), and we cannot reach back before it in time to see what preceded it (according to most current models there WAS no time 'before' it). This does indeed make it very puzzling.
According to one model ours is one of a (perhaps infinite) series of universes that begin with Big Bangs, end in Big Crunches, and then start all over again.
According to another our universe is one of an (again perhaps infinte) set of universes that 'bud off' from one another.
Another model (this one, interestingly, has advocates in both physics and philosophy- see the work of the late David Lewis) reckons that our universe is just one 'slice' of the multiverse, a vast (perhaps infinite) number of universes which co-exist in some as yet not understood fashion.
And so on.
Not all of these models can be true, of course, and perhaps none of them are. Perhaps, after all, ours is the only universe, and perhaps it was created by the Christian God (though it is rather odd that he seems to have 'lit the blue touch paper and retired to a safe distance', as no sign of his involvement with his creation has ever stood up to scrutiny).
Or perhaps it was created by Allah.... or Zeus.... or Daffy Duck....or.....
But the simplest hypothesis which fits all of the (enormous) available evidence, scientifically and logically, is that it was not 'created' at all, but simply exists. And while that seems bizarre and weird to us, it is- of logical necessity- less bizarre or weird than the alternative that it was made by something else that pre-existed it. Because then you are left needing to explain the creator's own existence, and if you just want to cheat and say 'Well, he just exists!', then I can- and will- say 'Well, the universe just exists'- and my hypothesis is superior since it only entails what we already KNOW exists, rather than adding a hypothetical previous stage which itself requires explanation.
Occam's Razor slices again.

'No doubt you have heard Dawkins faith-in-science answer to this in the Dawkins vs Quinn radio interview. http://richarddawkins.net/audio/RD_tubridyshow.mp3'

No but I have heard him answer the same question elsewhere and he is correct- however hard it is to explain the existence of quarks and leptons (and science has already explained all the more complex physical entities that are made up of these simple fundamental particles) it is much harder (perhaps infinitely so) to explain God. So, pending evidence to the contrary (and we've already had a LONG wait for that) we should accept the former and reject the latter.

'Here's a quote to get your teeth into, RD says "the origin of the whole universe, is a very, very difficult question. It’s one that scientists are working on. It’s one that they hope eventually to solve." Maybe he should try http://www.thegodargument.com/index.htm'

Maybe you should go and read a book on cosmology and cease inventing super-mysteries like God to explain lesser mysteries like our universe.

'You might also have already seen the 'Does Dawkins exist' spoof - quite amusing.
http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html'

No, I shall try to though.

'Looking forward to your reply.'

Well, you have it (though no doubt you will castigate me once more for long-windedness). SInce this blog is largely ended now, though, I shall forgo the opportunity to debate with you any further Joshua.
Go in peace.

[Joshua]

Denis you say "SOMETHING like memes MUST exist- consciousness could not operate without them. "

They "MUST"? No evidence, no proof, no experiment, they just must.

So for you some things MUST exist, and " Dawkins recognises that things 'exist' (a loaded word that!) which are not themselves physical entities."

Er...like God?

Are you saying that a logical proof is enough to argue for the existence of something immaterial?

Um...like God?

You say that "The same is not true of God. Despite many centuries of effort no-one has ever come up with anything in the physical world which REQUIRES a deity for its existence or operation- all such claims have turned out false."

Like matter? How did that come about? Did the universe just pop out of nothing? Where is your evidence? Or are you back to a logical or philosophical rather than empirical proof ?

No doubt you have heard Dawkins faith-in-science answer to this in the Dawkins vs Quinn radio interview. http://richarddawkins.net/audio/RD_tubridyshow.mp3

Here's a quote to get your teeth into, RD says "the origin of the whole universe, is a very, very difficult question. It’s one that scientists are working on. It’s one that they hope eventually to solve." Maybe he should try http://www.thegodargument.com/index.htm

You might also have already seen the 'Does Dawkins exist' spoof - quite amusing.
http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html

Looking forward to your reply.

[Joshua]

Denis, thank you for responding to my comments and for calling my metaphor stupid. It makes an excellent start to my post.

Re, the long-windedness of ahteists, I must apologise to the atheists on this blog. Apart from Denis that is. In a blog of 90k words I think Denis you have written about 30k of them, which makes my point and as Mary Shelley said:

"1) Denis Collins is *extremely* long-winded. Unbelievably long winded! He could do with a good editor, or two, or three."

So maybe it is just you Denis who is the hobby debater. You certainly entertain.

And you certainly misunderstood the Tidal Wave metaphor. Of course it begs the question! Duh.

I say there is a Tidal Wave coming and, yes, I believe in Tidal Waves. You don't. So what. I am not going to wait around to prove it to you, I am off! If you don't want to believe in Tidal Waves it is entirely up to you and furthermore you have to prove to yourself there are no Tidal Waves not me. The onus of proof is on you to prove to yourself something that as important as a Tidal Wave is not there. To sit back and say, as you did say, 'Yeah, right! I'll believe in these things once you tell me where I can find some evidence for them'. is to my mind much more stupid.

Now you may feel that God is an entirely different matter but the argument holds - if you understand it that is. (or maybe you were just spinning it out of all recognition - your entertaining flair again!)

Also I don't think you realise quite how silly Dawkins 'meme' hypothesis appears to normal rational beings (that will be me then). I once heard Daniel Dennet in a debate saying that memes were like words - so why not use the word 'words' or 'ideas' - why make up a new word if what you really mean is, as you say, consciousness or ideas.

Did you read Palntinga on Dawkins? I think you would like him. http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

[Robert Halfhill]

If we consider statements that have no evidence either for or against them, one half or 50% of these statement will not turn out to be true. For example, there are medical theories derived from empirical evidence and a vast number of theories with no evidence supporting them. People who have tried to treat themselves according to unproven medical theories have ended up incurring bad consequences. If it were true that therries with no evidence either for or against them had a 50% chance of being true, half of the people trying to treat themselves according to unproven medical theories would have had a favorable outcome.
A theist onve asked me why negative sentences, i.e. the statement that something does not exist, wouldn't have an equally low probability according to my argument. The best answer to his question comes if we consider true or false mathematical statements. Suppose I ask you to guess what number I am thinking of when all I am thinking is that the number is not seven. Then there are an infinite number of numbers that would make your guess true and only one, seven, that would make it false. But if, on the other hand, I am thinking of the number seven, there is only one number that will make your guess true and an infinite number of numbers that will make your guess false.
Robert Halfhill

[Denis Collins]

I just spotted another interesting post among all the dross here, that by IB. He says:

'Prof Dawkins contravenes his own claims to be based solely on 'evidence', ie empirical data of the observable kind, by advocating 'memes'. These are not observable, they are a speculation of Prof D in order to account for human morality, aesthetics and culture, and religion.'

That is right, and this is why Dawkins is careful to differentiate memetics from genetics- the former is basically a sociological/psychological theory while the latter is an exact physical science.

'Why have we not kept going on the 'nature red in tooth and claw' pathway, why have we developed altruism and love, self sacrifice, beauty, goodness and truth'

Because these are the inevitable side-effects of the evolution of large-brains and the complex social interactions that go with them.

' - well its because of 'memes'. That is to say a sort of notional 'gene' proposed but nowhere spotted at all.'

This is disingenuous, or else IB has simply misunderstood Dawkins' 'meme' hypothesis.

Dawkins has never claimed that memes are discrete physical entities like genes- they obviously are not. But Dawkins recognises that things 'exist' (a loaded word that!) which are not themselves physical entities.
Words, thoughts, love, Marxism, colours, for instance, are all examples of 'things which exist' but which are nevertheless not themselves physical entities. They all do, though, *pertain to* physical entities in some more or less complex fashion- and the same is true of memes. 'Meme' is simply a convenient label for the things that minds process..... and minds are (with apologioes to the dualists!) what large complex brains do.... and large complex brains are... physical objects.

'This is back to metaphysics, and memes are just as notional as is - God! '

No, they are not- SOMETHING like memes MUST exist- consciousness could not operate without them.
The same is not true of God. Despite many centuries of effort no-one has ever come up with anything in the physical world which REQUIRES a deity for its existence or operation- all such claims have turned out false.

'Good old Prof D, good on biology, lousy as a philosopher.'

I agree that Dawkins is rather lacking philosophically (I said as much in an earlier post)- but NOT for the reasons IB has given, which are spurious.

[Denis Collins]

I just looked back in on this blog to see if anyone had made any interesting late points... and was most embarrassed to see my young pal Duncan eulogizing me! Ta Dunc!

Joshua's post is worth commenting on since he makes one fair point, one spurious one, and one that is absurd!

It is indeed a fair question to ask 'Would we be better off without atheism?' because, though atheism is true (well, on all the available evidence anyway) that doesn't mean that its widespread acceptance necessarily makes the human predicament in any way more bearable. This, I suppose, is the crux of this whole blog's initial question, but it is such a vast subject that I don't feel I should enter into it at the late stage! Sorry! hehe

But when Joshua says:

'The very long posts above (Denis, Duncan and Jim especially) show that atheism also provides a much needed outlet for hobby debaters.'

I have to point out that actually all of the longest 5-10 posts on here are from *Christians*, as can be readily checked. Of course, all of these very long postings were simply cut-and-pasted from apologetic (usually creationist) websites and are a veritable banquet of factual and logical errors (and sometimes downright lies), while all the long(ish) atheistic posts were mostly or entirely the 'original work' of the posters themselves, and well argued and evidenced to boot.
I suggest this reflects the relative intellects of the two sets of posters, frankly.

Then Joshua says:

'But it does worry me that some atheist posters let the side down rather. Here is a howler (from Denis)
"In order to be atheists we do not have to DISPROVE God's existence, the onus is upon those who DO believe in all or any of these things to provide some evidence for their views."
This is such a silly argument that any child would see through it in an instant. '

Oh really? Let's see how Joshua manages it then:

'For example - there is a tidal wave coming. I tell you there is a tidal wave coming but you say "Oh, believer of Tidal Waves, the onus is on you to prove to me that this Tidal Wave theory is imminent". My reply would be a short "Bye!"

This is so stupid- and I'm sorry to sound rude, but 'stupid' is the mildest word I can use for it!- that it is hard to know where to begin pointing out the multiple logical fallacies it entails.

I suppose the easiest way is simply to say that it is a classic case of 'begging the question'- that is, Joshua *assumes* the very thing he sets out to prove. If we KNEW (that is, we had independently verifiable PROOF) right from the off that God exists-that is, if God was an observable, measureable, recordable physical phenomenon like Tidal Waves- then yes indeed I would be silly to claim that I don't believe in it.

But of course God isn't like this- even if such a thing exists we have no way of observing/measuring/recording it and, moreover, every testable claim that has been made on its behalf over many centuries has proven false. Anyone who doubts this should get reading (Dawkins' 'Blind Watchmaker' would be a good place to start) and give themselves an education in the established scientific world-view, which not only does not REQUIRE a deity but which (for reasons I'll probably end up going into elsewhere) shows such a thing to be very unlikely.

Joshua's proffered example would only have any validity in an 'alternate world' (a favourite play-thing of modern philosophers!) in which Tidal Waves had NEVER been observed, in which all traditional claims of indirect evidence for Tidal Waves had proven unfounded, and where the only 'evidence' for Tidal Waves was that certain ancient books (full of self-contradictions as well as many empirically disproven claims) SAID such things existed.
In such a world I would be perfectly justified in saying to Joshua 'What evidence do you have of such a thing?' and, when all he could offer was 'Well, I read about it in an ancient book full of supernatural claims of all sorts!', in saying 'Yeah, right! I'll believe in these things once you tell me where I can find some evidence for them'.

And, to echo Joshua's misplaced rudeness, I'm quite sure that even when I was myself a 'child' I could have explained this to him.

[Howard Sherrington]

Many religions have been taken over by leaders who have strayed from the original. Man needs to believe in God otherwise he is no different from an animal. It is the word of God given to the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai - the Ten Commandments that all religions must embrace. They are the core of universal morality. Unfortunately many religious leaders have lost sight of them and this is why religion is betting a bad name.

[bill shepherd]

An unbalanced panel with Scruton a weak advocate rigged this in favour of anti religionists. There is a woeful ignorance of the benefits through the ages of christianity. This was another bunch of salaried clever-sillies who should be spending their well remunerated time solving the problems of social disruption -the underclass - treatment of the elderly and the mentally ill together with the ubringing of children all of which have declined coincidentlly with the decline in religious influence.
To hear these comfortable people who are largely insulated from social decline, seeking to further remove some of the moral influences which have sustained civil society is a cause for despair at our intellectual elite conducting a trahaison des clercs.

[John Muir]

Everyone misses the point. Religion is a form of ideology, and it's very difficult (for me at least) to envisage a cohesive society without some level of common ideology.
The debate might as well be "Society would be better off without ideology"
All ideologies which I know of,theistic or otherwise, are inspired by some sense of higher purpose, greater than the individual self - be it "Freedom" "the supreme soviet" "democracy" etc. etc.
Ideologies, theistic or otherwise, trhroughout history have had potential to spawn extreme, intolerant sects, and the most destructive ideologies to date have been atheistic or have sought to replace God. Communism or nazism are clear examples.
The danger is not religion itself, but any undbending, intolerant ideology, at the same time societies NEED some form of ideology to exist.

[Joshua]

Would we better off without atheism?
It is a good question. What is it for, why does it exist? Or is it a delusion, a dream state created by the unguided evolved mind, a meme caught from some ancient tribe or 18th century literature? Who knows.
In the last couple of centuries atheism has shown it doesn't do politics well, has recently lost its power to inspire, has a lack of vision, no creative purpose and to have philosophically and culturally sidelined itself. Some may feel I am overstating the case, but I think this is reasonably accurate.
However I do believe atheism is useful. There is no doubt that Dawkins et al have a real passion for the truth and that in our present post-modern western society where relativism and the 'does it work for you' philosophies are much cherished his brand of passion for hard nosed, no compromising truth is very welcome.
The very long posts above (Denis, Duncan and Jim especially) show that atheism also provides a much needed outlet for hobby debaters.
But it does worry me that some atheist posters let the side down rather. Here is a howler (from Denis)
"In order to be atheists we do not have to DISPROVE God's existence, the onus is upon those who DO believe in all or any of these things to provide some evidence for their views."
This is such a silly argument that any child would see through it in an instant. For example - there is a tidal wave coming. I tell you there is a tidal wave coming but you say "Oh, believer of Tidal Waves, the onus is on you to prove to me that this Tidal Wave theory is imminent". My reply would be a short "Bye!"
Dawkins loves story about the Emperors New Clothes and this likewise exposes the wearer of a distinctly flimsy argument.
Entertaining but surely a bit out in the cold.

[Kim Kaze]

At the end of the day, Dawkins absolutely hates religion, especially Christianity.

That's the bottom line, really. He hates it. Those who equally hate it or just dislike it, will celebrate him at every given opportunity. Yet his book reviews constantly show that his arguments are not rational, and he gives no fair time to his worthy opponents. His one interest is promoting atheism.

I find him to be quite rude and a rather vindictive man.

[P.Young]

DAwkins is so poorly educated or miseducated or studied the wrong way all or most of his life that the most obvious fact that behind every creation is a creator;that this is not within the realms of our limited minds to comprehend a limitless being as God is;that my whole family has to debunk his childish idea.

[Kate]

Maynard: "What in heaven's name would a chemist or biologist or any '-ist' but a social-psychologist or sociologist or anthropolgist know about what welfare 'we' as a people or polity or society derive and/or forgo in hewing to one or another religion?"

Well Maynard, unless you imagine all "-ist"(s) exist in a hermetically sealed laboratory which, if medical research is correct, would damage their brains, might I suggest they are as able as any other living Being to observe and hold opinions on the good or ill visited on society (in general) by religions.

Further: "And who but each individual would be fit to judge what welfare s/he qua individual derived from the same?"

Surely that depends? It depends on precisely how the religious individual interacts with society. If religion is a private and personal matter, then indeed, only the individual concerned can assess its benefit.

If however, the religious seek to impose on others an ego-centric definition of what religion means; or seek to denigrate others with differing views; or seek to subvert the democratic will in the name of religion, then it is no longer a matter of individual 'rights' but a matter of concern to others?

It is significant that you (for example) denigrate discourse as "a meaningless chatter" and appear to wish to deny others the right of free debate.

[J Pearce]

"The honourable thing for all of these people, on all sides, to do is to shut the hell up; like all 'talking heads' on countless television screens, they make but a meaningless clatter."

Err…so whats the point of having a blog debating these issues then, Maynard? Would you rather chat about the weather?

[frank]

People should read the various sacred texts once, as they tell us much about our heritage and history, and outline part of man's early search for moral codes.
However, like a cigarette packet, all these texts should carry a warning on the cover: CAUTION: Open with care, this book could be injurious to your health; the contents within are not factual, and should not be taken literally!

[Maynard]

What in heaven's name would a chemist or biologist or any '-ist' but a social-psychologist or sociologist or anthropolgist know about what welfare 'we' as a people or polity or society derive and/or forgo in hewing to one or another religion? And who but each individual would be fit to judge what welfare s/he qua individual derived from the same? The people cited here are but mountebanks, and shrill Dawkins for his part is but whoring a book. The honourable thing for all of these people, on all sides, to do is to shut the hell up; like all 'talking heads' on countless television screens, they make but a meaningless clatter.

[Kate]

Duncan Crowe: "These freedoms, ... emerged ... only in the twilight of the age ... When the religious are in charge all the bad views get locked away and burnt. The people that profess them get burnt too. ...And the next time they get back in the ostracisms, censorship and fatwahs start all over again."

Thank you Duncan for a cogent and wide-ranging analysis, in support of which, I would note a recent return to self-righteous "ostracisms, censorship and fatwahs", and ironically, the 'unity' of Islamic and Roman immutable dogma.

Most pronounced, I think, is evidence of a deep-seated anti-intellectualism; a commitment to a common (learned or absorbed) ontology which is consistent, but far from complete in its rejection of further 'formal' knowledge or 'knowing' in the sense of Being in the world.

Denis Collins has indeed shown himself "a profoundly agreeable man" in a courteous and detailed exposition but, while belief or faith is, in itself a metaphysical concept, his detractors appear immune to meta ta physika i.e. ANY other possibility of a reality outside their own human sense perception or learned vocabulary.

It is a denial, in the face of scientific progress, that 'following' or investigating 'nature' opens doors to further understanding. I can only conclude, with you, that the antipathy is cemented in fear. Fear that a metaphysical absolute (a contradiction in terms) might (someday) be shown to be a self-deluding crutch.

What is missing in all this debate is any acknowledgement that GOD (if such exists) is a concept BEYOND, and patently immune to the machinations of the infinite variety of human beings who claim him as their own personal shield against a difficult and frightening world.

[Duncan Crowe]

Oh for a world without exams so I could join in properly.

First, does anyone have a link to the video footage for this debate? I suppose the audio would do, but it seems pretty bad form if no one bothered to record in properly in A/V for posterity.

For the sake of 'the meeting of minds' here are a few paltry replies to the last few posters. I apologize for their limitations, but tempus fugit and doubley so particularly in exam term.

Lia: Not necessarily. In a godless universe, while there are the usual things to be afraid of - large trucks for example - which if there was a particularly benign, interventionist deity wouldn't pose much of an issue there isn't anything more to be afraid of after realising there isn't a god then there was the day before. I think some people radically overestimate the activity of the pre-frontal lobes. The same folk that tell you that a godless universe is something to fear are the same folk that tell you if you stop believing in god 'there's no reason not to go raping and pillaging'. There certainly is; you feel disinclined to do so. You would feel bad if you did. The moral sentiments are present in most people and don't suddenly disappear when the metaphysical crutch you conjured to explain them gets taken away. Similarly, while there are moments when you might suddenly say to yourself 'my god! I'm trapped in a meaningless universe and I'm going to die and nothing matters and' so on and so forth... those moments are pretty few and far between. They go away. Who on earth decided that 'important' implied 'ultimately important for ever and ever and ever'. Family is important. One day all your family members will be dead. Pleasure is important. All pleasure is fleeting. Doing something to make someone you like feel good about themselves is very important. They might sink back into gloom the next day. In each of these couplets the latter half in no way degrades the former. Chill out; relax. There is no god and it doesn't REALLY change a damn thing, because there never was.

Simon: First, don't give up the day job. For one thing easy does not rhyme with needy. Second, your poem overall betrays the kind of sentiments found recurring in Christianity which really drove Nietzsche up the wall (apart from the Syphilis I mean). I'm not great fan of Nietzsche, but I invite you to reflect for a moment on the sentiment expressed in your second-to-last verse. It's certainly not out of pace with christian doctrine - the sermon on the mount expresses similar thoughts 'blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth' (don't fight). Christianity teaches that you should be content with the status quo because one of these days Jesus is going to come back and set things straight. Don't worry about other people's actions - just keep yourself straight (let he who is without sin cast the first stone), don't get involved in secular politics (render unto caesar what is caesars), don't bother to stand up against injustice done against you (turn the other cheek) and one of these days Jesus will show up and make the whole thing better. Well - I want to play Pascal's wager in reverse for you: what if you're wrong. What if Jesus is never going to show up. There is no good reason to think he will (such at least is the atheistic claim) - what you have done is adopt and endorse a system of beliefs which keep you meek and humble and waiting for someone else to solve your problems. The problem with religion - and by that, apparently to the utter bafflement of many of the people here) I include religious beliefs about messiahs, gods, heavens, hells - isn't so much that it's false but more than that. It drags people down: worshipful for mere sustenance, afraid to fight back against a system which represses them and all the time reassured that when the king returns all will be well. Well, in your holy book it says he'll show up again within the lifetimes of the apostles. All the great churchmen from Paul through to Jerry Falwell lived and died in the sure conviction Jesus was going to show up on their watch. Do you see a pattern here?

Brian: You are free to read what you want. You are free to engage in conversations as you see fit. These freedoms, I think it worth mentioning aren't those which emerged from over a millenia of 'christendom' in europe, but only in the twilight of the age when secular thinkers such as Paine, Hume, Mill and the American Founding Fathers (Founding Fathers get capitals, god doesn't - neat huh?) started arguing for and fighting for the freedoms of speech and assembly. When the religious are in charge all the bad views get locked away and burnt. The people that profess them get burnt too. And whenever we re-enter an age when that kind of thing doesn't happen any more the religious figures of the day say 'oh, no - that kind of thing isn't integral to religion. We've changed from then. That was then, this is now. We're more enlightened - not cause we've learned from philosophers but because that was jesus'/mohammad's/whoever's message all along'. And the next time they get back in the ostracisms, censorship and fatwahs start all over again. Same old story, and you're a part of it. What is it within you, do you think, that decides the when people disagree with him they are under the spell of the mythological manifestation of pure evil. Is this what you're like in day to day life, or is it just when religion gets involved. When someone cuts you off in traffic do you assume satan is in command of that Nissan Micra or is there one rule for religion and another rule for everything else? I know you. I know your works. You are the kind of person who when their religion takes over locks people like Richard, Christopher, Denis and me up. Or worse. You are the reason Richard Dawkin writes his books and isn't just content to sit happy with his disbelief quietly; because there are people like you out there who if left to their own devices will decide the 'satanically influenced' people they disagree with have to be dealt with. Stop looking for satan in the words of others - he's right there in your heart friend.

Mark: Yes indeed, though I'm not sure Karen Armstrong would be entirely comfortable with the company she keeps in your list. If you don't mind here are some other recommendations to add to your reading list: first up read Dennett's other works. I cannot tell your what numinous joy I feel when reading the articles in the Intentional Stance (pow! take that intrumentalist positions on the ascriptions of mental states ;) ) but at the very least Consciousness Explained, Kinds of Mind and Sweet Dreams are not to be missed by someone with a nascent interest in the nature of the mind. Steven Pinker, while I don't agree with everything he has to say particularly when he strays on to philosophy of mind, is suspiciously absent from your list and this should be remedied as soon as possible. As an antidote to Pinker you may also want to look into Ramachandran (Phantoms of the Brain) and Oliver Sacks (The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat and An Anthropologist on Mars) who will tell you everything you never needed to know about what happens when the brain goes wrong. If you are (and it sounds like you are) interested in naturalistic explanations of ethics, there has been a sudden rush of publishing in this area in the last few years, but here are a few of the - if not best, best known to me: Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue, Marc Hauser's Moral Minds and Richard Joyce's The Evolution of Morality. The locus classicus for common sense ethics is and always will be Aristotle and Hume, however. If only Hume had known about evolution, the last piece of the puzzle could have slotted into place. Ho hum.

Mary Shelly, though you hardly deserve your namesake: Denis Collins is a profoundly agreeable man if you ever met him in person and it gave me nothing but the most profound pleasure to see his name and that of CUAAS adorn this page. In between improving his mind and copy editing other peoples books he sends a considerable amount of time working (as far as I know without pay) in a charity book shop. Were the world populated by men like him we would live in a golden age... though speak in Liverpudlian accents so I guess it's kind of win-some lose-some. As far as the christian posters being the more logical... while I hate to sound like a man up an ivory tower when you have argued to the point where your erudition ends it does not mean you have proven your point, it simply means you can no longer understand the reasons you are incorrect. If you took the time to read the authors kindly listed by Mark below you, you might begin to understand why the majority of the allegedly logical arguments given by theists in this thread are incoherent, but are so in a fairly technical and subtle way (the cosmological argument which keeps coming up can be run again and again and again in a wide variety of forms. None of them work, but to refute them all takes time, and the fundamental reason they are all flawed cannot be expressed more succinctly than the manner in which Richard Dawkins himself puts it; 'what made god?'). I have myself been in fairly close proximity to John Polkinghorne when he (who, note, is championed as a model of the scientifically minded christian and has recieved over £700,000 for the quality of his apologetics) produced his two best arguments for belief in god - that the universe was simple enough that we can understand it; therefore there must be a god, and that there are aspects of the universe we cannot understand (music, love etc), therefore there must be a god - that were so prima facie absurd it profoundly shocked me to the point of revelation that when theists argue for belief in god they are not - as atheists in my experience tend to try and do - looking for a sure fire by-god-if-that-doesn't convince-em-nothing-will knock-down argument, but simply the nearest foothold that looks steady enough to bear the weight of the enormous emotional crutch handed down from their parents. Throw the crutch away - life's just as beautiful without it.

Duncan Crowe,
Cambridge, UK.

(ruth adds: Duncan, we did do an audio, there should be an MP3 file easy enough to find via the faith page, timesonline.co.uk/faith)

[Lia]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

God warned us through His word that there would be many false teachings: Passage Jeremiah 14:14:
Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds".

Man has always made gods to suit himself. Man is always trying to make their own self-righteous religions to please their gods, great example is Adolf Hilter. If somebody voices it loudly enough for many people to hear it, it is quite easy to get people to agree with you.

God has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with YOU!

Ultimately, as Ray Comfort quoted “Either there is a God or there isn’t. Both possibilities are frightening!”

Best is to go to the source where the truth is revealed and the lies unravelled!

[Bernard Walker]

I wish that God would ban all religions! It just might make the world a safer place.

Seriously though, what other concepts would people believe in, unconditionally, without proof, scientific confirmation or empirical evidence?

Dawkins has my vote.

[Simon Icke]

Looking For God In A Hard World
by Simon Icke c. 2000

Looking for God in hard world is not easy.
Does anyone care about the poor and needy?
Why are the rich and famous so greedy?

Violence, wars and hatred, famine and drought,
Why is it that so many go without?
It's no wonder people start to doubt.

Some people say there is no God,
But with the next breath they blame Him!
Don't you find that really odd?

With life in such a mess,
We could say, why care about the rest?
Have you thought this could be a test?

Perhaps after God's creation,
He just forgot to mention,
That this world would be full of tension!

Good will prevail over evil in the end,
And forgiveness a broken relationship will mend.
Wasn't Jesus sent to be our friend?

Ask and it will be given,
Knock and the door will be opened,
Seek and you will find.

[Ib]

Prof Dawkins contravenes his own claims to be based solely on 'evidence', ie empirical data of the observable kind, by advocating 'memes'. These are not observable, they are a speculation of Prof D in order to account for human morality, aesthetics and culture, and religion. Why have we not kept going on the 'nature red in tooth and claw' pathway, why have we developed altruism and love, self sacrifice, beauty, goodness and truth - well its because of 'memes'. That is to say a sort of notional 'gene' proposed but nowhere spotted at all. This is back to metaphysics, and memes are just as notional as is - God! Good old Prof D, good on biology, lousy as a philosopher.

[James Bannon]

No matter how many times the religionists try to tell me I will not believe there is an invisible pink elephant flying around in the room.Can I prove this? No, but every experience I've had suggests otherwise, enough to make me 99% sure there are no such things as invisible pink elephants. Oh, one more thing: rotten corpses don't walk!

[Brian Shenton]

I think it's time to rebuke satan and stop giving atheists a say on this site.It seems that if you read and respond to these shallow intellectuals, and engage yourself in a hearty debate with them, you are really just spinning your wheels and exhausting your God-given energy and time on the wrong stuff.Satan is trying to distract you from what God wants you to do.
All the negative comments just leave me feeling hurt and unsettled.I much prefer reading uplifting God-centred writing that put me in the mind of Christ.
On Richard Dawkins, and his book'The God Delusion, I find that he is a psychotic delinquent, invented my mad, deluded people.Dawkins is hell bent on a silly crusade.His salvo of outrage and redicule is meant to rid the world of its greatest evil:religion.He would call me a 'dyed-in-wool faith-head.And he is immune to argument.He comes across as a dogmatic, aggresive propagandist.
He believes that those who believe in God are sad, mad and bad.I embrace Christianity.I have found that the atheists are more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth.
I am a responsible, informed Christian.The dogmatism of The God Delusion has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community.
Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins's crude stereotype and seemingly pathological hostility to religion. In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own-goal-persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer.

[A J Gaspar]

It's ironic that while Dawkins lambasts all mainstream (and offstream) religion his own website resembles that of just another evangelist; you can even buy DVDs to improve your life just like you can from many other religious websites.

If Dawkins really believed his own rhetoric then he would find something more meaningful to do with is life. He may be right: We might be better off without religion; but we'd also be better off without smug, know-it-alls like Dawkins, too. The only thing he is really interested is in promoting his own self-importance!

[Peter Weatherby]

How reassuring that Richard Dawkins did not experience 'a moment of doubt'. A true believer, firm in his faith, beyond shaking. Has he realised this?

[darren]

Dawkins for Prime Minister

[mark]

The letter by Jim Rogers, explaining how the disciples and others subsequently could believe in something as magical and impossible as the resurrection, is one of the best letters on the subject I've ever read.
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Michael Schermer, A.C. Grayling, (all with multiple books), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell is excellent, as is his other work), Mathew Alper (The God Part of the Brain), Karen Armstrong, and many other scientists, neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, philosophers, psychologists, etc , all help explain the phenomenon of religion in human, non-supernatural terms.
We are intrinsically moral animals.
Pity so many people remain blind to the explanations, and prefer to believe weird things!

[Mary Shelley]

PS The reason there have been double postings (only among brief posts) is simply due to the delay between the submission and its appearance on the blog. In my case I thought my immortal words might be lost--vanity, vanity!--and rushed to repeat them.

Y'see, there is a god of the blog and he (She?) will endeavour for many of us to be seen in our worst possible/most contradictory light. Admittedly this is difficult insofar as some posters are concerned!

[Mary Shelley]

This blog....

Finally finished, eh? Well, I would say a few things have emerged:

1) Denis Collins is *extremely* long-winded. Unbelievably long winded! He could do with a good editor, or two, or three.

2) Lulu.com is a good invention. I would say that it is superbly suited for pamphleteering, that marvelous 18th c. invention. If DC, and other atheists here, would only write up their views *concisely* on a website or--even a--short pamphlet
they would have a wider audience, they might even have a look at lulu. (However, I was in error about McLean's work not being self published. But then most pamphlets are/were.)

3) Usually we should be suspicious when a proselytzer just pours (vomits out?) prose, excess verbiage, and CAPITAL LETTERS. This is equivalent to an old fashioned preacher going on and on and on and on and on...ad nauseam. I repeat: "If you're going to save their souls, do it in the first twenty minutes."

4) And following point 3...If we added up all the words (and words and cant and CAPITAL LETTERS) written in favour of atheism, the atheists would definitely dominate. For logic, consistency, and brevity, the Christians prevail.

On balance, a draw?

[rob]

Wow. I would suggest to all you non-theists to leave these "believers" alone. It is a waste of time and effort to drop knowledge on some one with "blind faith". The whole idea of it is...stupid. I believe X, and this one book...written hundreds of years ago with absolutely no way of being altered, manipulated, or mutilated (sarcasm)...proves it all. Then you've got these non-believers with all their facts and figures, studies and research...what the hell do they know (more sarcasm).

The truth is: religion is for the greedy and the weak. "I need two lives, one to boast like I know god. And one to live forever with all my dead friends and relatives." and "Why take care of this earth we're on? god gave it to us, we'll do to it what we want."...

Sorry, so incoherent...you idiots make me sick. your god is nothing...nothing is god.

[jim rogers]

Charles Foster is an English barrister, who wrote a book called The Jesus Inquest. In it he gives arguments for and against the Resurrection. He is a Christian, so sides in the end with one of his protagonists "Y". He call the other one "X", who gives the alternate view.

Copy of a letter to Charles Foster, The Jesus Inquest:

I really enjoyed your book, but side with X. I think X's arguments are quite well put, up to a point, but feel he made a few major omissions. These are just a few I've thought of after reading the book this week.

1. Books like "The Unauthorized Version, truth and fiction in the bible" by Robin Lane Fox, and "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman are positive for X. There is some evidence that the OT stories, particularly the early books comprising the Pentateuch, were written down after 800BC, and Abraham, Moses, the Exodus, etc, etc, or even the stories of David and Solomon, may be mainly (or for some stories or characters, like the Exodus account, totally) fiction rather than history. If this is true, then JC, and the NT authors, and the population at large, were influenced by a false understanding of the "history of God" and man. They believed a false history constructed by the human imagination. Any assertions that say JC "fulfilled" the ancient scriptures are therefore more suspect, to put it mildly, and likely made up, to fit a prophecy from events that didn't really happen!

I disagree with your statement that, because the disciples maybe/probably/likely didn't expect the resurrection as it supposedly happened, that they weren't "primed", or that their subsequent belief in it means it did happen. People who already believe ghosts exist, are likely to believe ghost stories. They believed the OT stories, from creation on, as fact, not legend. They believed God had spoken directly to an Adam and an Eve, from a burning bush to a Moses, and parted the Red Sea, and every other fantastic story depicted. They therefore believed in magical happenings as "natural" occurrences if God so willed. Their OT belief helps explain why they believed something mystical that wasn't a reality. They believed in a God who would make it rain or send manna from heaven in answer to prayer, and reward or punish his people for their fidelity or lack of it, send pestilence as punishment, or help destroy Israel's enemies, such as causing the walls of Jericho to fall (and therefore help in "righteous" mass murder) should he desire. They believed in angels and a devil, in visions and visitations. Miracles explained their unexplained world.

They were captivated by a charismatic Jesus. They had lived alongside him for a long time. His personal chats and interactions on a daily basis were probably even more influential than his speeches in public (though unfortunately none of the disciples chose to write anything down). He was obviously strong in people skills. They supposedly came to see him as some form of Messiah (that's the story we are given in the NT). They had decided to follow him to wherever he would lead.......and in the end, believing in a resurrection became the best avenue that gave continued meaning and hope to their devotion and desired destiny. It ended up a workable explanation for their re-interpretation of JC's mission. Was the OT important in all this for the disciples? Of course, if the disciples and Jesus came to believe he was the prophesied Messiah. The disciples were heavily influenced by the OT, and were practicing Jews to begin with. Why go to such lengths in the gospels to create a genealogy linking Jesus with David, if the OT prophesy was unimportant?

"If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going?" -- Justin Brown

Would it matter if the OT was found to be largely fabricated fable? It would lend strong support to the atheist belief that the bible is a man made and conceived document, not inspired by God, and not a record of God's past intervention, and not prescriptive of God's future intervention in the world. Would that have influenced the disciples? You bet, and decisively. It would have influenced JC's beliefs hugely as well, perhaps even definitively, such that he may have not followed the course he did, but that's another unknown story.

How they came to believe in or report a physical resurrection is a mystery to me and every other disbeliever, and any alternate explanation is without historical evidence, and would have to turn to psychology etc. This hole in the evidence against the story is no reason to have belief in it, but I can't create evidence against something that may not have happened. I’ve read lots of accounts about the gospels, and remain skeptical. Craig Blomberg, Luke Timothy Johnson and many others who write on this are well read, intelligent theologians, but still make leaps of interpretation about recorded events, and of faith, as you do, that I can’t. I still believe all it needed was an empty tomb, however achieved, and a powerful spiritual / psychological experience on the part of the disciples, on a background of desire, faith, and gullibility, with a receptive audience of future converts.

2. David Hume: "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that's its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish".
The NT is full of miraculous claims and happenings. The other claims, like the virgin birth, etc etc, add to the unlikelihood that the resurrection occurred. Whose DNA was it? Doubts about Jesus' paternity and birth story, Bethlehem, the wise men, the star, the census, the murder of the innocents, and the obvious myths attached to these accounts, are only the start. I know there are authors who feel there is justification for some of the history or dates, but controversy exists. The miracle stories throughout are suspect on logic alone. The more far-fetched the start and middle of a story, the less believable the end.
A witness who tells multiple falsehoods, albeit unknowingly, or with good intentions, becomes less credible. These miraculous claims defy logic, science and everyday experience. They are therefore likely false.

X seems to make no ambit claim that the falsehood of the resurrection is likely purely on the basis of reason alone, and is greatly weakened as a story by the likely fallacy of the other miracle claims. The disciples lived in a world that believed in an intervening, judgmental God, and the power of the supernatural. They believed the OT fables as real. They believed in miracles. They were ripe for belief.

3. The risen body goes through walls, but can be touched? Why didn't a "touch" go through the body part touched? Why did ingested food not fall to the floor? It's fanciful stuff.

Y's description of the post-resurrection appearance makes great SCI-FI reading. "Understand this....(insert fantasy)...and many of X's objections to the resurrection appearances simply fall away". Understand what? Did the body consist of matter or not? Did it have metabolism or blood flow, did the marrow spring back to life? If no metabolism, why eat? Was the food metabolised, or mysteriously vaporised? If it ate, did it defaecate too? Why need it have any resemblance to pre-death Jesus. Why would it have wounds at all, if other processes were magically fixed? If there were wounds and injuries, they didn't stop him walking, or ruin his hand function, presumably. So some things repaired, but not others. If he'd been beheaded, would the neck wound have still been there? Could he have let his head slide off like the Blackadder King, and kept on talking? Y's account is fantastic, written with the passion of a blinkered believer, refusing to admit that the descriptions in the NT are unbelievable.

A human body is never constant. Many of the atoms that made up our bodies last year are no longer part of us. Every atom gets turned over every few years. They are now in plants, insects, other animals, or the soil and oceans. What relationship would a risen body therefore have to Jesus at his death? The atoms at death are irrelevant to the body throughout its lifetime, and therefore irrelevant to the risen body. The idea that the corpse had to rise is totally unnecessary to the idea of a risen Christ, as the cells and atoms comprising the body at that time are only a fleeting part of that body's existence.

4. Each Gospel has angels at the tomb proclaiming the resurrection. But we have NO evidence angels exist. Statistically, angel sightings have been claimed by how many REAL verifiable people (not story accounts from antiquity), out of how many billions throughout history (schizophrenics aside)? How many are verified? NIL. The stories therefore have a major flaw. No angels means flawed and/or fabricated accounts. I'm amazed X didn't go into this in detail.

5. The failure of the 500 (who are, as an aside, reported to have seen the risen Christ) to leave any written record, or for there to be no written record of who nearly all of them were, is just too slick to be useful evidence.

6. Y continually accepts the written NT stories, and words of the players, as probable fact. The Gospels were written well after the events. They vary widely in their accounts. Why believe what was reported in the Gospels as likely to be true? Why not accept that some or much of it may be embellishment? Why believe things like the walking on water story, which has a probability close to zero. Y is gullible. Sure, we have nothing else to go on. That doesn't mean we should believe what our common sense tells us is wrong. Y is continually happy to suspend belief in the natural order.

7. The Gospels authors (who remain unknown) wrote long after the events, with a total belief in the resurrection, before they started writing. So the whole account was biased in favour of proving the "end result", that Jesus was the Son of God. Therefore, the claim that we should accept the conversations reported, and magical happenings, and stories in general, largely as historical fact, is not one that can be accepted lightly. Y may ask why would anything be made up, but the answer is obvious. The "reality" of a Risen Lord was so strong in the authors, as it was in the Apostles, that the story could made to fit, with the author still believing what he wrote was truth.

8. The Gospels weren't put together as a single text till a long time after the first Century. Most Christians would have had access to maybe one or no texts, and most would have been ignorant of the differences between the Gospel accounts. Most Christians and the populace at large were illiterate (probably 90% or more), and got their knowledge of the story from a teacher/preacher. It isn't surprising that the different texts weren't standardised before it was too late to do so. Faith in the "reality" made the differences irrelevant, and still only a minority would have cared about the differences, which is true even today. People handle paradox, let alone inconsistency, quite well, if they have faith.

9. Why did the disciples believe, and what did they believe, such that they would die for it? That they believed is THE main argument in Y's armory. We must remember that these were very religious men, with a strongly developed faith in God. Strong enough to spend months or years as Jesus' followers, working towards the next life rather than this one. They likely had a strong sense that the Day of Judgment was near at hand. They were already committed to God. They loved Jesus' teachings, which gave them a wondrous sense of personal moral and spiritual fulfillment, and religious fervor. They were biased in favour of belief in a resurrection.

Presumably you know yourself the power of faith in a Risen Jesus. If believers now, 2,000 years on, feel His real presence within them, transforming their lives, then how much more powerful could such a belief and desire have been back then.

10. You don't need a big conspiracy theory for 1 or 2 people to have moved the body. He or they only needed to keep quiet, or die soon after and take the secret to the grave. Nations have risen or fallen on such simple happenings as this, and that have changed the course of history. Then you have an empty tomb, and a primed audience. The tomb story from then on is embellished, believed, even by those that helped make it, so passionate was their desire to believe, and away it goes........

11. There are obviously arguments to be made for or against the existence of God. Surely for X, if the is no God, then the resurrection is implausible to start with. I know that argument was beyond the scope of your book.

12. It is arguable whether JC believed he was God, or in fact considered himself merely a prophet "Son of Man". The gospels seem to imply he did. But were those records his views, or opinion derived later?

13. There are moral arguments against a Risen Christ, who failed to leave a more definitive written record or sign of his reality. And yes, I've read Dostoyevsky's Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov, and don't believe the Inquisitor who implies a better and definitive sign would take away our free will. If that would have been the case then the Apostles and Disciples who supposedly received such a sign died without free will.

Q1. You are one of a huge number of people on a massive island, which will be the site of a massive calamity. You have a way to get off alone, open to only you, but know that there will be transport coming to one point only, to get a large, possibly unlimited number of people off the island to safety. You have the chance to notify the population at large, and therefore save a massive number of people from a disastrous fate. Instead you choose to tell only a small band of people how to escape, leaving the rest to their fate. Have you acted immorally?

A. Of course. This is a very immoral choice of omission.

Q2. Jesus rises from the dead, knowing absolutely by now that he is God, and chooses to appear to a limited number of his friends and followers. He then leaves Earth, knowing full well that the course of human history will involve religious confusion, persecutions, the rise of Islam and other religions, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and so on, up to our current threatening religious wars. He could have chosen to appear in triumph before at least some of his persecutors and detractors, witnessed by Roman and Jewish scholars, so that his reality as the Risen Lord could have been well documented, beyond reasonable doubt. He could have left his own written instructions or teachings, or asked the disciples to write them on his behalf before he died, or after he reappeared. He chose not to, even though such a decision could have avoided needless religious conflict, and saved millions of lives, and untold misery. Has the Risen Jesus acted
immorally, just to follow some divine plan or experiment of human nature?

A. Jesus as man was perhaps confined by his humanity. Jesus as Risen Lord would not be. Such a failure could be interpreted as hugely immoral. [Hence he couldn't have existed as a risen but immoral God?]. His failure destroys the concept of his existence. Jesus reportedly cared about the most oppressed members of society, yet chose to leave millions of them to their grisly fate.

Ratzinger, 2000: "...God has willed that the church founded by Him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. This truth of faith...rules out, in a radical way...the belief that one religion is as good as another." Yet the risen Jesus chose to make the Christian Church's job inordinately harder by being so deliberately obscure.

This century, Islam will overcome Christianity as the most prevalent world religion. That alone certainly won't make it better, or preferable. 85% of people say they have a religion of some sort, but what a confused mess of different beliefs! Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, etc. It has been quoted that there are 33,000 odd different types of Christianity (some very small!)! I guess if people go shopping they can always find a group who believe what or how they want to believe. Where is the truth? They can't all be right! Who is the arbiter? Which tenets are integral to "the truth of faith" of the pontiff and other Christian followers, and which are up for grabs?
How could a risen Lord "worth his salt" be so pathetic and slink off leaving such a mess?

Did Jesus made an immoral choice, to be so obscure and clandestine, if he rose from the dead? One could argue yes, but of course, I don't believe he did, as he just died, like everyone else, hence he is off the hook. If there is a "God" he's probably off the hook too, as I don't believe in an interventionist god who would choose to arbitrarily intervene here but not there, for some but not others. No God of any moral worth would pick winners and losers.

I can't see why a belief that there is a God ( an arguable and possibly acceptable belief I don't share) should extend to an absurd leap such as believing someone supposedly died for our salvation 2,000 years ago. I'm sorry, but the leap is a fabrication. Believe in God, fine, believe morality should be worked at, and that love is worthwhile, or that Jesus teachings and those of other moral teachers and philosophers are worth emulating. Be at one with the world and mankind and nature, and get together with like minds if it helps to do this as a social being, enjoying culture, or rituals, or whatever, just don't add in the unprovable, doubtful idea that Jesus was God, or believe the mythical sections that have been written in the OT or NT, or added as Catholic and other Christian dogma over the ages, as anything other than myths. Myths have their uses, but keep the perspective. Islam is invalid in some of its beliefs, despite having some useful moral tenets thrown in there as well, along with some shockers. The same goes for many other religions.

The desire to follow the principles of a Living Jesus inspires millions of people, but it isn't a provable reality, and never was or can be, in any absolute way, but is merely an at times very successful psychological and emotional "vehicle" used for for moral growth. Religions are theories, as is atheism. However, religion is a totally unnecessary construction. If people want to concentrate on living morally, in a more loving and connected society, why do it based on an absurd belief? Why not just strive, love and live? Man has evolved as an intrinsically moral animal, genetically. Why pretend Jesus was born of a virgin, performed absurd miracles, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven as the Son of God!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. X doesn't highlight the difficult task he is given, as an advocate created by a believer. We know from a strong body of cognitive scientific research that we humans all recognise, and identify more easily with, positive rather than negative arguments. We favour evidence that confirms our beliefs more than those that go against them. Y has the advantage that your pre-established faith gives him. Your psyche, and social, spiritual and cultural background must necessarily bias you against X, however fair you try to be to him.

This bias that we all have, in favour of positive ideas and evidence that support our beliefs, is well shown by cognitive science. The disciples were prey to that same bias.

You may try hard to be an impartial barrister in this case, but you can obviously, in reality, be anything but. Your spiritual and psychological state is on the line. This conundrum of bias is one we all have when challenging our beliefs. There is no way round it, except to try and be impartial, but it is ultimately impossible.

Charles, even were Jesus' body found, I doubt it would end Christianity. The benefit people seem to get from religion, the need and desire to believe, the sense of spiritual enlightenment that believers may feel when the take the idea of the Risen Jesus into their hearts, would still be there. The SCI-FI description of the resurrected body would only need to change, and dump the previous cellular structure, and then...who cares about a corpse!

I'd love to see a repeat edition back to front, Y followed by X, or X with right of reply, written by an atheist, but will have to wait and see if that ever comes to pass!! I think over time the need for belief in JC and God will wane, but it may be a long time coming!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. The human brain is an amazing organ, with an estimated 100 billion neurones, each with up to several thousand connections. These interact, and by changes in neurotransmitter balance and levels, their release, uptake, inhibition, and hormonal influences etc, give an unlimited array of functional possibilities. This somehow fantastically comes together to create our mind and psyche. But our minds are not detached computers made up purely from a series of cold thoughts. As Melvin Konner quotes in "The Tangled Wing" (an evolutionary analysis of human thought and behaviour), Descartes understated reality when he said "I think therefore I am". We are emotional beings, and a more accurate statement is "I think because I feel I am", as we can't divide our thoughts from our emotional responses, and more than that, those feelings are part of the thought process! We are prey to our own deeper brain structures like the amygdala (fear/rage centre?), hippocampus, the rest of the limbic system, the hypothalamus, and the connections between these and other deep structures and the higher cortex. With this brain we perceive the world through our senses, see, hear, experience life, love, hate, fear, desire, think, believe or disbelieve God's existence, feel his presence, feel love for him, or not……………We have a centre or centres and connections for vision, hearing, visiospatial awareness, language and speech, music, maths, and for our various emotions, for our sense of identity, and we have or likely have brain regions more specifically wired to be involved in morality, spirituality, and religious yearnings and belief.

An amputee can truly feel the presence and movement of the limb that isn't there. A grieving relative may hear her lost spouse, and well up with feelings, only to turn to find that he isn't there, or "see" him excitedly in the street, only to realise on reflection the person seen doesn't really look anything like him. Psychotics may see, hear and believe all manner of false experiences, as may people affected by depression, mania, drugs, infections, stroke, trauma, other forms of disease or metabolic derangements. Manipulating neurotransmitters with medications can make people more or less manic, depressed, or psychotic, can create violent rage or suicide, or give an inner calm. Mystics, saints and others have seen and experienced powerful visions, sometimes so "real" as to be believed to be real. That may include visitations by angels, spirits, the dead, and Jesus himself. These may be perceived as physically real, despite being purely mental phenomena.

Saints, martyrs, madmen, fanatics and heroes can be inspired to incredible or terrible deeds by psychological/"spiritual" forces of immense power, such that no other course of action is deemed desirable or possible. The disciples amazingly were prepared, in the end, to die for their beliefs. In an ignoble way, however, such is the stuff of suicide bombers today. They are worlds apart in their beliefs, and I believe, in their righteousness, but Muslim bombers don’t feel that difference, and these bombers and apostles were/are all driven by a religious cause, amplified by faith in the hereafter.

I don't believe there is a single faith gene, but genes affect our brain development, and some of the 30,000 genes we have account for some of our individuality in behaviour, by modifying our brain function in subtle ways. Some must effect our spirituality. Variations in receptors/neurotransmitters, proteins etc, via genes or nurture/experience, can have huge impact. They can be manipulated to make animals breed true for fear or trust or violence. Single protein variants can induce risk-taking personality types in humans. Genes have been implicated in several psychological profiles or personality types. Stimulating the parietotemporal lobes in a certain area can give an "out of body" experience. Even simple "deja vu" is a misinterpretation of new data, experienced wrongly. Many mystics have been thought to have had temporal lobe epilepsy (?Muhammad, who regularly "talked" with the Angel Gabriel, or St Paul, amongst others). Cognitive and behavioural neuroscience abound with other examples of neurologically derived emotional, psychological, or spiritual behaviours and perceptions being heightened or diminished by localised brain damage or epilepsy or medication/drug effects, or even simply by meditation. All of us have different thresholds for emotions, which vary throughout our lifetimes. Some people appear to have a greater or more easily triggered capacity for either or both spirituality and religious belief, or susceptibility to a creed, or may at some times or in certain circumstances be more or less susceptible than at other times. This appears to us as varying free will choices by our soul or spirit or mind, but what is true free will, and what is the interface between the brain chemicals and the perceived spirit? You may be more susceptible to faith than the next person. I may be the opposite.

Had you grown up in Islamabad, Baghdad or Tehran, you would be a Muslim, perhaps writing a text outlining the proof of Muhammad’s divine inspiration. The same brain, the same brain synapses present, but differently developed and configured, influenced by culture, education, nurture. You would deny the resurrection, and feel totally justified. You would well up with religious love for Allah and Islam. Your Muslim visit to Mecca would mimic your Christian visit to Palestine. The same process, different result. Muslims feel love for Muhammad and Allah in the same way, using the same pathways, that Christians feel love for Jesus and God. You can't all be completely right in your beliefs, but the feelings are the same, and the conviction is the same.

The religious experience can be awesomely powerful, and can fill the believer with a deep love for God/Jesus/Allah, in a personal way, using many of the same synapses switched on in romantic human love. This is partly why attacking someone’s God is taken as a personal attack, as deeply hurtful to the believer as a verbal assault on his partner or family. We struggle to dissociate our thoughts about an abstract God from whatever feelings we have about him personally. Our feelings drive us. In addition, Man's sense of identity gets tied up in his spiritual beliefs, so is also threatened when his religion is threatened. A personalised and personified sense of godliness and goodness (as felt in a personal and loving identification with Jesus, or Muhammad, or saints etc) seems to much more powerfully stimulate human emotional and spiritual responses via our "wiring" in the "God" parts of our brains, than mere contemplation of abstract beliefs does.

The disciples had a deep personal love of God and of Jesus. Their world had been destroyed by his death, unless…………….? Unless they could experience Jesus’ continued presence and influence amongst them, re-defining their purpose and destiny. That is the answer that occurred to them, and evolved to appear before them. That would not have been possible had they not wanted to wholeheartedly immerse themselves in his teachings, his love, his spirit. And that they did. Their deep grief left them open to a Pentecostal experience within their minds, experienced as a physical reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did Jesus believe he was God? I don’t know. He apparently believed he had a special relationship with God. Was that different to all other prophets’ perceptions? I don’t know. Did he think he was a Messiah? He may well have, and the bible would have us think so. Does that make him mad? Not necessarily. Does it make him a liar? Not if he was sincere in his belief. Does it make him misguided? Yes. Bad? No. Does that invalidate the moral sentiments of his version of the golden rule? Of course not. The sentiments of the Sermon on the Mount? No. His belief that love of God is paramount? No. The morals behind his parables? No. The morality of his teachings should stand up for what it espouses, and for what it says and teaches us about the human spirit.

Was Jesus without sin? Who could know, as 90 to 96 % of his life is a mystery, open to all sorts of conjecture. Pity he chose not to share it with us, and that no-one else chose to share it. I find this amazing, though it would likely only have detracted from his supposed divinity, which may be why it was hidden from us, or omitted. He could easily have chosen to share it with us.

There is just no compelling basis to say the disciples' belief in the resurrection would not have taken the form it did take, had it not been a reality. The descriptions are just not believable. Mary supposedly didn’t recognise Jesus initially (she must have missed his thorn scars and wounds), and this and every other description (as mentioned before in this email) defy belief. What the disciples experienced, and why, is a mystery, but that is no reason to suspend belief in the natural world and accept fantasy. Why did they come to increasingly feel their experience was a truly physical one? Who knows exactly the steps in the process. Muhammad truly believed he saw the Angel Gabriel (often, for over 20 years), and that he was transported on a winged donkey to Jerusalem to meet with Jesus and Moses and Abraham! What the disciples experienced, and what is recorded, are unlikely to be the same thing. What was later embellishment over time, and what was their perceived reality, and what was reality, we will never be able to dissect out of the information available. What exactly happened we will never know, but the history of science and knowledge to date tells us is that it wasn't likely to be a physical resurrection. Unless you accept a belief in something alien to everything you have ever physically experienced in every other facet of life (with the only record documented by people unknown, in a superstitious ancient land), and alien to all that you know to be probable or even possible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m surprised you would quote C.S.Lewis writings as adding weight to your beliefs. I’ve read 2 of his books again recently, and thought they were dreadful. As a philosopher he makes a good children’s writer (a tad harsh, I know). I think his philosophy is pretty limited, and ill-founded. His assumptions about Naturalism are narrow-minded. His theology seems at times convoluted, tortured and garbled, stretching the point for little purpose, lost in a maze of pointless or trivial similes and metaphors. Like Chesterton, whose "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy" I also found tedious, he likes to rant for a chapter saying what could be condensed to a paragraph. Both like to construct extreme versions of opponents, then delight in chopping them down, having misrepresented their enemy or simplified them. "Mere Christianity" seems outdated in some (not all) of its arguments, and he is a man of the 50s with a paternalistic, chauvinistic view of marriage and sex. He has strong views about morality, and is obviously trying hard to follow his faith.
His argument in "Miracles" is basically, that man has reason ......... therefore ........... there is a God ............... therefore ............. miracles could happen ................ therefore .............. stories of miracles in the bible should be believed, for who are we to argue!
I think his books are philosophically wrong and loaded with dreadful arguments and rubbery logic. I can't imagine that his explanation of one saviour for the whole universe, comprising billions of planets, whose inhabitants for millions of years would live and die totally unaware of JC, is likely to be illuminating.

Both authors seem to assume atheists/materialists are nihilists, resistant to wonder. This is of course pathetically untrue. I put carrots out for the reindeer at Xmas with my 7 year old with glee (but not with belief), chat about fairies to her because she loves it (and to be honest, I do to), and love the Harry Potter movies, Lord of the Rings, and like Sci-Fi. I think the natural world we see around us is unbelievably wonderful, as is atomic theory, relativity, quantum theory, superstring theory, cosmology developments, biology and cellular structures, our human body, neurobiology and cognitive science, anthropology etc, etc). It is all mind bogglingly incredible. Man is fantastic (albeit frighteningly evil at times). His achievements are admirable. Life is wonderful, but unfortunately temporary. Our brain's capacity for knowledge, and the growth in knowledge, are remarkable. But it is all explicable as the result of Darwinian evolution, following the expansion of our universe from the time of the Big Bang, and subsequent formation of our world, and there is no need to implicate divine intervention.
"I believe in God, only I spell it 'N-a-t-u-r-e'".--Frank Lloyd Wright
"Religious belief is not a precondition either of ethical conduct or of happiness." -- Dalai Lama

Do most people prefer to have belief in God and/or the resurrection, despite the apparent constraints and responsibilities this carries, rather than have the freedom to disbelieve? Yes!!! Well, the majority of the world do believe in God, or say they do. I personally can feel, within disbelief, a refreshing and liberating experience, but most can't. The idea that we as humans are, like the ancient mariner, "alone, alone, all, all alone, alone on a wide wide sea", on a lonely planet hurtling through space, destined to die and turn to terminal dust, bred from primitive hominids, a random development of evolution, is just too depressing, pointless, and awful for many to contemplate. The trade off that faith offers, with hope of an everlasting life, is tremendously enticing and attractive for billions of people. I'm happy to accept that I'll live for only a finite lifespan, and return, soulless, to nothing. Most find the idea of facing the terminal world alone unnerving. I'll die, c'est la vie, and won't join any choir invisible! The absence of an absolute moral compass is also something that many find hard to accept. People love the reassurance and surety that the existence of a supposed definitive moral guide (God) offers, and many feel at sea without one, or can't even envisage life without a causal, overseeing, omnipotent God.

I chat to a lot of people about death and dying. But it is not my place to discuss the validity of their faith in the hereafter at the bedside. My job is to help them cope with their death, or that of a loved one, and respond to their situation from their perspective. Faith is a great comfort to a lot of people (though not all). That doesn't necessarily make God a reality beyond man's thoughts.

Whence and why did religion evolve? I believe the scientists and philosophers who believe we have moral, spiritual and religious "wiring" in the brain, likely developed genetically and reinforced socially over millennia to help cope with the anxiety of Man's life and his mortality. Once consciousness allowed man to feel "I exist", then he had to deal with the thought "I and all I love will die", and also sought to explain the inexplicable happenings around him. Hence he evolved a spiritual area(s) in the brain, wired to dispel his anxieties with the existence of a spiritual realm, and evolved the idea of supernatural gods or God, and an immortal soul. Part of man's priming may be a residue of the childhood need for a loving and guiding parent, turned into the adult search for a divine "parent".

Is religion a good thing? History has its religious ups and downs. As Karl Popper quoted: "We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell".
Steven Weinberg: " With or without it (religion) you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion".
"If you think your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument rather than by persecution ... But if your belief is based upon faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting or distorting the minds of the young ...'" --Bertrand Russell

For many religion is a great comfort and inspiration, and can be a very positive influence towards happiness. Some end up wracked with guilt or confusion. Some are driven by dreadful dogmas to make decisions that destroy their happiness and lives. I'm mindful that in eras past I'd be burnt at the stake, or put on a rack until I repented my heinous sin of denial (and I'd do that pretty fast, I can tell you now!), or ostracized from their society, like Spinoza or a disbelieving Brethren of today. In my secular society it is no big deal, as tolerance is practiced, but in the Islamic world I'd be at mortal risk if I was a Muslim bred atheist. In the USA an atheist wouldn't get elected to political office (George Bush 1987: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God"). Religion can be a beacon for morality, or a weight that drowns it. I find it fascinating, and educational, and thought provoking.................. but in the end, unnecessary. Morality on a secular model works well in your and my society, and morality (and the creation of the idea of gods/God) is a natural part of human evolution (and there are lots of books on this by numerous philosophers and other authors, as you know). Spirituality and spiritual happiness can be nurtured outside of God(s).
“A [person's] ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. [We] would indeed be in a poor way if [we] had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”-- Albert Einstein

In the end, I think Y and you are misguided in your belief in a resurrection. I find belief in God somewhat quaint at times, puzzling and irrelevant at other times, and often admirable in many ways when directed towards altruism, love and happiness, if it is benign. It is frighteningly repulsive when it is cloaked in violent intolerance, as seen in history and in some areas around the world today.

Poor old X had to fight with a hand tied behind his back. He couldn't be an atheist, or agnostic, or deist. Only a wavering believer, or maybe just a believer trying to convince himself that he was being liberal and fair minded, for a while............................ Pity he had to believe in impossible angels, and other magic. He never really had a chance.

Good luck with your next book, and in life.

cheers
Jim Rogers

PS:
If there are a hundred billion galaxies in the universe, with many billions more planets,
it is likely there are at least a tiny percentage of planets that have the "Goldilocks"
environment for life.
If, out of those planets, on a percentage life develops with moral consciousness...?
Will those beings also have "original sin"? Could they develop without it?
If the have original sin, will they also have to be saved by a Saviour?
Will other Sons (or perhaps this time Daughters) of God have to be born
(of other Virgins?), live amongst them, and die to save them?
If so,then is the Holy Trinity, in fact, an unknown "Multiplicity" of God?
(Is God more like The Cat In The Hat, with a host of Sons and Daughters
within?? )

PPS:
"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE". ----- Stephen Hawking

PPPS:

Einstein Quotes on life, religion, and ethics:

[My] deep religiosity... found an abrupt ending at the age of twelve, through the reading of popular scientific books.

------------------------

The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible.

-----------------------------

If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.

It is the duty of every man of good will to strive steadfastly in his own little world to make this teaching of pure humanity a living force, so far as he can. If he makes an honest attempt in this direction without being crushed and trampled under foot by his contemporaries, he may consider himself and the community to which he belongs lucky.

[Philipa]

Metro - a spot-on comment yet again.

I'm delighted to see that Christopher Hitchens' book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is now on release. I'm confident it will be a valuable contribution to this debate, if his performance on the night was anything to go by. If it's consistent with the quality of his other work, which I'm sure it is, it will also be a joy to read. If anyone reads it before me I would love to know their impressions and if it has changed their views in any way. I've become convinced that with this particular debate, many peoples opinions are fixed and as Denis Collins said above - some believe because they just WANT it to be true.

[Bob Harrison]

I've just finished reading this lot (skipping though some of the more virulent and long winded preaching). An interesting if difficult debate. Simon says –

“I hold it on the only grounds I can possibly, my own personal experiences. I don't think there is a god, I know there is. And I know that Christianity is the closest to that experience of God - after looking into pretty much all of them when I started to believe.”

Similarly – based on my own personal experience, I don’t think there is not a god, I know there is not a god – on the balance of probabilities based on all the evidence that I have been able to read, experience, listen to, look at etc etc (note that this is the complete opposite of faith). There is NO evidence for the existence of a supreme being or intelligence. Yes the universe is stunning in its size, complexity and beauty – but I do not need to postulate the existence of some bearded person (or what ever the current view is) to have given us what we are now part of. I also think it the extraordinarily arrogant to think that the universe is there solely for mankind (unkind?). Science has made huge leaps in the last 100 years – and is now able to provide good explanations for a large number of questions on how the universe and life evolved - it does not need smoke and mirrors. Some religions have adapted (evolved!) as science has provided answers, others have remained deeply entrenched in the ignorant past.

[Metro]

Just passing by, and noticed this--second in the thread.

Perhaps someone's answered it already, but I grew tired of the proselytizing and skipped.

"This kind of format suits both Dawkins and Grayling if they speak in the same way that they write. They like to write controversial bluster which they don't need to provide references for or explain further."

Sounds like religion to me.

"Here is the TRUTH God tells me!"

"'Ang on--'Ow d'you know?"

"It is WRITTEN. In this book."

"An' 'ow d'you know the BOOK's true?"

"Because God tells me so, so it must be true."

All arguments in favour of the existence of a god wind up in this sort of useless tail-chasing by one route or another.

I think the bravest statement of faith is: "Without evidence other than that of my own heart and mind, I believe."

The stupidest is:
"Against all the evidence, I believe, regardless."

If we apply Occam's Razor to a God, it vanishes. Dawkins is just the highest-profile person saying it.

I imagine he gets daily death threats from the followers of various just and loving gods.

So certainly his life might be better without religion. As would all of ours.

[Jim]

Cards on table: I believe in God and try to follow Jesus's teachings. I am not a member of any church and spend most
Sunday mornings at home with the newspapers. I don't agree with the atheist position, but I don't wish them any personal ill.

It seems to me that atheism is as much a matter of faith as belief in a supreme being. (At its simplest, it's logically impossible to conclusively prove a negative.) Sometimes, at least in his book, Dawkins seems like a strident, antireligious puritan, out to purge society of wrong belief and to impose his own. The case against religious belief made by Richard Dawkins, et al. depends, in large part, on a particular conceptualization of religion that is based on certain aspects of such belief but not on others. Worse, hostility toward religious belief at times becomes hostility toward believers.

The God in which I believe is unaffected by whether Richard Dawkins believes or not. (I suspect that atheists don't disappoint God nearly as much as believers who use God to justify their own hatreds and cruelties.) My own faith would be pretty weak if I tried to protect it by covering my ears. I have always struggled with questions of faith, just as I have always believed. (C.S. Lewis said that people who talk about the comforts of religion obviously don't know what religion really is.)

On a certain level, debates like this are besides the point.
For Christians, the cliched question "What would Jesus do?" is probably more important than "What did Jesus believe?" In other words, ethics should trump theology. Most of us, believers or not, want to treat each other well and to make life better in our little corners of the planet. Or at least we should try.

[Paul Grieve, Taiwan]

Wasn't atheism debunked in the Twentieth Century? – Who still wants Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc? Would Richard Dawkins have scoffed as the Germans and British played their Christmas football match in the trenches of WW1? What would an honest atheist say to the wilful destruction of all Europe's ancient places of worship if it were to happen today? Have you read “Red Cavalry” [1924] by Isaac Babel? What of the families and individuals, rich and poor, inside churches singing Latin Mass, or worshipping otherwise? What worth are they? What world would destroy them? Whose world? Why did Dr Johnson, one of our greatest thinkers, believe in God - at the height of the Enlightenment? I’ve yet to read a book by Professor Dawkins (for free as one reads Dan Brown) but I will get round to it. Does his anti-Christian, anti-religious faith and his interpretation of science really allow him to denounce ordinary religious believers throughout the world and all they and their ancestors have contributed to our knowledge? Would you visit China and refuse to visit Buddhist sculptures? Would you visit India and ignore the temples? To what extent does Dawkins’ faith allow him to approve of the destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamian? (half-good? half-bad?) What’s he about? Are we being groomed for space travel in ships without chapels or for a Europe without churches and any vestige of religious culture? A vast, heartless “cleansing” or “clearance”?
I have always believed in evolution, my father, a geologist, proudly showed me Hutton’s Rock in Edinburgh. But what is this hate for religion really all about? This is worse than a callous “burning of the books”, sheet music etc. It is an attempt (to come about in the near future I suppose) to erase our memories of all that religion has contributed to the world. One thinks of the boat-builders of Kerala going, countless temple flower-sellers going, our beautiful cathedrals (the stone and the wood) going, the end of hope for the world’s poor and voiceless, the end of religious schools, the severance of our links with the past, the scoffing at the wedding photos of our parents and grandparents as they are banned and binned. Our future? What would we think about if we survived? In Mao’s gulags there were no frogs or rats left to eat. As I write this, Darwin himself appears to me to be a great saint, with a history that nurtured him, compared with this devil Dawkins.

[Simon Icke]

This is the most powerful one page of Christian writing I have ever read. It has just been given to me by my Christian brother who is visiting me at the moment from the States. Please print it out, copy it to your friends and publish it where you can. We were once a Christian country and I feel we need reminding just who Jesus is, this article by the black preacher from San Diego, California USA the late Dr S M Lockeridge reminds us of what a great Christian heritage we have and Who the source of that heritage is; that we shouldn't be apologising for our Christian faith or be embarrassed to talk about our great King Jesus Christ.

"That's My King"

The late Dr. S.M. Lockeridge, a preacher from San Diego, California who said these words in a sermon in Detroit in 1976

My King was born King. The Bible says He's a Seven Way King. He's the King of the Jews - that's an Ethnic King. He's the King of Israel - that's a National King. He's the King of righteousness. He's the King of the ages. He's the King of Heaven. He's the King of glory. He's the King of kings and He is the Lord of lords. Now that's my King.

Well, I wonder if you know Him. Do you know Him? Don't try to mislead me. Do you know my King? David said the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. My King is the only one of whom there are no means of measure that can define His limitless love. No far seeing telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of the shore of His supplies. No barriers can hinder Him from pouring out His blessing. He's enduringly strong. He's entirely sincere. He's eternally steadfast. He's immortally graceful. He's imperially powerful. He's impartially merciful. That's my King.

He's God's Son. He's the sinner's saviour. He's the centrepiece of civilization. He stands alone in Himself. He's honest. He's unique. He's unparalleled. He's unprecedented. He's supreme. He's pre-eminent. He's the grandest idea in literature. He's the highest personality in philosophy. He's the supreme problem in higher criticism. He's the fundamental doctrine of historic theology. He's the carnal necessity of spiritual religion. That's my King.

He's the miracle of the age. He's the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him. He's the only one able to supply all our needs simultaneously. He supplies strength for the weak. He's available for the tempted and the tried. He sympathizes and He saves. He's the Almighty God who guides and keeps all his people. He heals the sick. He cleanses the lepers. He forgives sinners. He discharged debtors. He delivers the captives. He defends the feeble. He blesses the young. He serves the unfortunate. He regards the aged. He rewards the diligent and He beautifies the meek. That's my King.

Do you know Him? Well, my King is a King of knowledge. He's the wellspring of wisdom. He's the doorway of deliverance. He's the pathway of peace. He's the roadway of righteousness. He's the highway of holiness. He's the gateway of glory. He's the master of the mighty. He's the captain of the conquerors. He's the head of the heroes. He's the leader of the legislatures. He's the overseer of the over comers. He's the governor of governors. He's the prince of princes. He's the King of kings and He's the Lord of lords. That's my King.

His office is manifold. His promise is sure. His light is matchless. His goodness is limitless. His mercy is everlasting. His love never changes. His Word is enough. His grace is sufficient. His reign is righteous. His yoke is easy and His burden is light. I wish I could describe Him to you . . .but He's indescribable. He's indescribable. That's my King.

He's incomprehensible. He's invincible. He's irresistible. I'm coming to tell you this, that the heavens of heavens can't contain Him, let alone some man explain Him. You can't get Him out of your mind. You can't get Him off of your hands. You can't outlive Him and you can't live without Him. The Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out they couldn't stop Him. Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him. The witnesses couldn't get their testimonies to agree about Him. Herod couldn't kill Him. Death couldn't handle Him and the grave couldn't hold Him. That's my King.

He always has been and He always will be. I'm talking about the fact that He had no predecessor and He'll have no successor. There's nobody before Him and there'll be nobody after Him. You can't impeach Him and He's not going to resign. That's my King! That's my King!
Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory. Well, all the power belongs to my King. We're around here talking about black power and white power and green power, but in the end all that matters is God's power. Thine is the power. Yeah. And the glory. We try to get prestige and honour and glory for ourselves, but the glory is all His. Yes. Thine is the Kingdom and the power and glory, forever and ever and ever and ever. How long is that? And ever and ever and ever and ever. And when you get through with all of the 'ever's, then . . .Amen.

By Dr. S. M. Lockeridge

[Simon]

Denis

Thanks for your long reply. Unfortunately it seems as if I was unable to secure some space in your mind to actually consider the possibility of the existence of God. I used to find it far easier showing peoples faiths to be ridiculous to themselves when I was an atheist, than it now is to get an atheist to even consider what I now see as a more profound reality.

Anyway I'll reply to some of your points in the hope you're not a complete zealot :)

Oh, I have do have plenty of 'imagination' Simon, but not to the point where I imagine black to be white and live my life according to that imagining- which is what is evidenced in some of your claims.

Language can be a barrier in these things. You may be talking about black and white as colours, and I may be talking about them as light and lack of light, for example. They seem to be the same or equivalent, but the subtle difference is large enough that something black can actually be visibly bathed in light. A crass example but you started it!

Anyone who can read Genesis and believe that it REALLY gives a simplified, poetic explanation that is compatible with modern cosmology is, frankly, bonkers.
Anyone who can torture the primitive Genesis stories into meaning what science says REALLY happened can indeed convince themselves that black is really white.
I invite anyone who doubts this to go and read Genesis for themselves.

There are different ways of reading different things. Some people can one day think Shakespeare outdated and boring, and the next day suddenly find it sublime. The only difference is the preconceptions they approach it with.

Indeed it does not. What it DOES say, however- and if you read more carefully what I previously said you would know this- is that the various creation myths are all false.

As far as I know no creation myth gives the slightest hint of what you have alluded too, and Genesis certainly does not. Instead it gives a small-scale (in both space and time), parochial, geocentric, anthropocentric, misogynistic myth that is EXACTLY what we expect to see produced from the clueless guesses of primitive people, and not remotely what it SHOULD say if it were genuinely God-inspired.

Its only all those things in the way you read it. For example the word used in Genesis for day as in the days of creation, is יום (yôm). The definition of the word in Strong is "From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively...". You take the English literalistic translation of that and assume it means a 24 hour earth day, where as the word actually http://www.foreignword.com/Tools/dictsrch_aff.asp?menu=Y&query=eon&src=BP&srcbox=20&go=Translate&trg=CU>meant hot originally, and back then it was a general reference to time that could just as easily mean year as day. You've decided that its primitive nonsense and so that fits well, case closed for you. Is there some ancient Hebrew word for 'eon' or such that you think should have been used ?

And anyway, how do you know what it should say if it was inspired by God ? God might not find the exact empirical details of the development of the universe that interesting. In whatever way time appears to him, you can hardly imagine he would not be very well familiar with such things, or that it would seem rational to even try and convey the specific details to people 3000 years ago. Its purpose is to describe our beginnings as subjective people, not an empirical and objective history of matter. As such it described primal innocence, the change from us being unconsciously naked like animals, to the self conscious creatures we are now who actively decide how we respond to our environment. Its actually an incredibly profound text, and it helps if you spend more time reading scholarly analysis of its actual context, such as http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/catechesis_genesis/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19791212_en.html>this, rather than the kind of junk you find coming from creationists.

PRECISELY! When people are at their weakest they reach out for any chimera, any pie-in-the-sky that will comfort them- reason and evidence go out of the window.

I've never understood this idea that its all about comfort. For someone like me it was far more comfortable not being too bothered about what a hedonistic slave to the luxuries of life I am. But hey, you know everything about why people believe, and how deluded they are about their personal experiences... ?

Your apologetics here are only a very late and rather desperate attempt- common among modern liberal Christians- to try to retrospectively radically alter the whole basis of the faith. No pre-Enlightenment Christian- including Paul or even the Gospel Jesus himself- would even recognise it as their faith.

Hey ? Have you actually read any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers ? Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation>these two quotes from Augustine for a start.

The Bible says lots of stupid things.
The Jewish notion of God changed through their history. At the time Genesis was written God was indeed believed to be corporeal (physical, with a human-like body)- hence his appearance having a stroll in the Garden. Note how, at this stage, he was also considered less than omnipotent- hence his need to have a rest after six days of labours!

You seem to have a very simplistic idea of what spirit is, and of God for that matter. When added to your overtly literalistic interpretation its no surprise it seems like nonsense to you. Rest can also be a state of mind, it can simply mean being still. The context its used in is clear - he rested from doing his work. There is no indication in the passage that he needed to rest. Its blatantly clear: " 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Several translations even use the word 'ceased' rather than 'rested'.

In later stages of the Bible's centuries of composition God was considered to live in the heavens (literally beyond the firmament- Judaism and Christianity are actually predicated on a flat earth with the dome of heaven above it!);

Only to someone who reads it in the most literalistic way - something entirely inappropriate to the languages of the time. Even now - if an astronaught on the moon said they could see the whole earth, would it really be appropriate to think they were suggesting they could see the entire surface of the earth. You can hardly suggest, with what we know now, that "god stretched out the heavens" is an inappropriate expression.

... or inside the Ark of the Covenant; or in the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple; or split between the three persons of the Trinity; and so on.

As God created space and time, and is clearly described as spirit, its hardly sensible to see these as contradictions.

But in any case humans are simply one species among millions, not 'created' i9n any sense but evolved, and not remotely 'in teh image' of any putative Creator.

But we are the only species that is consciously self aware. We make conscious decisions, we have a will, we have the ability to control our reactions, to experience meaning in a tangible way, to have opinions, a desire to be right, a sense of regret, we can ponder the most esoteric concepts, wonder at symmetry etc etc. In spirit we are very different to even our closest biological relatives. Down a river of the fitness landscape we have arrived at a place where we are the closest things to gods we know. So why do you have such a problem with the idea that we are made in Gods image ?

As Arthur C Clarke presciently wrote long ago (I paraphrase from memory):
"Christianity is sitting on a time bomb. If and when we ever make contact with extraterrestrials it is a safe bet that they will be more intelligent and technologically advanced than we are- if not they couldn't cross interstellar space to visit us. The claim that humans are made 'in God's image' will inevitably lead to the realization that OUR God must be a rather inferior specimen to theirs!"
hehe

Wild speculation at best! Maybe they will say that God has spoken to them about us through their prophets! Maybe they will say that all their technology was developed so that they could come visit the planet where the creator became incarnate.

Its so easy to jump to conclusions when you feel you're so sure of your ground. In the New Scientist a few weeks back Douglas Hofstadter used some thought experiment to prove that there was no 'self'. In it he talked of a teleporter sending one copy of yourself to Mars, and another one to Venus. He reasoned that the fact there would now be two of you shows that there is no such thing as a unique self. But that’s just ridiculous nonsense speculation. No one knows if it would every be possible to teleport anything living and for it to remain living the other side. There is plenty of evidence suggesting there are extra dimensions (the hierarchy problem, quasi-crystals, M theory etc), and we have very little idea about them - even whether or not any part of ourselves exist within them. Its simply crazy that people nowadays decide things based on thought experiments that have more to do with having seen Star Trek than actually trying to find the truth of the matter.

No it isn't because you have misread what I wrote. I only mentioned the corporeal God thing as a side issue. My point was, as can be seen above, that the small-scale, recent, geocentric, anthropocentric, flat-earth account of Genesis is wrong not just in detail but in EVERY conceivable way- science has shown it to be as wrong as it could possibly be.

You have yet to tell me a single thing about it that is wrong, except in a simplistic and literalistic way that is not appropriate for the level of scientific sophistication you are comparing it to. Its worse than not understanding 'its raining cats and dogs'.

Well, Genesis wasn't written by nor meant to be read by any four year old children, for a start!

Why such inappropriate literalism all the time from you ? I was clearly using an analogy to describe people even less primitive in understanding the universe than we are! In 200 years time, assuming we haven't been wiped out - or wiped ourselves out - by then, we may well have learnt enough to look back on our time as a teen-age phase (in case you are still on this literalist bent I should point out that I'm not suggesting they will think we are all aged 13-19!)

But what such a Creator, if he wanted to impart knowledge of his origins to a sentient creature like a human COULD have done

That’s a big 'if' - especially since god did not originate! You seem to spend so little time imagining god as he is claimed to be, that you are always arguing against a concept that exists only in your head. No wonder you're an atheist!!! :)

...was to indicate in simple terms how extremely old the universe was; how it came from a great 'fire'; how vast it was; how the earth was a tiny speck amid it all that was not of the slightest special significance; that Man was one of a huge number of species of living things that had EVOLVED from other living things; that women are NOT inferior to men; and so on.
Genesis does precisely the opposite of all this showing- as Russell correctly noted- that if the Bible IS divinely inspired, God must be very stupid indeed!

Maybe when you really are omniscientj, and can create a new universe whenever you like, the precise details of how you did it last time do not seem so important to you ? Ever considered that possibility ? We find the unknown fascinating and so dedicate huge effort and place great importance on various mechanisms, but if you know everything about such things and nothing in unknown to you, perhaps you place different importance on different things ?

That's right. You have to read it. I have. I understand exactly what it is saying, as does every competent reader, and it is nonsense.

hehe

Oh dear, This logical fallacy is a common one I'm afraid. It goes like:
'Because we don't know EVERYTHING, how can we possibly say that, say, Genesis isn't true?'

That’s not my point, but anyway...

The simple answer is that because we don't know EVERYTHING does not mean we therefore know NOTHING. We now know a vast amount about how our universe developed, and neither Genesis nor any other pre-scientific account bears even the tiniest, remotest resemblance to the established facts of the matter.
It doesn't matter WHAT the 'unknown 96%' of the universe turns out to be like- every claim made in Genesis has already proven completely wrong, adding even more matter/energy/mass/time/dimensions to the present cosmological picture cannot possibly make it somehow 'right'- all it can (and no doubt will) do is make it even MORE wrong!

Or maybe it will show how inappropriate our primitive language is to discuss such things, and that Genesis is using words like 'day' for eons, 'light' for quantum ground state energy, 'firmament' for space-time etc etc ? Its some 14 billion years in one short chapter that was written for people 3000 years ago. To be confident that its incorrect when you don't know what the emergence of the universe was like from the 'outside' is arrogant. I certainly never saw myself as arrogant about it when I was an atheist, but the fact is that I was.

More scientific red herrings follow, then:

Did you read any of the article I liked to ?

No, it is an opinion based on evidence- ALL the evidence we have. All the seemingly plausible reasons people had for believing in gods has been dispelled by science. Most people in the world haven't yet realised this, mostly because they are ignorant of the scientific worldview, while there are a few that are aware of the findings of science but cannot- for emotional or social reasons- let go of the religious faith they were brought up with.

I don't think I've ever heard my parents mention God ever, so you can't put that one on me. And I may not be a specialist in anything but my grasp of science is fairly good.

Sometimes it is, but sometimes (as in my case) it is based on sound knowledge of what religions claim and what science has established and the incompatibilities of the two.

Actually science and everything to do with its process is specifically agnostic on the subject of the existence of God. To postulate the non existence of God fails to meet any of Popper's criteria. In fact that whole enlightenment was the sensible and deliberate splitting of philosophy into theology and science. God was explicitly removed from the scientific worldview, and so you can hardly expect science to be the correct tool to prove he doesn't exist! He doesn't exist in science simply because part of the reason the scientific process exists is to remove the 'god did it' lazy assumptions that people were prone to do in the past.

Indeed, extra-terrestrial PHYSICAL life almost certainly exists- contrary to the Bible.

Where does the the bible make such a claim? A http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=alien&x=0&y=0>quick search at biblegateway.com shows 102 references to aliens! (thats a joke btw :)

He didn't, actually. John's gospel is a 2nd century work that is almost entirely anti-gnostic and anti-docetist spin, bearing little relation to the earlier Synoptics (this saying, along with most of the others in John, are not recorded in the Synoptics, and are almost certainly all 2nd century Christian inventions).

That’s pure speculation. Wikipedia says "Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90-100 for when the gospel [of John] was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars."

So even assuming, as you are, that Eusebius was lying when he claimed that Irenaeus had the authorship confirmed from Polycarp, its hardly unreasonable to suggest it could contain genuine words that had been passed on but not previously recorded in the other gospels. Indeed that was exactly what Clement of Alexandria claimed was the reason John was written. You can assume they were all some dodgy bunch of people making things up to try and spread their religion, if you like, but it would seem strange for people to willingly go to their deaths in the amphitheatres simply for believing it was true - and then to make things up just for the sake of it.

We have no SCIENTIFIC reason to believe that, no. In fact everything we know point sin the opposite direction, that the universe has NO purpose, and certainly not to produce we humans, who are just miniscule blobs of matter clinging to a cosmic speck. However, the Bible makes it clear- once again wrongly- that we are the intended pinnacle of Creation- go and read Genesis again.

There is no scientific reason to believe there is no meaning to the universe! Science doesn't do meaning, among other things. And science can tell you what the signs of the presence of life are - but simply doesn't have the tools to answer what life actually is. Its quite strange that these "blobs of matter" have developed the ability to contemplate the esoteric nature and meaning of our existence. To marvel at the maths of symmetry that pervades the universe. To even contemplate the whole show just appearing from nowhere...

Really? Could you elaborate on this please? Explain what grounds we have for believing in something before the Big Bang?

Well there was no time 'before' the big bang so strictly speaking there was no 'before'. However, we have no reason to believe that Zero Point Energy did not itself emerge during the big bang itself, and so there is obviously an issue with conservation of energy.

And what was it like?

I wasn't there. You will have to ask an omnipresent being that was there when it 'started'.

And how did IT come to exist?

I guess you mean God ? God has always existed. You should know that if you know the bible so well :) Of course that’s difficult for us to comprehend in our temporal, deterministic existence where everything has a start. Its a bit like someone who has only ever know straight lines trying to imagine a circle.

And what created it?

Nothing.

And what created the thing that created that?
And the thing that created THAT?
And so on, ad infinitum....

These are all turtles in your own head...

No, it is a belief that is supported by everything that science has so far been able to show us (which is an AWFUL lot).
It is also supported by water-tight logic- however mysterious or hard to explain a self-existent universe is it is much (perhaps infinitely) more mysterious and hard to explain the existence of its pre-existing Creator- or IT'S pre-existing super-Creator- etc

Again ... turtles.

Like what? You mean the silly stories in the Bible about God appearing...

No I meant people like CS Lewis and many, many others...

to Adam and Eve in the Garden? Or to Abraham in the desert? Or Jesus flying up into the sky (where early Christians believed God lived) after his resurrection (this detail alone proves that the resurrection is a myth, incidentally)?

Eh ? What feats of logic are you performing here ?

Or do you mean modern people who claim to have seen visions or heard God talking to them? What about those who have had such experiences of Allah? Or Vishnu? Or the Buddha? Or Thor? Or Zeus? What about the ancient Egyptians, who believed in Amon Re for a millenium longer than Christians have (so far) believed in Jesus- were their mystical experiences genuine too?
If not, why not?

Many are, but you ignore the whole spiritual realm and so its kind of pointless dealing with each individually. There are people that believe in esoteric meaning behind, say the solar boat of the AE, but to me it does simply seem like misunderstandings and distortions. Buddha obviously discussed elements of self-knowledge that were not subjects that exist in any of the words of Jesus we have. And Mohammed constantly contradicted just about everything about the well established tradition he espoused, so I distrust the Koran as any kind of reliable source, but don't deny that some Muslims seem to have a genuine relationship with God despite the fact their 'holy book' is anything but.

On what grounds do you hold that the CHRISTIAN religious experience is valid while every other kind (the large majority) are false?
Six million Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens- proof positive of the power of the human mind to supply itself with delusional experiences of all kinds of supernatural beings, their particular forms being based upon the beliefs of the individual concerned.

I hold it on the only grounds I can possibly, my own personal experiences. I don't think there is a god, I know there is. And I know that Christianity is the closest to that experience of God - after looking into pretty much all of them when I started to believe.

If I'm ever abducted by aliens, or someone I really trust claims to be, or some really serious evidence for it emerges, then I may think more seriously about alien abductions. In the meantime I'll remain deeply sceptical.

Wow I thought that would never end!

[Simon]

Christopher

The Kenny book sounds worth a read - although I see he is a 'fan' of Wittgenstein and his empirical epistemology of atomic facts, which seems a bit one dimensional to me. Actually I hadn't heard of Kenny so I looked him up on Wikipedia. Funnily enough, two clicks later I ended up on http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html>Plantinga's review of The God Delusion, which does a fairly good job of 'dealing' with Dawkins in far less words than a book. Although I dislike Plantinga's flirtation with Intelligent Design, he does make some good points now and then, such as observing "superficial conflict but deep concord between Christian belief and science“ and "superficial concord but deep conflict“ between science and atheism.

Anyway always too much to read, and not enough time to read it. If only people like Robert Harris stopped coming out with good novels I'd have more of it to spend on the serious stuff :)

[Denis Collins]

I thought I'd managed to escape from this Blog as it wound down, but it has dragged me back!

Thanks Simon for responding to some of my previous posts (though you mis-spell my name).

Simon said:

' ....[I] certainly find [your position] more reasoned than the views of say, David Smith (who shares some of the views I now have but seems more interested in finding bizarre ways to reject evolution and the Catholic Church than finding the truth). '

Well, there's a clear case of 'damning with faint praise' if ever there was one!
Erm... thanks! hehe

' What I would say, however, is that your imagination is sometimes as limited as his. '

Oh, I have do have plenty of 'imagination' Simon, but not to the point where I imagine black to be white and live my life according to that imagining- which is what is evidenced in some of your claims.

' Obviously imagination needs to be steered with reason, but nonetheless I think you will agree it is an important facet of conscious understanding of anything. Even using your materialistic epistemology of the nature of consciousness, recent research in neuroscience has shown that imagination is even a key element even in our most basic mental functions such as memory recall (eg. see Neuropsychologia, vol 45, p 1363). '

All true.

' For example you say;
...the Bible, along with every other pre-scientific explanation of creation, got it all completely, utterly, totally wrong.
To try to say that Genesis REALLY depicts an aeons-old universe that has evolved gradually and painfully to its present point, with humans making up just 0.000000000000000000000000000000..........1% of it in terms of both time and matter- oh, but, 'created in the image of God', of course!- is insane.
Anyone who can believe that can, and indeed will, believe ANYTHING that their church commands.

This shows almost as little imaginative 'depth of field' in your thought process as young earth creationists. '

No, it doesn't, and I find the accusation both absurd and insulting.
Anyone who can read Genesis and believe that it REALLY gives a simplified, poetic explanation that is compatible with modern cosmology is, frankly, bonkers.
Anyone who can torture the primitive Genesis stories into meaning what science says REALLY happened can indeed convince themselves that black is really white.
I invite anyone who doubts this to go and read Genesis for themselves.

' The sheer mindbendingly awesome scale of the universe, and our almost complete irrelevance within it in physical terms, says nothing about the existence of the the creator of that universe. '

Indeed it does not. What it DOES say, however- and if you read more carefully what I previously said you would know this- is that the various creation myths are all false. As far as I know no creation myth gives the slightest hint of what you have alluded too, and Genesis certainly does not. Instead it gives a small-scale (in both space and time), parochial, geocentric, anthropocentric, misogynistic myth that is EXACTLY what we expect to see produced from the clueless guesses of primitive people, and not remotely what it SHOULD say if it were genuinely God-inspired.

' If anything, to consider any aspect of the nature of such a being, requires a realisation of how absurdly and spectacularly out of our depths we are. Of course I'm not suggesting that we shrug our shoulders and give up. But its worth realising that sane and intelligent atheist/agnostic people usually only come to believe in god after some major upheaval or crisis in their lives. '

PRECISELY! When people are at their weakest they reach out for any chimera, any pie-in-the-sky that will comfort them- reason and evidence go out of the window.

' Often the natural conclusion for those on the outside is that they've 'lost their minds', '
And for good reason.

Simon later says:
'..... But nonetheless, its important to look on scripture for what it claims to be - certainly not as a textbook guide to empirical deduction (something us humans find so useful, powerful and necessary in the investigation of the mechanisms involved in the physical realm). '

Your apologetics here are only a very late and rather desperate attempt- common among modern liberal Christians- to try to retrospectively radically alter the whole basis of the faith. No pre-Enlightenment Christian- including Paul or even the Gospel Jesus himself- would even recognise it as their faith.

' For example you mention the fact that Genesis says we are made in Gods image. But the bible also says that god is spirit - so we are clearly not talking about our flesh here. '

The Bible says lots of stupid things.
The Jewish notion of God changed through their history. At the time Genesis was written God was indeed believed to be corporeal (physical, with a human-like body)- hence his appearance having a stroll in the Garden. Note how, at this stage, he was also considered less than omnipotent- hence his need to have a rest after six days of labours!
In later stages of the Bible's centuries of composition God was considered to live in the heavens (literally beyond the firmament- Judaism and Christianity are actually predicated on a flat earth with the dome of heaven above it!); or inside the Ark of the Covenant; or in the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple; or split between the three persons of the Trinity; and so on.
But in any case humans are simply one species among millions, not 'created' i9n any sense but evolved, and not remotely 'in teh image' of any putative Creator.
As Arthur C Clarke presciently wrote long ago (I paraphrase from memory):
"Christianity is sitting on a time bomb. If and when we ever make contact with extraterrestrials it is a safe bet that they will be more intelligent and technologically advanced than we are- if not they couldn't cross interstellar space to visit us. The claim that humans are made 'in God's image' will inevitably lead to the realization that OUR God must be a rather inferior specimen to theirs!"
hehe

' As such your depiction of anyone who believes this part of the bible as being insane - is a strawman comment. '

No it isn't because you have misread what I wrote. I only mentioned the corporeal God thing as a side issue. My point was, as can be seen above, that the small-scale, recent, geocentric, anthropocentric, flat-earth account of Genesis is wrong not just in detail but in EVERY conceivable way- science has shown it to be as wrong as it could possibly be.

Simon then gives a lot of irrelevant vaguely scientific rambling, then says:

' If you could describe what its like to be the creator of the universe ...... how would you describe that to, say, a four year old child? '

Well, Genesis wasn't written by nor meant to be read by any four year old children, for a start!
But what such a Creator, if he wanted to impart knowledge of his origins to a sentient creature like a human COULD have done was to indicate in simple terms how extremely old the universe was; how it came from a great 'fire'; how vast it was; how the earth was a tiny speck amid it all that was not of the slightest special significance; that Man was one of a huge number of species of living things that had EVOLVED from other living things; that women are NOT inferior to men; and so on.
Genesis does precisely the opposite of all this showing- as Russell correctly noted- that if the Bible IS divinely inspired, God must be very stupid indeed!

Biblical quotes follow...sigh.....

Then:

' To say Genesis is inaccurate, you have to know what its actually saying. '

That's right. You have to read it. I have. I understand exactly what it is saying, as does every competent reader, and it is nonsense.

Then there's more irrelevant scientific-sounding material, ending with this:

' Seeing as we don't even know what 96% of the universe is (according to the WMAP data), let alone how many dimensions it contains, what space is, what gravity is, what life actually is etc etc, it seems arrogant at best to have such a firm opinion on the matter - especially when seemingly based on little more than the opinion that most people who do believe it are credulous. '

Oh dear, This logical fallacy is a common one I'm afraid. It goes like:
'Because we don't know EVERYTHING, how can we possibly say that, say, Genesis isn't true?'
The simple answer is that because we don't know EVERYTHING does not mean we therefore know NOTHING. We now know a vast amount about how our universe developed, and neither Genesis nor any other pre-scientific account bears even the tiniest, remotest resemblance to the established facts of the matter.
It doesn't matter WHAT the 'unknown 96%' of the universe turns out to be like- every claim made in Genesis has already proven completely wrong, adding even more matter/energy/mass/time/dimensions to the present cosmological picture cannot possibly make it somehow 'right'- all it can (and no doubt will) do is make it even MORE wrong!

' Think about the statement "Let there be light" in Genesis...... '

No thanks!

More scientific red herrings follow, then:

' Atheism is not really a religion. '

At last! Some sense!

' But it is a belief, something based on opinion rather than facts. '

No, it is an opinion based on evidence- ALL the evidence we have. All the seemingly plausible reasons people had for believing in gods has been dispelled by science. Most people in the world haven't yet realised this, mostly because they are ignorant of the scientific worldview, while there are a few that are aware of the findings of science but cannot- for emotional or social reasons- let go of the religious faith they were brought up with. I've already said what these 'religious scientists' have to do in order to maintain that the day-and-night conflicting claims of science and religion don't matter.

' And often the opinion is based on a rejection of what the loudest and most anti-science religious people believe. '

Sometimes it is, but sometimes (as in my case) it is based on sound knowledge of what religions claim and what science has established and the incompatibilities of the two.

' Who knows what other life could exist in the universe. '

Indeed, extra-terrestrial PHYSICAL life almost certainly exists- contrary to the Bible.

' Jesus said "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you (John 14:2). '

He didn't, actually. John's gospel is a 2nd century work that is almost entirely anti-gnostic and anti-docetist spin, bearing little relation to the earlier Synoptics (this saying, along with most of the others in John, are not recorded in the Synoptics, and are almost certainly all 2nd century Christian inventions).

' Who knows what this means '

It meant that the mystically inclined Christian community that John wrote for believed that their particular God- who, note has once again evolved from the various Old testament notions of him- would, when the Parousia came, live alongside them in some spiritual analog of their physical bodies, along with the other denizens of heaven (i.e. above the firmament).

' - but we have no reason to believe the whole universe was created just for us. '

We have no SCIENTIFIC reason to believe that, no. In fact everything we know point sin the opposite direction, that the universe has NO purpose, and certainly not to produce we humans, who are just miniscule blobs of matter clinging to a cosmic speck. However, the Bible makes it clear- once again wrongly- that we are the intended pinnacle of Creation- go and read Genesis again.

' But we certainly have no reason to believe that it just appeared out of nothing. '

Really? Could you elaborate on this please? Explain what grounds we have for believing in something before the Big Bang?
And what was it like?
And how did IT come to exist?
And what created it?
And what created the thing that created that?
And the thing that created THAT?
And so on, ad infinitum....

' That's a personal belief, '

No, it is a belief that is supported by everything that science has so far been able to show us (which is an AWFUL lot).
It is also supported by water-tight logic- however mysterious or hard to explain a self-existent universe is it is much (perhaps infinitely) more mysterious and hard to explain the existence of its pre-existing Creator- or IT'S pre-existing super-Creator- etc

'.... held as a rejection of the personal experiences other intelligent, sane and honest people. '

Like what? You mean the silly stories in the Bible about God appearing to Adam and Eve in the Garden? Or to Abraham in the desert? Or Jesus flying up into the sky (where early Christians believed God lived) after his resurrection (this detail alone proves that the resurrection is a myth, incidentally)?
Or do you mean modern people who claim to have seen visions or heard God talking to them? What about those who have had such experiences of Allah? Or Vishnu? Or the Buddha? Or Thor? Or Zeus? What about the ancient Egyptians, who believed in Amon Re for a millenium longer than Christians have (so far) believed in Jesus- were their mystical experiences genuine too?
If not, why not?
On what grounds do you hold that the CHRISTIAN religious experience is valid while every other kind (the large majority) are false?
Six million Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens- proof positive of the power of the human mind to supply itself with delusional experiences of all kinds of supernatural beings, their particular forms being based upon the beliefs of the individual concerned.

' Its held as a rejection of anything that can't be broken down into empirical parts in a lab or through a telescope. What it is not, is a conclusion based on evidence. '

See above.

[Christopher]

Simon
An interesting post. I have just bought a copy of Sir Anthony Kenny's What I Believe which has two intriguing-looking chapters, 'Why I am not an atheist' and 'Why I am not a theist' which I am immensely looking forward to reading. He is one of our leading philosophers and was a roman catholic priest before he became a professional academic and philosopher. (He was recently Master of Balliol College.) Along with it I bought Kenny's The Unknown God. I think these may provide a more intersting counterbalance to The God Delusion than the apparently hurriedly-produced McGrath book (which I suppose I should read too, but not with the same relish, sadly).

[simon (adams)]

Dennis Collins

Scanning over this thread I can see that you clearly have a well thought out position on most of this. As an ex-atheist myself I recognise much of it - and certainly find it more reasoned than the views of say, David Smith (who shares some of the views I now have but seems more interested in finding bizarre ways to reject evolution and the Catholic Church than finding the truth). What I would say, however, is that your imagination is sometimes as limited as his. Obviously imagination needs to be steered with reason, but nonetheless I think you will agree it is an important facet of conscious understanding of anything. Even using your materialistic epistemology of the nature of consciousness, recent research in neuroscience has shown that imagination is even a key element even in our most basic mental functions such as memory recall (eg. see Neuropsychologia, vol 45, p 1363).

For example you say;
...the Bible, along with every other pre-scientific explanation of creation, got it all completely, utterly, totally wrong.
To try to say that Genesis REALLY depicts an aeons-old universe that has evolved gradually and painfully to its present point, with humans making up just 0.000000000000000000000000000000..........1% of it in terms of both time and matter- oh, but, 'created in the image of God', of course!- is insane.
Anyone who can believe that can, and indeed will, believe ANYTHING that their church commands.

This shows almost as little imaginative 'depth of field' in your thought process as young earth creationists. The sheer mindbendingly awesome scale of the universe, and our almost complete irrelevance within it in physical terms, says nothing about the existence of the the creator of that universe. If anything, to consider any aspect of the nature of such a being, requires a realisation of how absurdly and spectacularly out of our depths we are. Of course I'm not suggesting that we shrug our shoulders and give up. But its worth realising that sane and intelligent atheist/agnostic people usually only come to believe in god after some major upheaval or crisis in their lives. Often the natural conclusion for those on the outside is that they've 'lost their minds', but only when you have gone through a similar experience do you really realise how interrelated all our various conclusions on things are. Its as if we have a necessary mental mechanism that bundles up ideas into boxes labelled with a conclusion. When we reason, we refer to the labels on the the various boxes relevant to the subject at hand - but we rarely open up more than one box at a time. The necessity and evolutionary usefulness of such a process is easy to discern - we would simply go mad if we had to re-evaluate everything we know from first principles every time we made a decision about something. And in a hunter-gatherer society we would surely die very quickly, you could say its the cost of having cognitive abilities so far beyond instincts.

For this reason I find it amazing that people can develop their concept of god gradually from a old bearded man in the clouds, to a more profound conception of what such a concept actually means, without becoming an atheist in between! But nonetheless, its important to look on scripture for what it claims to be - certainly not as a textbook guide to empirical deduction (something us humans find so useful, powerful and necessary in the investigation of the mechanisms involved in the physical realm). For example you mention the fact that Genesis says we are made in Gods image. But the bible also says that god is spirit - so we are clearly not talking about our flesh here. As such your depiction of anyone who believes this part of the bible as being insane - is a strawman comment. Because one of your ontological mental boxes has a label on it saying that we are purely physical creatures, you misread what the scriptures are actually implying. And for that matter, what is matter anyway ? The interaction of various waves and fields within a background of time and space (neither of which we understand) that seethe with so much energy that a cupful of empty space could boil all the oceans on earth instantly.

If you could describe what its like to be the creator of the universe, if you could describe the process of speaking the universe into existence; from a singularity into clumpy filaments shaped by the coherent acoustics of inflation, with all the laws of nature underlying every part of it holographically set so precisely such that simply elements would be pulled together into bodies perfect for fusing those elements into more complex elemets vital for life - if you could really know what that's like, how would you describe that to , say, a four year old child ?

As god himself says;

Isaiah 55

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

To say Genesis is inaccurate, you have to know what its actually saying. Seeing as we don't even know what 96% of the universe is (according to the WMAP data), let alone how many dimensions it contains, what space is, what gravity is, what life actually is etc etc, it seems arrogant at best to have such a firm opinion on the matter - especially when seemingly based on little more than the opinion that most people who do believe it are credulous.

Think about the statement "Let there be light" in Genesis. Most people think of this in a very simplistic way, atheists even more so! But just imagine it really is the creator of the universe describing some aspect of creation that is significant to us, and to himself. Its worth reading this article, one Haisch told me he considers 'highly speculative', but nonetheless may give you a beginning of an understanding into how easy it is to dismiss something simply because you are not in a position to re-evaluate as many of your conceptual conclusion/belief boxes at the same time, and therefore are mentally caged in a web of your own unconscious making. http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=126>Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field

Atheism is not really a religion. But it is a belief, something based on opinion rather than facts. And often the opinion is based on a rejection of what the loudest and most anti-science religious people believe. Who knows what other life could exist in the universe. Jesus said "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you (John 14:2). Who knows what this means - but we have no reason to believe the whole universe was created just for us. But we certainly have no reason to believe that it just appeared out of nothing. That's a personal belief, held as a rejection of the personal experiences other intelligent, sane and honest people. Its held as a rejection of anything that can't be broken down into empirical parts in a lab or through a telescope. What it is not, is a conclusion based on evidence.

[peter nicholson]

Hi,
In response to Malcolm McLean's post,the mere fact SOME humans,share his intuition only proves they agree with him,no more no less.What about my intuition that life may well be without meaning?I would never claim this to be powerful evidence for anything,and neither i think should anyone.

[Malcolm McLean]

Can't leave Peter Nicholson unanswered.
It was:

Hi there, believers. I've got a question for you. All believers tend to fall back on the "What is the meaning of life?" question/argument.
If you can tell me or Dawkins or anyone else why life should have any meaning in the first place.

Firstly that isn't the case. I and many other posted many other reasons for rejecting atheism.
Secondly humans have an intuition that life isn't purposeless. Whilst not a conclusive argument, the very fact that the intuition exists is powerful evidence that we are not merely complex molecular machines.

[peter nicholson]

excellent debate,but why have no theists responded to Bill's thoughtful post of mar.29,re. the meaning of life?Perhaps this only further demonstrates the paucity of intelligent responses from this largely sorry and arrogant bunch.No known meaning [the current situation],is surely more accurate than the delusional,self centred and self important mumbo jumbo of many theists.Amazingly they often in my experience see themselves as humble,despite claiming to have a personal relationship with their god,and in the case of christians believing god created man in god's image!

[David Smith]

It is reported today that the Pope has just said: “ ..the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Also that on the day of his installation as Pope, he remarked: “We are not some casual and meaning-less product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God.”

I rarely agree with him, so I thought I'd take this opportunity of doing so. As for his motives, that's a different matter.

[Dr Gordon Burton]

In the continuing debate about the existence of an all powerful supernatural being the concept of "purpose" seems to be the major rub. Most religions exist because people feel there must be a purpose to life and hence there must be a creator. The history of life in all its forms on earth throughout the ages demonstrates only one obvious purpose, and that is to reproduce. There is so much variation and experimentation with different life forms based on well documented fossil evidence that it is impossible to accept that all these failures and successes have been carefully designed by a creator. It is quite rational and logical for people that have not had the benefit of the current understanding of evolutionary mechanisms and principles to believe that the only answer is a creator. I would recommend the reading of Prof Dawkins books , especially the "selfish gene" for enlightenment. My conclusion is that it is a matter of the acceptability or not of the "purpose" of life that sways people towards accepting religion or not. Is there another purpose apart from reproduction ? Why should there be ? The evidence clearly does not support any other "purpose".

[kazgnik]

IF YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION YOU HAVE MORE FAITH THAN THOES WHO BELIEVE IN THE BEGINING GOD CREATED

there has never been any evidence the life can come from non life , instead we see life begets life

no transitional forms in the fossil record. 98 percent of life living today has been found "fully formed" along with extinct animals.instead we see the bibical model cats have cats dogs have dogs monkeys have monkeys and humans have humans. darwin said that there would be more transitions than fully formed if his theory was true
at 20 billion years to get to the point we are now, there should be over 3 million genetic changes a second. yet there are none to speak of , there are mutations wich is a loss of information and harmfull to the creature.

animals rot they dont get slowly covered up by surroundings. fossils are from a rapid covering sealing it from contact with elements that decompose degratable material. fossils can be found of animals giving birth or in process of giving birth. how is this ? how was that moment frozen in time
jelly fish have been fossilized how can a soft jelliton creature last long periods of time to slowly get covered up? they cant, unless rapidly covered
clams around the world have been fossilized as whole clams both parts top and botom when clams die the shell seperates as youll find on any beach.
multa strata fossils going through multiple levels. explain that?
its called hydrological sorting mixing diffrent elements in flowing water and they will aoutomatically seperate in to there own kind making diffrent strata.

at the supposed 20 billion years to know the amount of stars calculated there should be 31,000 stars form every secondwe see stars die but never born.

Language sanscript has upto 500 variations on a single word
thats complicated no language on earth can beat the number 12 , we are devolving
from the architecture of the pyrimads in egept to the aqua ducts of rome and numerous other structures are superior to todays capabilitys

fossils are result of the great flood

and it says in 2nd peter. in the last days men would profess to be wise saying i came from that rock or tree denying that God had created them and the great flood.

evolution is a a 17 century idea that was disprooven in the 1800
in darwins time they thought mice grew out of trash, and flies from rotting or stinky material and frogs from mud which where all disprooven in the early 1800s
evolution is fairy tale that has no proof , just people who say could have been , might of , popular opinion,could have, possibly,
its all speculation and they (evolutionist)will fight all the way because it is a religous beliefe that they hope and pray for. Dont trust man all men are lyars seeking after there own lusts.

[David Hallett]

Thanks for the link Denis. I found his paper "Dualism: An Empirical Test?" which I think may be what you were referring to. It doesn't directly address the hypothesis I presented you with, but it does raise interesting questions about the nature of identity.

Veronica, I thought your comments about faith were spot on. You also said: "In sum, believers in God are standing on ground no more or less stable than believers in a self."

I agree. Seen from a certain perspective, they are almost the same belief.

[Brian Coughlan]

This should help ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqWTgwVx9k

[EJ]

He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.

– Thomas Jefferson

[Hermann Burchard]

This is an impressive blog, and I wish I was more of an expert to comment on some of the substantive issues being debated, about which I have thoughts, but that I hardly have had time to glance at (Einstein, St. Paul, etc). Here, I just wish to again remind bloggers that 2 millennia of Christian influence have shaped our world, its modern civ life, and this is more important than what Dawkins & other
atheists think is "truth"
about God and Jesus and his life on Earth. These gents are killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, with their
nonchalant debating points. Let's honor the past and the moral and science teachings which
seems to have been among the products of the NT
myths, and some of its hard-core ethics rules,
such as the Beatitudes.
The first one can be most
accurately interpreted by
finding it prefigured in
Isaiah: "The downtrodden
(=Jesse Ventura's losers)
are righteous and they will be citizens of Heaven."

[Denis Collins]

David Hallett, look here for Peter King:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/

By all means e-mail him, he might be interested in your ideas- though don't expect a swift reply.

(Oh, and be careful not to confuse him with another philosopher of the same name who teaches at Ontario!)

David said:

' Yes, I have read most if not all of Dan Dennett's books. He's a fine writer, and an interesting thinker. I particularly like his approach to free will. If you take his approach to consciousness, you avoid lots of difficult questions - but you don't get to make any pronouncements on questions like what happens after death! I don't think he sees this as a drawback, rather the contrary. '

Although he isn't dogmatic about the subject I know (he is ANOTHER former CUAAS speaker!) that Dan doesn't believe in any kind of afterlife, and indeed thinks that consciousness- like everything else- is physical in nature.

' For a rather different approach, you could try Ken Wilber's "Brief History of Everything". '

I'll try to do so,

[Denis Collins]

Rod said:

' Inventing characters and then forging documents attributed to them is standard operating procedure – perhaps particularly in China. Some are better than others. '

Can you name a single KNOWN (rather than merely alleged) example of this in early Christianity?
I can't.

What DID happen from the late 1st century onwards was that REAL respected characters were credited, after their deaths (for obvious reasons!), with forged writings that supported the views and doctrines of the forger.
This is certainly the case with all the 'named' non-Pauline NT epistles, for instance.
It is also the case for SOME of those imputed to Paul too, of course.

But to assume that this trend was universally the case is a step too far, for the reasons I've already given. In order to hold that the core Paulines are 2nd century forgeries you'll have to labouriously explain away an awful lot of problems (some, but not all, of which I mentioned previously), while accepting that they are basically authentic solves all the problems at a stroke.
Once more, Occam comes to our rescue.

' Although quite a lot of qualification is needed, the evidence (still) suggests (to me) that second century Christianity is early Christianity. '

Well yes, but until and unless you tell me why that is I shan't be convinced, I'm afraid.

' There is no abyss, merely pre-Christianity becoming proto-Christianity. '

I think you misread what I said.
I wrote: ' a total abyss opens in our study of early Christianity ' if we have no genuine Pauline material- that is, OUR STUDY of the subject, not the nature of the subject itself. We have precious little to go on when we look at pre-70 nascent Christianity if there was no Paul.

' Only people who need to believe that the myth is history need any hard first century evidence, and then only to prop up their shaky construction. '

I don't need to believe in Christianity in order to study its origins. And, if there are no genuine Paulines then we have just the following to attest to pre-70 (proto?) Christianity:
Hebrews (probable)
Q (early stages at least)
Revelation (possible)
1 Clement/Didache/Shepherd of Hermas (JUST possible)

Note that the existence of any of these at such an early sate, or indeed of Mark not long after 70 (very probable) establishes beyond any debate that there WAS such a thing as 'Christianity' in the 1st century, and that it had assumed a recognisable, basically Orthodox shape in the form of Mark sometime between 70 and 90.

So, no amount of 'revisionist' arguments by the likes of Kenneth Humphreys can wish away the fact that Christianity did NOT originate in the 2nd century.

I had a quick look at his site and I wasn't impressed. Since I criticise the Christian sites pro-offered on here for things like faulty logic, non-sequiturs, over-simplification, out-of-context quotations and the like, I would be remiss if I didn't say that this ANTI-Christian site is guilty of similar offences!

I didn't read everything he says about Paul/Marcion because the portion I did read was so bad that I didn't feel I needed to go any further.

He makes much of the fact that the earliest Pauline manuscripts we possess are 3rd century- even though, as I've said before, NONE of our half-decent NT manuscripts are older than this, but we know from other evidence that the 27 books were all written well before this date.
That the 13 letters attributed to Paul in the NT were in existence by 180 is indisputable, since they are listed in the Moratorian Fragment at that date. Since they are there treated as Canonical it is a safe bet that they must have been known to have been in existence for a long time before that. Moreover, 2nd century non-Canonical writers like Ignatius, Justin, Papias and Clement all refer to or quote some of the letters, and no-one dates any of these writers post- 150- Ignatius died before 120.

Another howler he commits is claiming that the Gospels fail to mention Paul, so therefore he must have been invented after they were written!
Of COURSE Paul isn't mentioned in the Gospels- he didn't enter the 'Christian story' until years after their narratives end!
He then compounds this bizarre fallacy by declaring that it is suspicious that Paul didn't mention any Gospels, nor their authors, if his letters are authentic....
Ehhhhhh??
Of COURSE he wouldn't have mentioned the Gospels, since they were not written until after his death!
And there is no reason why, even if he had happened to meet in their youth any of the men who much later went on to write the Gospels, he would have mentioned them in his letters- was he supposed to read the future as well, and say 'Greetings to Matthew, who will write a smashing account of the Lord's earthly doings in his old age, long after I am dead.', or suchlike??
Ironically, if any of the Paulines DID happen to mention a written Gospel or its author that would be cast-iron proof that it (or at least that section of it) was a much later forgery- not vice versa.

In fact I find this site, with its flashy visuals and paucity of sound content rather like that of Peter Kreeft, albeit coming from the opposite direction! Earl Doherty's site, by contrast, is spartan but impeccably argued and evidenced.

Here is another good site to explore on these questions, Rod- it will keep you busy for months!

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

' I apologise for not having the time (or in-depth recall) to continue debating in detail, especially as others are chucking compliments our way (well, mainly your way I think but you certainly deserve them). '

Awww, shucks, ta!

Thanks also to Peter for his kind words. I may well blog more in future. I hope to save all the material I post and use it, and some of the objections/counter-arguments posted by other people, as a pool of raw material for articles, papers or even a book at some point.

' If we do continue we may be accused of straying from the topic now that we have clearly established that one of the religions that we would be better off without is founded upon a large amount of fabrication, i.e. lying, and that the only questions that remain relate to how much, when and by whom. '

Oh, it's much too late for that!
But if you wish to write to me directly just get my e-mail address from the CUAAS website.

[Rod]

Denis,

Inventing characters and then forging documents attributed to them is standard operating procedure – perhaps particularly in China. Some are better than others.

Although quite a lot of qualification is needed, the evidence (still) suggests (to me) that second century Christianity is early Christianity. There is no abyss, merely pre-Christianity becoming proto-Christianity. Only people who need to believe that the myth is history need any hard first century evidence, and then only to prop up their shaky construction.

I apologise for not having the time (or in-depth recall) to continue debating in detail, especially as others are chucking compliments our way (well, mainly your way I think but you certainly deserve them). If we do continue we may be accused of straying from the topic now that we have clearly established that one of the religions that we would be better off without is founded upon a large amount of fabrication, i.e. lying, and that the only questions that remain relate to how much, when and by whom.

[Billy Sands]

What a bizarre bunch of comments from the followers of jesus. I don't in any way feel lost without him. By the way, are you all aware that the virgin birth, being born in a manger, the star of bethelehem, resurrection, being born on Dec, 25th, whole saviour god thing was stolen from other contempory pagan mythologies that pre-dates christianity - look up osiris, attis, dionysis, oedipus, hercules and most strikingly mithras. In fact, early Christian apologist Justin Martyr agrees: When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus).". Try these for size http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php
http://www.exchristian.net/exchristian/2003/04/is-christianity-based-on-pagan-roots.php
By the way, read the virgin birth(Isaiah 7:14) or the Bethelehem birth place (micah 5:2) prophecies in their original context and honestly tell me they are about jesus. How can a message to a king (for his benefit) about an invasion of the land about 730 BCE, or one about a king who will defeat the Assyrians be about Jesus? Get your concordances out, and you will find out that Bethelehem Ephrathah was possibly a person. This is backed up by many common bible translations that call bethelehem a clan and not a village in Micah 5:2. No bethelehem is metioned in the contradictory genealogies of jesus in Matt 1 or Luke 3.
To whoever criticised "The origin of species" et al - no evidence, dont make me laugh! typical denialist propaganda! By the way, guess what was discovered 2 years after the origin, and fulfilling one of its predictions? give in? Archaeopteryx lithographica thats what! There are now plenty more intermediate fossils than creationists can shake a stick at. Also, look up junk DNA, LINES, SINES, transposons, converted pseudogenes, HOX genes, genes controlling embryogenesis etc etc etc... listen to this: http://richarddawkins.net/article,232,The-Fact-of-Evolution,Sean-Carroll--NPR-Science-Friday - I strongly recommend the book too.
Also, for those Intelligent Design enthusiasts, check this out:http://richarddawkins.net/article,406,Ken-Miller-on-Intelligent-Design,Case-Western-University - interestingly, this guy is a catholic - there goes your atheist agenda conspiracy theories!

Have fun saying how deluded I must be. I know all about delusion: I was a christian once!

[Peter]

Fascinating forum all round to someone who has never taken part in one before. The thing I like about Denis Collins contributions is that he backs up pretty well everything he writes with references on the pro and anti side of his argument where he can. This is useful to someone who, I confess, is ill-informed of science or religion but after reading through this forum intends to remedy this. That said, I'm still not entirely convinced "that we'd be better off without religion". Denis said in his reply to Kevin on 29th March that it is adherence to ideologies which cause most of the the world's evils. I agree with that as far as it goes. I think that society will always try to organize and straiten all the individual thoughts and behaviour within it. The chief object of this drive to organize up to now has been theism because that was the most important aspect of primitive people's lives. It was the only way for them to explain the things of most importance to them - the natural world and their place in it. The result was organized religion. Religion was, thus, bound to produce more than its fair share of evils. If you remove religion I don't think you will necessarily remove this impulsion. I think it may manifest itself in whatever important idea replaces religion within society - surely science. I don't see why science, rigorous and honest discipline as it is, is necessarily any better armoured than theism against this tendency. Let's say science was taught properly and comprehensively in schools and religion was not taught at all and that science subsequently held a major position in society such that religion withered and was practiced by a small minority.(It might be said this is the position within some western countries today but I wouldn't agree on the extent and it might be said this was the position in Stalin's Russia but although religion was banned I don't think science was held in particular esteem there either)Would such a society resist the urge to restrict private groups which believed in God rather than evolution? Would it allow peaceful proselytising? In essence, would it allow openly held personal opinion? I doubt it. Not to do so,to me, is wrong but it wouldn't make evolution any less a fact and it wouldn't make science less truthful. Scientists, of evolution and other disciplines, would continue their work with just the same honest approach to evidence and facts but an evil would have been committed nonetheless. People contrast science with religion (myself included) whereas I think it is more accurately contrasted with theism. What would we call an ideology derived from a science-based society in contrast with religion, an ideology derived from a theistic society?( Note - I don't call science an ideology) Not original thoughts, I've no doubt, in fact several people have said similar in a less long-winded way in the forum. And no, I've no evidence to back them up - just opinion. Anyway, it's goodbye for now and I'll maybe take part in another forum when I'm better informed. By the way, Denis, I hope you do participate in further online forums - it's been an education - especially interesting your recent discussion with Rod re Paul. My only gripe with this forum is the constant upping and downing trying to locate who said what.

[John Danley]

Fantasy doesn't make something true. This may be the most important point via Grayling and Dawkins.

[veronica]

Yes, In the end I think it's not what we say, but how we speak.

In a truly socialized environment -- unlike a blog page or an academic conference, and more like a detox unit for excon heroine addicts -- it is common courtesy to begin a response to a rival thinker with --

"Yo bro. I HEAR you."

and by the way, my name is Veronica, and I am already addicted to blogging after one week. Oh if I were you, friend, and I'd not yet taken the first, fatal swig yet, I'd just say no to that "post" button.

[David Hallett]

Denis,

Thanks for the name of Peter King. A quick Google hasn't turned up anything relevant, but I'll keep a lookout for him.

Yes, I have read most if not all of Dan Dennett's books. He's a fine writer, and an interesting thinker. I particularly like his approach to free will. If you take his approach to consciousness, you avoid lots of difficult questions - but you don't get to make any pronouncements on questions like what happens after death! I don't think he sees this as a drawback, rather the contrary.

For a rather different approach, you could try Ken Wilber's "Brief History of Everything".

Your comments on evolution could use some clarity about whether evolution happens (assuredly it does) vs. whether it accounts for the entirety of the way things are. The latter cannot be proven - it can only be disproven. As it hasn't been yet, we can feel some confidence about it, but that's all. I'm sure you know this, but sometimes it gets lost in the noise of debate.

I agree, however, that no worthwhile scientist espouses Intelligent Design. This is not because scientists cannot be religious. They can, they can even be theists. But ID is not a scientific idea. It cannot be disproved, so it is of no use to scientists, *even though it may be true*. Any scientist promoting it is intellectually bankrupt unless they can propose a test that might show it to be false.

Though if it *is* true, alien intervention would be a more rational explanation for it than divine creation. The ID people never seem that interested in the "aliens did it" version of their theory. Funny that...

[paul]

Ashamed of false priesthood by Paul:

Unfortunately, due to the antics of certain defenders of the faith, the atheists often have something to laugh about.

The Reformers (eg Martin Luther) fought for religious tolerance and liberty by resisting the oppression of the Pope who claimed to be infallible. The victims of Popish and monkish oppression soon became the perpetrators by themselves claiming infallibility. The Reformers (protestants under various sects - eg Methodists, Baptists, etc) were soon claiming infallibility and persecuting anyone who dared to question their dogma (eg Martin Luther against the Jews). A vicious cycle ensued and confusion, bigotry, blindness and intolerance reigns in the ranks of so-called Christendom.

Describing Martin Luther, one scholar observed: “While freeing his followers from the tyranny of an infallible pope, he subjected them to the tyranny of an infallible book--just as restrictive when a narrow and incorrect in interpretation leaves little or no room for additional insight and revelation. Nevertheless, his emphasis on regular scripture reading, on Jesus Christ as the Lord and the only source of man's salvation, on rejection of false traditions, and on the quest for truth must be viewed positively, since such an approach, if honestly and sincerely pursued, prepares man to accept the fullness of the gospel and the restoration of all things. For that, most of all, we honor Martin Luther” (Martin Luther: the First Forty Years in Remembrance of the 500th Anniversary of His Birth by Hans-Wilhelm Kelling Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 23 (1983), Number 1 - Winter 1983)

Alvin R Dyer wrote about this protestant intolerance and bigotry:

“Protestant Leaders Intolerant of Scientific Findings:

Unfortunately the leaders of the Protestant cause were no less bitter, for though Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others, had protested against the irrevocable and assumed infallible and false teachings of the Romish church, yet they themselves exhibited the same spirit against those who would dare announce a truth contrary to their concepts.

In reference to Copernicus, Luther, the great reformer, without the inspiration of revelation declared this “People give ear to an upstart astrologer, who strives to show that the earth revolves. This fool (Copernicus) wishes to reverse the whole system of astronomy. fn

Zwingli declared; “The earth can be no where, if not in the center of the universe. It is a part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God, and acquiesce in it.” J. H. Ward, Gospel Philosophy pp. 26-32. (Alvin R. Dyer, The Meaning of Truth, rev. ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973], 87.)

Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969), an eminent American Baptist clergyman and author, wrote: "Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian.'" (Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism (Eerdmans 1999): 101-131)

Likewise as a Christian, I feel ashamed (not by the gospel of Jesus Christ), but by the many frauds, imposters and other misdirected, self-appointed, self-righteous, pseudo-priesthood, hirelings who presume to speak for and in the name of God - without having any actual legal authority (ie priesthood) from God (see Hebrews 5:4).

Faith comes by hearing the word of God taught by legal administrators sent of God (see Romans 10:17 and Hebrews 5:4 and John 15:16)

Who ordained our current protestant and catholic ministry? It's the blind leading the blind. Hence both fall into the ditch.

The Reformers themselves admitted a general falling away or apostasy which destroyed the early Christian church:

The reformers admitted the universal apostasy.

Early Anabaptist reformer Thomas Muntzer believed that “the Christian church lost its virginity and became an adulteress soon after the death of the disciples of the apostles because of corrupt leadership, manifested in the predominance of a clergy who cared more for the amassing of property and power than for the acquiring of spiritual virtues.”1

Reformer Sebastian Franck believed that the “outward church of Christ was wasted immediately after the apostles because the early Fathers, whom he calls ‘wolves’ and ‘anti-christs’, justified war, power of magistracy, tithes, the priesthood, etc.”2 That they are “wolves” within Christ’s flock, Franck states, is “proved by their works, especially [those] of Clement [of Alexandria], Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hilary, Cyril, Origen, and others which are merely child’s play and quite unlike the spirit of the apostles, that is, filled with commandments, laws, sacramental elements and all kinds of human inventions.”3

Roger Williams (1604-1683), pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, gave up his ministry on the grounds that "there is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking."4 He noted that "the apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew."5

John Wesley (1703-1791), the founder of Methodism, stated that from the time of Constantine, “The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine His Church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church…The Christians were turned heathens again, and only had earth a dead form left."6

One prominent historian [Will Durant] stated, "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the Church."7

1. Muntzer, “Sermon before the Princes” (Allstedt, 13 July 1524), in Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, ed. G.H. Williams (Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1957): 51/” (103-4).

2. Franck, Letter to Campanus, in Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, op. cit., 151-2/.

3. Franck quote 2 in GH Williams, 148-9 (103-4).

4. Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.

5. Underhill, Edward, "Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty", cited in William F. Anderson, "Apostasy or Succession, Which?", pp. 238-39)

6. Wesley's Works, vol. 7, 89:26, 27

7. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, 3:595

I believe that the law of the Lord is the perfect law of liberty (see Psalms 19:7-15 and James 1:26).

But no mortal should claim infallibility.

The scriptures are incomplete with many books missing from the Bible (do a google search on "missing scripture"). see http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai104.html

The scriptures are not infallible.

Mortal men are not infallible.

Prophets are not infallible.

"Noah occasionally drank wine to the point of drunkenness and unconsciousness (Genesis 9:21, 23). Abraham acquiesced in his wife's mistreatment of his second wife (Genesis 16:6). Jacob "with subtlety" and deception obtained his brother's blessing from his blind father Isaac (Genesis 27:12, 35), and also hated his first wife Leah (Genesis 29:30-31). Moses at the least committed manslaughter prior to his call as a prophet (Exodus 2:12-14), and after that call occasionally exhibited doubt in God's word, fierce anger, and boastful arrogance (Exodus 4:10-14, 5:22-23, 32:19; Numbers 20:10-12). The Lord had to intervene directly to prevent Samuel from choosing the wrong man as king (1 Samuel 16:6-7). Daniel sought forgiveness for his sins while prophet (Daniel 9:20). Jonah resisted the commandment of God to him (Jonah 1:2-3, 4:1) James and John, as apostles, delighted in the thought of their opponents being destroyed (Luke 9:52-56) and pridefully sought to elevate themselves above the rest of God's children in the eternities (Mark 10:35-38). Peter was impudent, boastful, arrogant, and cowardly as an apostle during the life of Jesus (Matthew 16:21-23, 26:69-75; John 13:8-9, 18:10-11). Despite Christ's command to send the Gospel to all nations at His ascension (Matthew 27:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47), it required another specific revelation to Peter to persuade him that the Gospel should be taken to those who were not Jews (Acts 10-11), and even years after that revelation Peter continued to demonstrate his prejudice (Galatians 2:1,9,11-14). Nor did Peter hesitate to criticize the approach of his fellow apostle Paul in teaching the Gospel (2 Peter 3:15-16); Paul likewise boasted that he had publicly condemned Peter and "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11-14). Moreover, conflicts between Barnabus and Paul resulted in the disruption of their mission (Acts 13:2, 15:36-39)."

Reverend J.R. Dummelow described the authors of the Bible: "Though purified and ennobled by the influence of the His Holy Spirit, these men each had his own peculiarities of manner and disposition - each with his own education or want of education - each with his own way of looking at things - each influenced differently from one another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines - it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.... "(J.R. Dummelow, One Volume Bible Commentary, p. 85)

Both catholic and protestant brands of Christianity are fostering blindness and mutual confusion, intolerance and bigotry and such doctrine and conduct brings scorn upon the faith.

The gospel is perfect and the fulness of the gospel has been restored in modern times. A restoration has followed the ancient apostasy.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai014.html

God speaks today through modern living prophets (see Amos 3:7). This is the most important message of our times. Come listen to a prophets voice and hear the voice of God. For further info see www.lds.org and www.fairlds.org

A testimony born by those who know enlightens the mind and heart and ends the most interesting debate.

Einstein: “To condemn without investigation is the height of ignorance”

[paul]

"Heisenbergs uncertainty principle" is often quoted by people ignorant of sub-atomic physics who suppose that it means that we can't know anything for certain...these people are either well out of their depth or have malign motives...I'm sorry to disappoint the skeptics and atheists but this isn't what this pricniple means and secondly this principle only applies to sub-atomic physics and shouldn't be extrapolated across any and every field of science/knowledge/enquiry

So please stop the misuse of this principle.

If in doubt, please ask any scientist to explain to you. Save yourself from further embarrassment.

[Maxwell T]

Ray, thanks for the post - don't underestimate your influence! I just want to add that it seems to me that Christianity would be quite provable (at least sustainable) if there was indeed some evidence. Christianity seems to put out a number of hypotheses that could be tested. I would indeed reconsider the possibility of Christianity being true if: Christian prayers did actually work (versus no prayers or prayers of other religions); if there were indeed precise fulfilled prophecies in the bible or knowledge millenia ahead of its time; if there was a "33AD event" where historical records in all cultures recorded the 'vibrations', or visions of crosses etc at the supposed greatest moment in the history of mankind; or more simply if Jesus wrote his name on the moon or just came back and did his resurrection trick under laboratory conditions. Yes, I admit I would first look to other explanations, e.g. hallucinations, psychics, aliens, which seem much more reasonable than the existence of an infinitely powerful, universe creator who listens to our thoughts. But I would at least be on the way to becoming a believer.

But the fact is that there seems to be no evidence I find convincing. It is a failed hypothesis. Of course, the Christian God hypothesis can always be protected from the above failed predictions by the appropriate auxillary hypothesis e.g. God won't be tested, or the devil is deliberately setting out to confuse us, or my favorite - if we had definitive proof then we couldn't have a free choice to follow God, confusing an informed choice with a free choice (just ask Lucifer). But these always seem artificial at best.

Hence it seems to me that faith is the fall back position of a failed scientific hypothesis. And indeed when an apparent miracle seems to have happened (e.g JPII's recent apparent cure of a nun) a theist usually does jump up and down proclaiming the power of god, which seems to belie an indifference to empirical testing.

Now you may be right about the need for the assumption of the continuity of universal laws for inductive reasoning to work, but it doesn't seem such a big leap. (And an axiom is just that - an axiom; I don't think mathematicians claim they are obviously true). In general it seems that the sort of faith we are talking about here (of powerful beings) is inconsistent with all other topics of discourse or action in the world. We wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor whose only recommendation for a treatment was that he had faith in it (and no empirical evidence) or an engineer building our house on a similar lack of structural evidence, etc. (And note that our trust in our normal doctor is based on our experience with our medical system and our legal system to prosecute quacks and is not an act of faith). We would ridicule a journalist who blamed the Iraq war on the lizard people who infest the bodies of our leaders (according to David Icke) for whom the only evidence is that they have faith it was true.

Furthermore, to get slightly closer to reality, if they were only supported by faith and totally no empirical evidence, I think we would be angry if scientific research (e.g. stem cell research) was inhibited because of the fear of destroying 'thetans' inhabiting the cells, or that Middle East policy was influenced by the war prophecies of the Martians or that homophobic polices were supported because apparently the wrathful people in the 11th dimension are bigots as well. But change the name of the faith object from aliens or thetans to Jesus or Mohammad and apparently it becomes quite acceptable and the critics become intolerant, dispectful, fundamentalists!. I think it was G K Clifford, a Cambridge don in the 19th century who wrote a paper on this thesis of faith as an unethical position.

From the previous paragraph you may perhaps can get a hint of why some atheists are passionate about debunking religion. If it was just a benign faith about cute little fairies at the end of the garden I suspect such persons would be left alone. Sadly most religious faiths are not that benign and not self contained.

These are just some modest reflections as I don't have the wide knowledge demonstrated by many of the previous commentators (which I have found very interesting, if somewhat long!).
Thanks
Maxwell

[Ray Keller]

I am a Christian on the same order as Francis Collins (Human Genome Project and auther of The Language of God). And like Collins I believe in the greatness of Darwin and The Origin of the Species. Collins states that 40% of scientists believe are Christian.

Christianity, to me, is a matter that has to be taken on faith. Or not at all. It is umprovable.

I personally believe that there are things in science that are taken on faith as well. David Hume and Bertrand Russell argued that Inductive Reasoning (the basis of science) have at some point to be taken on faith, because the past is not always a predictor of the future. Other science that may have to be taken on faith are axioms. I am not a mathematician, but I am told that axioms are not provable, but they are postulates that are obviously true. Sorry, "obviously true" is not scientific language to me. Axioms are taken on faith and I believe them. But unprovable.

My father said many times to me "that only fools are positive." But there seems to be a lot of positive posturing on this thread.

It seems to me that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a good example of why we should none of us should be so positive. Newton's theories of the universe were claimed from the time of Newton until this century to be the FINAL and perfect description of the workings of the Universe. Until Heisenberg. Even Einstein had a hard time accepting it.

But science usually right about things not religious. My favorite example is when the Pope attached Swiss guards to Galileo's every waking moment, because Galileo proved using his new telescope, and stated in writing, that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

Personally, I believe that 99% of bad scientific and bad religious assertions will in the long run be eliminated--- just as Darwin asserts that 99% of the world's species have been eliminated--for not adjusting to new situations and knowledge.

God Bless. :>)

PS I believe in religious and scientific tolerance. And I doubt that the religious nor scientific extremists of the world will be influenced by what I have just written on this board. "Not a jot nor a tittle."

[veronica]

What I find so wonderful about the above discussion between Denis Collins and other scholars is this --

that Jesus walks the line between literature (the word) and material history (flesh.) He visibly and strangely partakes in both natures at once. How can he be both all historical and all literary? This is a supra-mundane condition we cannot easily grasp. We want it it add up. We want to see him as half word, half flesh, half literary and half historical (a heresy!) which is how he does appear usually to us, as your discussions reveal.

Perhaps a look at the literary aspect (all Word, all language) to balance your arguments concerting the historical aspect (all flesh, all history) will help us to understand what is going on.

In literature at least -- we judge mimesis not by the absense of holes in the representation, but by whether the holes mirror the holes in our immediate perception. Do we then in gazing in the mirror of the image see ourselves suddenly and clearly brought to light?

For me the divinity (all word, all literature) of Christ in the story does not negate, but it transfigures the fleshly, historical part. That is, if you were to authenticate every document concerning the day and hour of the virgin birth, the miracles of the loaves, the crucifixion and the resurrection, I would be less, not more inclined to believe the story, for I'd be convinced we'd all gone stark raving mad and were hallucinating. (It's a story that simply cannot -- at least not yet -- be seen in public without wearing a veil.)

In short, the New Testament and the entire body of church doctrine consist in a pointed critique of strict positivism. If positivists do not allow such a critique, strict positivism, which has its uses, evolves from a healthy cell of language into a cancer that invades the whole body. Few speak among each other. Most speak only at each other. Language only divides life into dualisms -- for, against, right or wrong -- like the baby that the imposter mother wanted to divide in two, but wise Solomon prevented it.
Those who use language to divide instead of gather experience are perhaps sinning against the spirit of language. If so, according to the Gospels -- this cannot be forgiven. At the same time, according the Gospels, to say "Christ be damned." or far worse is forgivable.

Just a historically questionable book, but what a book!

[Denis Collins]

Thanks for your response Simon, and I meant no offence against you now or before- I'm just used to rather robust debate in forums like CUAAS.
I shan't respond to anything in your latest post though, unless other posters take up your claims.

Rod said:

' Although I am by no means overqualified I can see no flaw with Kenneth Humphreys’ verdict on Paul. '

I haven't read his work, I'll try to do so. I have seen other claims along these lines though.

' The earliest copies of any letters are 3rd century. '

Yes, but then the earliest reasonably complete copies of ALL NT books are 3rd or even 4th century. We have only a few tiny fragments from the 2nd and nothing at all (despite what Thiede claims) from the 1st.
But this isn't relevant here. All that this late dating of extant manuscripts establishes is a terminus ad quem, i.e. the latest POSSIBLE date such writings, in their canonical form, were produced- which is an absurd way to date such documents as it would mean we had to conclude that every NT book was written much later than is demonstated by internal evidence and their quotation in the work of other (non-Canonical) writings.

' They all, whichever faction originally generated them, had to be shoehorned into the NT. '

'Shoehorned' is rather a loaded term.
The nascent Church made the Pauline and pseudo-Paulines Canonical by 180 (as shown by the Moratorian Fragment) because, presumably, they suited its doctrinal purposes. The author of Acts (writing in the late 1st century according to most scholars, though as I've said I prefer the minority view that he wrote in the mid 2nd century) paints a picture of Paul that is obviously far more conducive to post-Pauline Christian orthodoxy, and which does not accord at all well with the genuine Paulines. It is hard to explain why the Church would then have put such 'awkward' documents into its Canon, without at the least radically redacting them, UNLESS it had good reason to think them authentic. That these documents show no such wholesale textual meddling suggests that they were well attested as being original to Paul, not Marcion.

' The allegedly plausible letters appear to be very consistent with Marcionite ideas and the factional struggles of his day. I get the impression that very few questions were settled by the middle of the second century. '

No, this isn't the case.
The genuine Paulines are obsessed with issues such as 'should Christians attend synagogue/temple?', 'should Jewish Christians share table-fellowship with Gentile Christians?', 'should male Gentile converts to the new faith undergo circumcision?', 'which, if any, stipulations of the Mosaic Law should Christians- Jewish or Gentile- keep?' and so on.
All of these issues were only of importance in the earliest Christianity of Paul's day. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 and, more importantly, the subsequent Rabbinic conference at Jamnia (when the 'minim'- Jewish Christians- were explicitly cursed and barred from synagogue worship), these issues became dead letters: Christianity broke away decisively from its ancient parent-religion and gave up all of its practises, though not its scriptures (the Old Testament) since these were held sacred because of their alleged prophecies of Christ, long before Marcion became active.
By Marcion's day all these arguments were meaningless, so it is hard indeed to see why he would devote so much effort to producing forgeries that are so concerned with them.

' Paul is, furthermore, another of history’s invisible men with, in his case, two highly unlikely and undoubtedly invented biographies and no independent corroboration. '

Acts is certainly 'highly unlikely and undoubtedly invented' in its portrayal of Paul (and much else), but the genuine Paulines are not like this.
They include many embarrassing aspects, such as Paul's previous persecution of Christians, his 'fear and trembling' at times of trial, his frequent rejections and failures during his missions, and- most of all- his doctrinal clashes with Peter and James. All this supports their authenticity. Indeed, this final issue is in my view decisive; why would any post-Marcion Orthodox editor of these documents fail to remove the obvious conflict between Peter and Paul, if they had been written by Marcion? Surely because they knew that they pre-dated Marcion (although Marcion was the first to 'publish' them as a collection they would certainly have ciculated separately and in small groups between the various early churches- internal evidence shows this) and had a reasonable claim to authenticity.

' Earl Doherty is a brilliant man '

Indeed he is! Everyone should read his work.

' but, unless I missed it, does not seem to evaluate the historicity of Paul. '

See the latest 'answer to feedback' on his 'What's New' page, he tackles it there.

' He and others cite their 1st century Paul as strong evidence for the case that the JC tale is a myth. It would be nice but it is unnecessary. There is no shortage of such evidence. '

I don't think so Rod.
Firstly, as Doherty himself says in this regard (he has mused on the theory you hold more than once on his site), if all the Paulines are 2nd century forgeries then a total abyss opens in our study of early Christianity. Only Hebrews and POSSIBLY Revelations would be left to attest to pre-70 Christianity (all the other NT books are almost certainly later). Note that the genuine Paulines have a broadly similar character to these documents, they are full of Old Testament symbolism and feature an almost total lack of an historical Jesus.
The pseudo-Paulines are a halfway house between this state and those of undoubtedly late epistles- such as the Petrines- in that they have SOME of the concerns of the earliest works but also have a few vaguely Gospel-like references, along with indications of a more complex, hierarchical church structure.
In both cases this is exactly what we should expect to find if mainstream critical NT scholarship is correct about their datings (the 50s and 75-110 respectively), while it is very hard to explain if the whole lot was produced by Marcion post 120.
I consider, as does Doherty, that the lack of (non-interpolated) knowledge of an historical Jesus in the genuine Paulines decisive in establishing their authenticity. Why would any late forger, Marcionite or Orthodox, have made them accord SO badly with the Gospels- all of which, with the possible exception of John, were in circulation by Marcion's day (though perhaps not yet in their final, Canonical forms)?

' A fabricated Paul is also good evidence for the case [of non-existence], possibly just as good in early to mid 1st century. '

Not so Rod, since it is one thing to invent a figure and then write ABOUT them (such as Doherty alleges was the case with Jesus) but quite another to do so and then forge many complex documents written BY them, complete with authentic-seeming elements that were pertinent in their day (a couple of generations earlier) but not in that of the forger.
Although mediaeval forgers did produce letters supposedly written by Jesus himself (!), no sensible person ever believed in those, and they don't stand up to a moment's critical study- but that is not true of the Pauline letters.

My, it is a refreshing change to get to argue FOR the (relatively) orthodox Christian view of something for once! hehe

[veronica]

Dear Roger D. Butters,

To respond to your thoughtful skepticism. I agree with you that there can never be sufficient evidence either to prove or overturn the hypothesis of faith. But why does this mean there can be no rational basis for uncertain faith? (No other faith is worthy of the name faith, which is not, by definition, absolute knowledge.)

I believe my unfailingly uncertain faith has a rational basis. It is rooted in long reflections on the nature of language and time, reflections that cannot be summarized in a few paragraphs. (I am writing them up now.)

Having greatly resisted a pull toward religion, it took a great convergence of insights from many different perspectives to draw me to it. I remain aware of, and constantly challenged by all the cogent arguments against it and the lack of any evidence that could definitively prove it. For me, hypothetically, new evidence could overturn my faith. Similarly, if the sun did not rise tomorrow, this would shatter my faith in all of the things that cause the sun to rise in the morning.

In short, faith in religion is really no different from faith in any of our vulnerable, always only partially rationally supported perceptions.

My belief that Being as a whole is not just a machine set on automatic, but has a heart and an intention might seem bizarre. But if you think about it, this belief is not more bizarre than believing that You are a being with a heart and an intention, not just a machine set on automatic. The evidence, as Dawkins argues, is against both propositions. Or is it?

It is true that we are humans and know a little of what it is to be human, whereas what do we know of Being itself (God, or I am that I am)? Well, we do know Being as we participate it in it. We are of it, within it. We build up our faith in the character of Being itself as a kind of person just as we build up our faith in the character of any object or person.

As with a human or with any scientific evidence, the more faith you put in a thing, the more the thing proves worthy of faith. That is, we must always be close to our doubt, for we are always tampering with the evidence in merely turning our gaze toward it. This holds for believers in sunrises, not just believers in God.

At the same time, if we never put our faith in a thing, we can blind ourselves to it, cause it to remain hidden from our view. Those who do not believe in themselves find less and less evidence for belief. So we encourage them to break the pattern by acting as if they believed in themselves. This often works.

So if you are a worthy and fair skeptic -- skeptical about everything, including your own skepticism, you can explore what faith is by acting as if you had faith. If you truly fair and open, I think it will be a fair enough test.

That is, if a scientist has a hypothesis and acts as if it were true, puts all his faith in it and gives it every chance in the world to prove itself, then, if the hypothesis is invalid, he can then overthrow it.

From one perspective, if you have no character, all the faith in the world, all the acting as if, won't give you one. So also with God. So diving into religion and participating in it to understand it can't hurt you if you've got a healthy mind. Of course, something within you has to move you to do that. Like desire or love. This, by the way, is consistent with the premise of most religion: love is the prime mover. It was love of the art and music produced by religion that impelled me to enter into the experiment.

From one perspective, religion is like a particle, It is apart from what it is not, and we can objectively observe it. From another religious experience is continuous like a wave. We are all one wave and can never get outside of it, but just roll with it. From this perspective scientists create our reality with the hypotheses they project forth, and believers create God who is creating them. I like both perspectives. I believe thingness is a trinity or triad consisting in difference between things, likeness of all things, and what binds likeness and difference.

In sum, believers in God are standing on ground no more or less stable than believers in a self. In fact, although there are many crackpot believers, those who are not tend to be more aware of the instablility of all knowledge than most people. This is why monks take vows of silence.

[Paul]

In any debate, it is essential to define the rules of epistemology (how we know things - science of knowledge) and define the terms.

If the rules of epistemology are limited to materialism then obviously believers cannot "prove" that God exists.

Christianity is based on faith. To reject faith-based knowing is to force the result/defeat.

see Hebrews 11:6; and see 1 Corinthians chapter 2.

This life is a test - to see who will walk by faith and who will be unbelieving and rebellious.

In the Phaedo, Cebes says, “Your favorite doctrine, Socrates, that knowledge is simply recollection, if true, also necessarily implies a previous time in which we have learned that which we now recollect. But this would be impossible unless our soul had been in some place before existing in the form of men; here then is another proof of the soul’s immortality.” (Dialogues of Plato, trans. Benjamin Jowett, Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica: 1952, p. 228.) And in the same book Socrates says, “Our souls must also have existed without bodies before they were in the form of man, and must have had intelligence.” (Ibid., p. 230.) And in Phaedrus, Socrates says: “The soul through all her being is immortal, for that which is ever in motion is immortal; but that which moves another and is moved by another, in ceasing to move ceases also to live. Only the self-moving, ever-learning self never ceases to move and is the fountain and beginning of motion to all that moves besides. Now the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; … if unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything out of a beginning. … Therefore the self-moving is the beginning of motion; and this can neither be destroyed nor begotten, else the whole heavens and all creation would collapse and stand still, and never again have motion or birth. … That which is moved from within has a soul, for such is the nature of the soul. But if this be true, must not the soul be the self-moving, and therefore of necessity unbegotten and immortal?” (p. 124; italics added.)

Socrates’ system of careful questioning, today known as the Socratic method, was the style he developed for thinking through a problem to discover (or recover) the answer. The experience of modern-day prophets provides some intriguing parallels.
In the Meno Socrates showed that a slave boy with no education could discover the solution to a geometry problem by answering questions designed to lead the boy to information he already had. “There have always been true thoughts in him,” Socrates tells Meno, “which only needed to be awakened into knowledge by putting questions to him.” Consequently, “his soul must always have possessed this knowledge.”

In Theatetus, Theatetus tells Socrates that he, Theatetus, cannot shake off his nervousness and anxiety. Socrates replies that “these are the pangs of labour, my dear Theatetus; you have something within you which you are bringing to the birth. … The triumph of my art is in thoroughly examining whether the thought which the mind of the young man brings forth is a false idol or a noble and true birth.” (p. 516.)

Faith precedes the miracle. You receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

Faith is the principle of action and power in all intelligent beings. Who ever achieved anything without the eye of faith (eg Columbus)? Einstein knew he was right before he could prove it.

There are many ways of knowing that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true - eg the experimental method (John 7:16-17); the fruits of the gospel etc.

Job 32:8 – the Almighty gives inspiration to the Spirit of man

Dr. Edmund D. Starbuck declared: “The scientist studies his problem, saturates his mind with it, puzzles over it, dreams about it, but seems to find progress impossible, blocked as it were by a black, impenetrable wall. And then at last and suddenly as if out of the nowhere, there comes a flash of light, the answer to his quest. His mind is now illumined by a great discovery.”

Albert Einstein said: “When I think and reflect how my discoveries originated and took form, a hundred times you run, as it were, with your head against the wall (meaning a hundred failures) in order to lay your hands upon and define and fit into a system what, from a merely indefinable premonition, you sense in vain. And then suddenly, perhaps like a stroke of lightning, the salient thought will come to you and the indescribably laborious task of building up and expanding the system can begin. The process is not different by which the artist arrives at his conceptions. Real faith, either to a scientist or a businessman or a minister of religion, involves the problem and struggle of searching.”

Einstein described this process of gaining knowledge like a “stroke of lightning”; Starbuck described it as a “flash of light.” Plato used almost the same language to describe his intellectual leap from frustration following deep thought to the resolution of a problem or getting an idea.

There are more witnesses to Christs miracles and resurrection than many other historical events which are accepted by skeptics as "facts".

There are 5 ways we obtain knowledge of reality:

1. Human reason (Rationalism)
2. Human observation (Empiricism)
3. Human experience (Pragmatism)
4. Authority/expertise
5. Revelation (Inspiration)

These 5 "means of obtaining knowledge" are not mutually exclusive.

The Measure.

Friend,
Do you measure land
With a borometer?
Can you understand
The law of gravity
By testing
The freezing point of mud
At its greatest density?

There is no God
By knowledge’s rules.
Friend,
Examine you tools.

To discover God
You must form you plan
To the nature
Of God himself,
Not the nature of man.
The only key
Is that forgotten faculty
That pulses through you
Now and then,
Eluding the hand
And startling the mind.
Spirit its called.

Friend,
You will not find
God through mistaken tools.
Who weighs a stone
With a measuring tape?
Fools.
Carol Lynn Pearson.

[Rev Peter Woods]

Wonderful analysis. I wasn't there being at the foot of Africa, tis true, but Ruth's astute analysis of the way we structure "debate" about religion is delightful. Thank you for a window into what we in the West have come to believe is the only way to settle things. It is futile! Debate does not console when half your family is dying of AIDS. My contextual reading of what is called religious debate feels like mental masturbation whilst your already born children are starving!
Good job Ruth.

[Simon Roughneen]

Denis, I have been no more uncivil to you as you have been to anyone else..and you were actually quite intemperate to me in that response..much more than I was to you - and even then, how i was intemperate or uncivil? to compare, i never once directly used words like 'nonsense' or anything like that to describe what you said, or 'utter crap' to describe Dawkins et al. So who is or was intemperate?

the fact that you somehow think me more intemperate than you - when the facts (ie the words we use) show otherwise - tells a lot about our respective views of ourselves and each other..and you do yourself a disservice by laughing at your own comments

the reason I post other links is that I back up what I say with contemporary contributors, not merely people from the past as you wrongly suggest..and also to enable the readers broaden their reading a little..

and there are plenty of scientists who believe in intelligent design, and in God, why say otherwise? See

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

and to refer back to science, I would like to refer you and other readers to one scientific chasm in evolution..

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119

again, just to broaden the debate a little, seeing as evolutionism is one branch upon which you grasp to dismiss what I and other people who rationally feel that a science that cannot explain why, for example, one of my friends has a dysfunctional stomach, might have trouble conclusively explaining the origins of the universe

Dear moderator: can all these links (and those I cite above) be made clickable in the blog?

the wikipedia link is to a book by Rabbi Dalin (who is the source for the figure of 700,000)- by definition therefore,hardly a Catholic apologist..and the unbiased sources you cite for the role of papacy during ww2 are clearly coming from an anti-Catholic agenda..given that, as I stated, and as anyone with a decent grasp of current events knows, for one, recently Ion Pacepa -

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTUzYmJhMGQ5Y2UxOWUzNDUyNWUwODJiOTEzYjY4NzI=

- a former Romanian spy, explicity stated that Moscow deliberately sought to portray the role of the Vatican as faciltator of the Holocaust, anyone with a basic graps of current affairs has picked up on this, and even John Cornwell, author of Hitlers Pope, has retracted his assertions made in same book somewhat, by stating that the Pope's room for maneouvre during ww2 was extremely limited- At the start of World War II, Pope Pius XII’s first encyclical was so anti-Hitler that the Royal Air Force and the French air force dropped 88,000 copies of it over Germany..

Einstein, Golda Meir, Moshe Sharrett, Chaim Weizmann and other prominent Jews all explicity praised the role of the Vatican in WW2 - Romes then-Chief Rabbi converted to Catholicism! - and to what advantage to themselves??..go and do your reading..do as I did and read both sides of the story and then make your mind up, rather than making the howler as you did above of dismissing a Rabbi as a Catholic apologist..

moving on, the type of bias you cite in the sources I refer to cuts both ways..surely the neutrality or impartiality of an explicity atheist institute such the one you refer to is just as weighted in its views as anything I have cited...and surely if the Discovery Institute is as bad as you claim, how come these are peer-reviwed journals that I link to? Reviewed by other scientists..

of course the people I refer to have a particular worldview, but so do yours, and the 'bias' cuts both ways. At least I can admit so..and to be fair, we both have our respective 'biases' for different reasons..and as a general point, there are NO 'unbiased sources', for anything anywhere at anytime..you and me included..

Dawkins does not easliy demolish anyone..why do you say he does? where and when has he demolished a renowned apologist?

and again, you utterly fail to to see the philosophical fallacy in atheism..to believe that there is nothing to believe in is as much belief, if flawed, as any other belief system.

though I found the CUAAS website..where your group is self-described as humanists..which is also a belief system..but humanism istn atheism, so which is it?

this last point aside, Im not confused at all, and, the fact that you give a series of wrong and half-answers to the points I make shows just who is confused.. to say that Russell 'proved' anything philosophically illustrates your inability to distinguish proof from assertion..and who says that Kant or Russell answered or refuted Aquinas? how so?

cosmology hasnt 'proved' anything about whether God exists..if anything I suggest you read on the 'anthropic principle' to acquire a truly human(ist?..) take on the possibility that God exists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

'A rather easier way of answering them is the valid 'common-sense' argument that Dawkins and others use, that if you are going to argue that the universe requires a creator then you then have to explain how THAT creator was in turn created by a super-creator, and so on ad infinitum'

..why? the very word and concept of God means no less than that which was not created..'begotten not made'..again, to throw the floor open..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncaused_cause

no science has proved beyond doubt that things exist without a reason or cause - science has proved that it merely cannot account for certain things that exist..that it may do so is no reason to BELIEVE that it will..

and exactly why is Kreefts site 'utter crap'? saying it is so doesnt make so, neither do cheap shots about 'televangelist'..again, as stated at the outset, I dont say such things about your side..you shouldnt have to resort to such intemperance merely to cloud other readers views of the links i refer to before they get to them..

[Rod]

Thanks Denis,

Oh no, now I’m getting absorbed here!
Although I am by no means overqualified I can see no flaw with Kenneth Humphreys’ verdict on Paul. The earliest copies of any letters are 3rd century. They all, whichever faction originally generated them, had to be shoehorned into the NT. The allegedly plausible letters appear to be very consistent with Marcionite ideas and the factional struggles of his day. I get the impression that very few questions were settled by the middle of the second century. Paul is, furthermore, another of history’s invisible men with, in his case, two highly unlikely and undoubtedly invented biographies and no independent corroboration.

Earl Doherty is a brilliant man but, unless I missed it, does not seem to evaluate the historicity of Paul. He and others cite their 1st century Paul as strong evidence for the case that the JC tale is a myth. It would be nice but it is unnecessary. There is no shortage of such evidence. A fabricated Paul is also good evidence for the case, possibly just as good in early to mid 1st century.

I have studied East Asian religious traditions too and consider that a good rule of thumb is not to accept anything as historic, or necessarily at face value in the case of attribution – Confucius he say very many things – when there is a more likely alternative. In fact, treat anything claimed by a religion as unlikely until proven otherwise.

This rule can obviously be applied to the claims of those who insist that we are better off with (their) religion.

[Christopher]

At least, whatever we think of Nichols's views on gay adoption he tells it like it is in the experience of most gay men:

'The Archbishop.... said he believed that gay people were born, not made. His understanding of sexual orientation was that a person “doesn’t have a choice”.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1624327.ece

That makes him more honest than all those mendacious evangelicals who try to insist that being gay is a mere 'lifestyle choice' so they can go on discriminating. As if!

[Denis Collins]

Simon Rougheen's intemperate rant against myself (and others) doesn't really deserve a response, but since he betrays the kind of logical errors that so often characterise the defenders of religion (which some readers here won't have had the level of exposure to that I have had), I shall deal with them here.
It will be the last time I answer someone who is clearly unable to be civil to those who disagree with him.

Simon said:

' http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html - one renowned and accomplished scientist outlines his status as a believer '

I too recommend that everyone reads this piece about why Francis Collins (no relation!) became a Christian.
Note how he came to it under the stress of dealing with death in his medical duties, how he took it up because he realized that science couldn't tell him about moral issues or how to deal with death (a classic fallacy this one- because science does not answer these questions he assumes SOMETHING else must!), how he read the clever sophistry of Lewis and Chesterton, men who were utterly ignorant of the scientific worldview and who, if they were here today, wouldn't accept a word Collins said about genetics or evolution, for instance.
This failure to think critically in NON-scientific areas, and to hence give in to the wishful thinking of religion, is depressingly common among scientists, I'm sorry to say.
As I've said before, we've had them at CUAAS, and they always- as soon as you ask them difficult questions, or point out inconsistencies in what they say, start to flounder, admitting that they don't REALLY believe what the Creeds say, that they redefine a, b and c in the Bible (clearly meant LITERALLY there, and taken as such by all Christians until modern times) as x, y and z, making it all so weakly symbolic that they don't really mean anything much, etc.
I have no doubt that if Francis Collins were ever to visit us (I shall certainly invite him if he visits England) at CUAAS we would rip him to shreds, frankly.

Simon said:
' http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC - Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science
- peer-reviewed scientific journals supporting intlligent design '

Oh dear! Let me repeat that- oh dear oh dear!
Firstly let's make clear that not a SINGLE bona fide LIFE-scientist gives any creedence to Intelligent Design. Why not? Because they deal with proof of evolution through natural selection each and every working day of their lives and since ID is incompatible with that they know- before they even examine the claims of the IDers- that it is as false as any other form of creationism.
As it happens, though, their claims HAVE been examined and have been refuted many times over- just Google to see.
You won't, though, learn any of this from the site Simon urges me to read, because it is the home site of the 'Discovery Institute', the well-funded (by fundamentalist Christian groups) psuedo-scientific
conglomeration of physicists, engineers, mathematicians, chemists and hangers-on that push this crap. Note there is not a single person actually qualified to pronounce on the subject within this organization, i.e. a biologist or geneticist, say (even Francis Collins rejects ID!)- for the reasons I've already given.
(By the way, if you ever see such a life-scientist claim to endorse any form of creationism, ID included, it is a safe bet that they have BOUGHT their PhD from a 'mail order university'!)

As for the list of citations given on this page, a quick glance shows them to be either in books or journals 'peer-reviewed' by other IDers, or else in books meant to show both the IDer claims and the decisive neo-Darwinist refutations of them, and so on. A few look to be genuine papers in genuine journals, but they also look to be either not specifically ID in nature, or else 'pity publications' where the editors of such journals, under well- organized pressure from religious groups, have agreed to publish the odd (in more ways than one!) ID-promoting paper in their genuine journal. If you bother to follow it up you will see that, in every such case, the following issues of that journal are full of responses that rip the ID claims to shreds.

Simon said:
' Denis, I have far too much work on to be as anywhere near as busy as you on this blog, '

Perhaps that's why he posts worthless links like these instead!

' but cannot let the responses you made to my blog last week go unanswered..

You dont seem to understand the Dostoyevsky point on atheism.. '

No, I do understand it, and I know it is fallacious. You, alas, don't grasp this obvious fallacy.

'...philosophically, the premise [of atheism] is fallacious - by the very act of believing that there is nothing to believe in, '

Which, of course, NO atheist does!

' the very premise is undermined - thats why atheism, in its own narrow self-definition, does not really exist. '

This is so stupid that all I need to say in reply is that I am also an a-Santa Clausist, an a-unicornist and an a-fairy-at-the-end-of-the-gardenist.
And none of these individual lacks of belief on my part mean that I therefore don't believe in ANYTHING.
As Descartes rightly said (one of the few things he got right) I KNOW that *I* exist, even if nothing else does- none of this (despite some mediaeval ontological arguments, long abandoned by almost all modern logicians) requires God's existence, nor my belief in Him.

' As in by definition atheism is another religion, '

You clearly do not understand what the word 'atheism' means, which would explain a lot!

' and listening to dogmatic atheists preach merely confirms that atheism is also in practice another religion..but it is revealing that you fail to understand that point '

I trust the readers here will conclude you are projecting your own confusion on to me.

' and as for CUASS, '

CUAAS, actually.

' the functioning of an organisation doesnt prove or disprove a philosphical point. me and you could fervently believe we are both apples, and set up an institute to that effect, but it would hardly make it true, or dismiss the arguments of those who questioned our view of ourselves as truly apples.. '

No, but once again you have become confused.
You claimed- wrongly, as I have shown- that atheism does not and cannot exist, so neither can people who believe in it.
Even if this WERE true your analogy would still
fail because apples certainly DO exist, and so can people who believe they ARE apples- and for all I know they do, somewhere!

Simon said:
' 'standing on the shoulders of giants?'..thats as good a euphemism for plagiarism as I have ever heard - which is precisely what positivists did with Aquinas arguments.. '

Oh dear once more!
Simon obviously is ignorant of the fact that Newton said this in respect of his own enormous contributions to science- I wonder if he thinks HE was just a 'plagiarist' too?
It is self-evidently and necessarily the case that every thinker takes something from his predecessors, in science, philosophy, and indeed in religion too. For this NOT to be the case each of us would have to avoid reading any books, listening to anyone else's views, and so on, and formulate our own views- on EVERYTHING- completely from scratch. This is obviously impossible, and if (somehow) enforced would see us return to the Stone Age!

That people like Aquinas contributed to philosophy and- in a modest way- to what eventually became scientific thought isn't disputed. So did many non-Christians like Socrates, Empedocles, Maimonides, Spinoza, the scholars of the Golden Age of Islam, and so on- but so what? All these men, perforce, had a very limited and distorted ancient/mediaeval worldview, which meant that some of their premises- and hence some of their conclusions- were necessarily false. And it is modern, secular science that has established this.

Simon said:
' and what difference does it make if these people are dead? '

Because, if you bothered to properly read what you respond to, you would find that the issue was 'Who would be a good debater against Dawkins?', and you reiterate this question yourself in your relevant post. So, to then list a group of dead people and say that these would dispose of Dawkins is rather silly!

Simon said:
" all the more reason then for scientists to avoid making philosophically-flawed arguments that cannot be proved scientifically, when there are philosophically-powerful arguments that reach beyond the limits of science. '

Such as? And which LIVING philosophers- i.e. people with at least the possibility of knowing and understanding the world as revealed by science- hold them?

' put simply, science, as Gould argument goes, '

Oh dear, ANOTHER dead person! hehe

' [science] cannot prove the existence of God or otherwise..so why believe that it does? or that it can or will? philosophically at least, that type of thinking is..well, irrational.. '

Indeed, and Gould was right here (though not in much else that he wrote, I'm afraid).
And, of course, no sensible person- certainly not Dawkins or myself- would dispute this.

What IS the case, though, is that science has disposed of all those traditionally held reasons to believe in God or gods which, in their day, did at least have a bit of plausibility to them (these do NOT include the various attempted theistic proofs which simply play with words- they have been disposed of by philosophy).
(As Dawkins says in 'The Blind Watchmaker', if he had been around pre-Darwin he would have HAD to have been a theist, albeit a reluctant one, because no-one at that point had come up with any plausible NATURAL explanation for the immense complexities of living things.)

The point- and so many religionists seem unable to grasp this very simple fact- is that in order to be atheists we do not have to DISPROVE God's existence, in the same way we don't have to DISPROVE the existence of Santa Claus, unicorns or fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden- the onus is upon those who DO believe in all or any of these things to provide some evidence for their views. And, if they cannot- and, when push comes to shove they invariably cannot- then we should assume that none of them exist.

Simon said:
' your assertion of what 'correct knowledge' is merely shows that you a priori dismiss those who say something different to what you believe yourself '

Erm, it was YOU who used this phrase, I merely repeated it.
All I meant by repeating your phrase is 'someone who understands the established scientific worldview', while you clearly meant it as someone who holds the correct 'religious knowledge' (as if that were likely to be valid!) and, moreover, someone who is your co-religionist.
Tellingly you used 'correct knowledge' in conjunction with 'correct faith' as necessary requirements for a successful debater against Dawkins- so, who REALLY means by 'correct' 'only those people who agree with me'?

The fact is that the majority of scientists today are atheistic, and this goes AGAINST the trend of the general population and, indeed, against the fact that most of them were brought up in some form of religious faith.
Even those minority who are theists are, when you push them on it, either very far from mainstream Christianity, etc or else they manage to keep the two parts of their worldview- the proven scientific one and the disproven religious one- in seperate hermetically-sealed chambers in their minds.
I have met such scientists- Simon Conway-Morris, a paleobiologist here at Cambridge is a good example. He refused point-blank to come and speak to CUAAS (or even to discuss his views with me), and wouldn't give any reason why. I can only assume that he knows that he would be asked tough questions by a scientifically (and philosophically) infomed group of people there and would have to admit, or else just ignore, that his science and his religion are not compatible.
This is just the sort of self-defence mechanism that Dawkins rightly points out that all successful religions have- 'don't listen to the unbelievers'!

Simon said:
' to say that science and religion (and going back to Aquinas, faith and reason) are opposed is a fundamental error - see links at top of post.. '

These links show precisely the opposite- thank-you!
I don't know if you know this Simon (I realise your interest in the Discovery Institute marks you out as a scientific-illiterate), but science has moved on somewhat since the days of Aquinas- indeed, there was really no such thing as 'science' in his day.

As usual Christian (especially Catholic) apologists appeal to the authority of people who died so long ago that they couldn't possibly have any inkling about how the world REALLY is, as established by modern science. It doesn't matter in the SLIGHTEST (other than to a student of the history of ideas) what Aquinas says about faith and reason, faith and science, etc- he believed, as did everyone in his day, in a young, geocentric universe, made by God specially for Man, the latter being created whole and complete just a few millenia before in God's own Image, and that the world would end in a fairly short time too (measured in millenia at most) when Jesus would come back riding on the clouds in glory, etc.....

As I've said before, 'Garbage in, garbage out'- each and every attempt to explain life, the universe and everything prior to modern cosmology and biology is worthless.

Simon said:
' not only is it an error, it is a sleight-of-hand..the Catholic Church for example is not 'opposed' to evolution' '

Well, the current Pope is PERSONALLY anti-evolution, he has said so. If he ever says so 'Ex cathedra' then, because of Papal Infallibility (itself only invented in the 19th century incidentally!) all of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics will have to oppose it too (like Behe, a Catholic, already is)- or else run the risk (however theoretical) of ex-communication.

The last Pope, to be fair, did accept evolution, though he took until (I think) 1992 to announce it publicly- the first time the Vatican had ever pronounced on this critically important issue!
Of course, it was only in 1985 (if I remember rightly) that Galileo was pardoned and his books unbanned- until that point the Holy Mother Church had, technically, denied that the earth orbits the sun!

Simon said:
; ..evolution does not undermine the idea that there is a first cause, an uncaused cause, which is philopophically-speaking, what God is.. '

Indeed it does not. But this idea has been disposed of by both philosophy (Russell, for instance) and physics (quantum events without causes are known to exist).

' that creation can start somewhere is not in any oppostion to the idea that creation can develop or 'evolve' over time.. '

Except that the Bible, along with every other pre-scientific explanation of creation, got it all completely, utterly, totally wrong.
To try to say that Genesis REALLY depicts an aeons-old universe that has evolved gradually and painfully to its present point, with humans making up just 0.000000000000000000000000000000..........1% of it in terms of both time and matter- oh, but, 'created in the image of God', of course!- is insane.
Anyone who can believe that can, and indeed will, believe ANYTHING that their church commands.

Simon said:
' at a macro-level it is analogous to existence of free will for each person, at the micro-level..but the concept of 'evolution' itself is scientifically-limited, and certinly does not match the claims made on its behalf or the belief people place in it '

Oh, indeed it does. Only people who do not understand it (and I'm afraid Simon clearly falls into that category) think this.

I urge everyone here to read 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' by Daniel Dennett. I cannot fault Dennett's claim that Darwin's discovery of the principle of evolution through Natural Selection (in its widest sense- i.e. not only the evolution of species) is the best idea anyone has ever had- because it explains almost everything in the world starting from almost nothing.
And, no, before Simon or anyone else alleges otherwise, the primeval 'almost nothing' that it cannot explain does NOT require a God to start the ball rolling.

' and Denis, given what you write on this blog, and your selective responses to points people make against you, I would thoroughly encourage you to attempt to tackle Lewis' apologetics.. '

Don't worry, I shall!

' a bit like Bertrand Russells criticisms of religion, it would actually do your cause more harm than good.. '

Simon obviously has not read, or else not understood, Russell's works if he thinks this. No doubt he has just read bits of it, taken out of context, through a distorted lens such as the Discovery Institute website.

Simon said:
' the level of hubris to think that,given the posts you have made here, you would be able to go after Lewis..well, thats the most unbelievable thing I have heard in a long time. '

Oh yes, I'm sure I could NEVER tackle Lewis.... the man (1898-1963) who believed diseases were caused by evil spirits..... that the earth was young and made specifically as an abode of Man, Man who God made- whole and perfect- a few thousand years ago....
It would be like shooting fish in a barrel!

The likes of Russell and Ayer, his far more knowledgeable contemporaries, had no difficulty in disposing of his arguments and nor should I. Though I do not have the super-intellects of these men I am privileged to stand upon their shoulders, after all.

Oh, and Lewis, while a clever debater, even met his match against a CHRISTIAN philosopher called Elizabeth Anscombe, as it happens. He debated her, in his usual arrogant way, at the Oxford Union in about 1950, on his own supposed proof of God's existence.
(This proof- a variant of others which reach back to Plato- basically states that because 'morality' exists in SOME sense, there must be a supernatural 'perfect morality', some kind of yardstick in the sky, i.e. God.)
Anscombe argued him into a corner and made a fool of him on this- and he never debated in public again!
And yet so many Christians today- including Simon it seems- think this man was a great thinker, someone the likes of Dawkins, Grayling, or even myself would be floored by.
As I said before, this widespread delusion rather depresses me.

Simon said:
' Maybe you could try addressing Aquinas as well, but..oh yes, he did that himself.. '

Indeed he did, using the best evidence and arguments available in his day- all of which are now obsolete.

' someone else said they saw Kreefts site and went 'oh dear'..is that a sufficiently competent response to merit posting?.. '

Yes!
I just looked at Kreeft's site too, and it is utter crap. Just a glimpse at his 'Argument from Design' FAQ shows his ignorance of biology, cosmology, etc- once again, 'Garbage in, garbage out'.
Dawkins would flatten him in a debate, as indeed would I. I'm tempted to invite Kreeft to CUAAS for that very purpose, but alas see this from his site:

'' Can Dr. Kreeft speak at my group?

Yes! Kreeft charges $1500 per day or part of a day away from home (plus plane fare) ''

Oh dear oh dear! Kreeft is nothing but an up-market tele-evangelist, after all.

Simon said:
' [I] take it said person doesnt understand that someone like Kreeft would have forgotten more about philosophy than he/she will ever know..what does 'oh dear' mean? '

See above.

' and as for the deabte, Dawkins ducked Quinn the existence of free will (which he claims not to be interested in) '

Which is fair enough, since:

a) the existence of Free Will is STILL an open question- 2,500 years of philosophical debate have still not solved paradoxes it contains.
As Dr Johnson said long ago:
'The curious thing about Free Will is that all experience argues for it while all theory argues against it.'
And, for once, the scientific advances since his time haven't altered this decisively.

b) Free Will, if real, does NOT necessarily entail the existence of God, though most theists seem to assume it does. I have yet to see a convincing explanation of why this should be.

Simon said:
' and on his [Dawkins'] hypocrisy of blaming religiously motivated people for the evil they commit but not blaming irreligiously motivated people.. '

Dawkins does indeed condemn Nazism, Fascism, Marxism, militarism, and so on in his books. The fact that he doesn't do so as often as he condemns religion in this regard simply shows where his main interests lie- a flaw I suppose, but not a major one.

' why do Dawkins proponents put so much faith in someone who is so obviously flawed in debate and in terms of intellectual ability to deal with the subject matter he addresses? '

We don't.
While Dawkins is indeed lacking somewhat in some areas of philosophy (not in THEOLOGY, which as I have said before is a non-subject that has yet to produce anything of value) this doesn't handicap him to the point where he cannot easily demolish- which he always does- those religionists who debate him.

Simon said:
' To write about 'The God Delusion' and yet claim a lack of interest in free will is akin to a religious person seeking to dismiss science while claiming no interest in atoms '

No it isn't, for the reasons I gave above.

Simon then momentarily pauses in his confused rant at Dawkins and myself and starts on Ian McCullough (from Echo and the Bunnymen??) instead:

'again, a misunderstanding [by Ian]: 'existence' in general, is not the same as certain things or each thing that exists..existence, sui generis, does require an explanation..that certain things exist without explanation does not undermine the premise that existence requires an explanation..that certain things exist without a scietific explanation..well, merely shows that science cannot answer all things '

Yes indeed, there is lots of this pointless word-play in the likes of Lewis, Aquinas, et al.
The trouble is that these Ontological arguments were long ago answered by other clever philosophers, like Kant or Russell.

A rather easier way of answering them is the valid 'common-sense' argument that Dawkins and others use, that if you are going to argue that the universe requires a creator then you then have to explain how THAT creator was in turn created by a super-creator, and so on ad infinitum.

And, of course, when the theist replies 'But God is self-existent, he doesn't NEED a creator,' the obvious rejoinder is that for all we know the universe doesn't need one either, and since we have independent proof that IT exists, but nothing analogous for God's existence, we should accept this. Science hasn't yet confirmed or denied this idea (and probably- due to the nature of the claim- never will), but logically it is impeccable.

It is impeccable because the fall-back claim of the theist, that something as complex as the universe must have a creator/designer fails immediately in that such a creator/designer would, on the same grounds, require an even more complex thing to create/design it.... and we are back to infinite regress.

There is a perfect analogy in Egyptology. Among the various theories about how the great pyramids were built (it is still not fully understood how human and animal power alone performed such prodigious feats) is one that the builders constructed a long, straight ramp that allowed them to get the stones for each course up to the level where they needed them; after each course was complete they would extend the ramp to the level required for the next course, and so on, up to the capstone on the very top. Afterwards they would disassemble the ramp, leaving a free-standing pyramid for us all to marvel at.
The problem is, when you do the necessary calculations to test this interesting hypothesis, it turns out the ramp would have to have been so long (a couple of miles, in order to keep the gradient manageable right to the top of the pyramid) and so strong (to take the weight of all the stones, builders, etc), that it would have been an even bigger construction project than the pyramid it was supposed to help build!
I hope the analogy with God and the physical universe is clear.

Simon said:
' and separately, the old nonsense about the Vatican and WW2..even a former apparatchik has stated bluntly in the UKs mainstream newspapers that the whole thing was a Communist plot.. '

What was? And who said so? On what evidence?

' which isnt an argument..but even a great scientist like Einstein '

Ah, appealing to Einstein's authority again! I told you religionists love to quote him!

' referred to the Pope as a righteous Gentile..as for whoever thought that by making a noise about what was happening Re the Holocaust that the Church would have prompted the Allies to intervene is clearly oblivious to geopolitical reality..the truth is the opposite..the Church published and issued Mit Brenneder Sorge, an encyclical written by the future Pius XII, in 1937, indeed smuggled into Germany and read at churches - and was an explicit denunciation of Naziism as 'the pagan worship of the state'..the Church knew of the plot to assasinate Hitler, the Church was, by conservative estimates, responsible for saving up to 700,000 Jews during WW2, '

I would very much like to know where this figure comes from since it would equal- if not surpass!- the entire Jewish population of Nazi-occupied territories that survived the war!

Finally..... Simon said:
' thats more than anyone else bar the Allies, who had slighly greater military and material resources at their disposal than the Vatican..Church denunciations of Nazi atroctities led to the rounding up and eventual murder of clergy in the Netherlands (including Edith Stein, a convert from Judaism and now a Saint, and a phenomenolgist of renown)..it wasnt for nothing that both Himmler and Goebbels thought that their 'real enemy was 'the Pope in Rome' you can start here..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Hitler%27s_Pope '

Yes, I'm sure that is as unbiased a source as the creationist and catholic apologist (for a price....) nonsense Simon has already referred us to.

As I said before, some Catholics (and other Christians) did indeed help the Jews/resist the Nazies, but they were few and far between- far more of their co-religionists either did nothing or else actively aided in the genocidal process, as any reasonably unbiased history of the era demonstrates.

So there you go, sorry one and all for the length of this, but I feel answering such points might help inform those of you who are not used to this kind of Christian apologist nonsense.

As for Simon, go in peace.... but I shall try to resist the urge to debate with you any further.

[cs tuple]

Faith or No Faith: The Only Choice

Choice. Do we have actually have choice? The ability to decide. If we can decide, do we control our own destiny? The basis of existentialism is that every human being is absolutely responsible for what they make of themselves. But how many times do events happen in our lives, which are outside of our scope of responsibility, that shape and define who we are? Why do two different people, each faced with an equally tragic event, react in different ways? How is one inspired to respond with strength and courage while the other sinks to depression and battles bitterness? These are big questions to be sure. Like most everyone has, I have wondered about the big questions in life. Why am I here? How was the universe created? Is there a GOD? If so, is he the GOD of the Old Testament? Did Jesus really exist? Was Jesus resurrected on the third day?

Why am I driven to know why?

Why does it appear that, when faced with the most tragic of circumstances, so many people pray to “GOD”: even when they just previously did not have a belief in GOD? I’ve been taught that things in life happen because I put focus and energy into accomplishing objectives. But is that really why? What about those things that happen exactly when they need to; that are inexplicable. How many coincidences need to occur before it is statistically impossible to call them coincidences?

No matter how I evaluate this conundrum, I can only deduce that the only choice that is meaningful, and therefore real, is: The choice to “have Faith” or the choice to “not have Faith.” All things in life come from this conscious choice. It is my objective to share one man’s perspective through the lens of this context.

Let’s start with a premise: Is there a GOD? If so, is GOD the GOD of the Old Testament, the New Testament, both, or neither?

I grew up “assuming” there was a GOD but did not seek a relationship with him as if he really did exist. I rationalized every clue or piece of evidence of divine intervention as a coincidence or, worse yet, ignored the gravity of the evidence laid before me as if he didn’t exist. Is it possible that the answers to the big questions are actually obvious and right in front of me? Is it possible that so many physicists, scientists and theorists alike in the collective body of advanced study have overlooked the answers that are in plain sight? I like to have explanations for how things work and why. I have observed, in my albeit limited study of history, that often throughout the course of history people have embraced a given “explanation” as a fact even if it didn’t make much sense and/or there were personal experiences to the contrary. From adolescence I fell into this category. Despite being well-read, and considered observant by those who know me, I have used certain “facts” to support a particular view and omitted other “facts” or made empty excuses in my own mind if they didn’t support the desired perspective.

In large regard, I believe most people, in all professions, are generally honest and forthright. However, those in business, and out, understand the general concept of “Spin”. Although I may not even recognize it, I put some spin on just about everything I communicate. Spin is merely highlighting some bits of information and/or considerations while de-emphasizing others. I communicate this way. I have lived in a life of Spin. I have been a card-carrying member of the Spin club and as such I have participated in the daily ritual of Spin to make life and the events comprised therein justify how I want things to work. Do you? Could it be that it somehow gives us a sense of control?

So why do we so desperately try to control outcomes? Survival? Greed? Ego? Fear? Or is it control itself. I suspect it is fundamentally control. We are schooled we must control our lives because of the many possible negative things that could happen to us. If we do not have control of our own life, someone else does. But is there even one person you can always truly and absolutely trust no matter what? We’d like to think so: Our spouses, family, friends and/or ourselves. But nobody is perfect and therefore even when we trust those who love us the most, outside influences and events will occur and we will be hurt. So we continue participate in the “control or be controlled game.” But there are always challenges. It appears to me that nobody I’ve learned about in the history of mankind has had real control of his or her life. There may be those who think they do, but they cannot see the futility of their own control tactics. If we cannot achieve control, what choice do we have? Faith. In fact, you cannot live a life of Faith if you attempt or even think about trying to exercise control. Living a life of Faith is based upon the premise that: Our lives are not an accident, we in “fact” have a purpose. That purpose is to be part of GOD’s plan. GOD loves us and he will provide for us what we need for the purpose we serve. The plan is GOD’s it is not ours. It is not a worldly plan. Many people get confused and think that because we all do not have worldly opportunities that are perceived equal that this is somehow evidence that there is not a purpose nor there is a GOD. Worldly opportunities for wealth, fame, or power do not serve a worldly purpose but a divine one. One’s intelligence, beauty, race, creed, heritage or any other type of perceived opportunity or disadvantage, when looked through the lens of a divine purpose, are not really advantages or disadvantages at all. They are all circumstances that support the objective of GOD’s plan. We are all here to serve that plan. To serve the plan, all we need is Faith. Faith we are not an accident of chemistry and physics. Faith indeed that chemistry and physics are neither an accident nor the creation of man’s will.

Cause and Effect

It seems to me that Faith is generally associated with religion, yet belief in how anything works that is observed or experienced that is not measurable and verifiably repeatable, religious in nature or not, is Faith. Clearly when we observe something such as a person shutting a door it would seem sensible to observe as a fact; “if a person of the same general size and strength pushes on the back of the door as the person witnessed just did, that indeed the door would shut.” However, what if the door did not shut when anyone else tried? Or what if some people could shut the door but others could not. It would then also seem sensible to determine that what had previously been considered a fact was not really a fact at all. The same cause-effect experience could not be repeated. This may seem like a silly example but I encourage you to observe how many “facts” in life do not meet this basic criteria. Further, observe how many times some portions of an experience are omitted while others are highlighted. In our door shutting analogy, if the observer told others that they had witnessed proof that a person of adult size and strength could shut the door and therefore it should be considered a fact. However, the observer omitted they had also witnessed adult size and strength people who could not shut the door. The observer might explain away that the people who could not shut the door were not really trying, or that they were weaker than normal adults. But could there be another explanation? Of course there can be another cause although it is not observed. This is a rudimentary example how through the spin of those with a vested interest in a particular outcome, Faiths in many subjects are packaged and sold as facts. Facts are the result of cause and effect observations. If you do X the outcome will be Y. Yet every day people experience outcomes they do not understand. If they are rewarding experiences, people routinely attempt to understand the cause(s) that created the desired effect so they may create the desired outcome again and again as they choose. People also attempt to understand the cause(s) of destructive or threatening outcomes so they can, through their own choice, avoid repeating the undesirable outcome.

Many people regard the Big Bang Theory as a fact despite the obvious reference in its title to the contrary. Truth is for the Big Bang Theory to be verified as a fact it must be observed and documented to a level of detail that allows it to be repeated in whole. Clearly it has not, yet much of what I have studied in science is based upon the premise that the Big Bang Theory is not a theory but an undeniable fact. Evolution has long been taught in schools as a fact, yet it is clearly a theory. If the actual definition of determining a fact or actual cause are applied to all things experienced and observed, there aren’t many things described in a cause-effect manner that are truly based upon fact. One of my favorite quotes is from Ayn Rand, the renowned novelist/theorist who interestingly was a self-proclaimed atheist, “Beware of those who smuggle a false premise [fact] into the mind of careless listener.” The very nature of Rand’s observation is that those who smuggle, or spin, a supposed fact, are doing something not in your best interest, but rather theirs. I agree with Rand on this point. Mind you “their best interest” may not be malicious in nature but it is indeed in their own best interest with typically with little regard to yours. Who are they? They are us. I do it as a practice and everyone I’ve ever known does it.

Choice

What I have most recently found interesting and disturbing is that the methods we use to determine fact or what is characterized as evidence are generally not used or are ignored when we do not want to accept the outcome. Investigators, lawyers and judges condemn men and women; or exonerate them based upon “best evidence.” Yet when we apply the same methods of investigation and research to fundamental questions about our nature, such as; is there actually a spiritual aspect to our existence?,” we throw away the validity of the very same methods employed to judge worldly crimes or deeds. It is absolutely arbitrary and intellectually inconsistent how humankind has done this repeatedly throughout history.

Is this behavior explained with the worldly excuse that people act this way “just in case” there is a GOD; but in the end they do not know in their heart and minds there is something else going on other than just the cycle of biological life? Or could it be that in those quiet moments in which we can be totally honest with ourselves that we know there is an Omnipresent GOD. That we know that in our hearts that the universe is truly complex and could only exist if someone designed it? Yet we don’t freely interact and socialize it as if it were a truth. Clinical psychology would call this a dysfunctional behavior. But I know many people who represent they have never had even one personal instance of an unexplainable spiritual experience. Another observation I have made is that most interpretations start with the premise that there is no spiritual aspect to our existence. Reports of news will, or individually we will, tell about an experience that has a non-tangible component, and yet either in the reference to it, or in our body language, we somehow communicate the recognition of a possible spiritual source being there while hinting that there is probably a practical reason for it. It is as if we know there is spirituality in our lives, every day, but no one wants to admit it. Even religious leaders act this way. I’ve had personal experiences with life-long Christians whom, despite their stated beliefs do not actually practice Faith in their day-to-day lives. If you actually believe Christ was resurrected, why would anyone actually have any worries whatsoever? Yet one moment a forthright Christian will speak of the power of a life of Faith, and just a moment later they will exhibit stress and anxiety about a personal decision or circumstance.

I think choice has something to do with this. We all make choices, 1,000’s of times per day at many levels of consciousness. For most of these decisions we train ourselves or let outside influences train our minds how to make choices. Although we may spend little conscious time deliberating, they are choices nonetheless. It appears to me that if we can choose to do something, we can also choose to not do something. This applies to physical actions of course but also thoughts. We can indeed make choices about what fundamental beliefs we then base other choices upon.

I believe this is the choice Jesus spoke of when he said, “I am the way to the Father.” Jesus gave us a fundamental belief system and it really does work, by all worldly measures. This fact - that is correct, a fact - remember our rule; observable, documented and repeatable, seems unbelievable because upon understanding what Jesus taught us, you might think we would all make the choice to live as he said. Yet we do not; despite when we for even a small amount of time choose to live virtuously, we see results. If you do X, Y will occur. I’ve heard it said, even if you do not believe in Christianity; it’s a great way to live! If life with rewarding and loving relationships, freedom from stress and anxiety and a general feeling of peace is appealing, then yes it is a great way to live. Duh! Of course these characteristics are not truly attainable without a sincere belief that Jesus Christ is indeed the son of GOD. In the end, life DOES make sense IF you believe in Jesus Christ. However, IF your fundamental choice is to NOT believe, many things in life do not make sense. Indeed many inexplicable occurrences and experiences become confusing and we deal with them through the most curious of ways. We make excuses, spin details in ways that provide us intellectual fodder to feed explanations that do not hold water. So why do we make this choice? I think it is very basic; we want to have control, even if it is merely an illusion we’re creating for ourselves. In short, most would rather live a fake life of control than a genuine life of Faith.

Another Possibility

Think about your life as a blueprint, each event and experience, designed for a purpose. Sometimes the purpose is for you, sometimes it is for others – through you. It’s all part of a bigger plan for which you are playing an integral role. Christians often speak of living a life of Faith. What is that? It is total acceptance that Jesus is indeed the son of GOD and that the way he lived his life and how he taught us to live our lives, is the most rewarding Earthly way to live. His life was a human living example of how to attain a glimpse of heaven on Earth. By taking the path of Faith, life’s troubles, issues and tragedy’s become bearable. In fact, by living a life of Faith, one can become so strong in spirit, mind and body that one starts to believe there is no Earthly challenge they cannot endure.

I once listened to a man who talked about a tragedy he faced as a parent. It may be the type of tragedy that is the most unthinkable and unbearable of all; losing your child to suicide. His boy was only eight years old and he described how he could not imagine what drove his child to this heartbreaking action. The man described that in the year following his son’s death, he was too distraught to imagine; and he even contemplated taking his own life. He testified that the only thing that prevented him from doing so was his Faith in GOD. Looking at this man’s circumstance through a worldly lens would likely produce commentary such as: “He relied upon his Faith for support through a troubled time that allowed him to bring closure to his mourning and loss of his child.” This type of observation is typical of a worldly view. It really says nothing but the collection of words that are used to explain-away a situation that without Faith, makes no sense. To make reference to the loss of a child in which a parent has the deepest and most profound love for, as merely an emotional state that needs closure, the man would dare say to those who have never had such a loss; is insane. In fact, going insane is how this man described his state of mind in the months after his son’s death. How can one endure such pain? His answer was: by Faith only. Only through the Faith that there is a bigger non-worldly plan can one continue to live in the face of such tragedy. Why is that? Simply, because there is a purpose. Living in Faith is a belief that there is a divine plan and therefore a purpose. Our challenge as believers is to have Faith despite not knowing what the specific purpose is, but knowing there is a purpose nonetheless. This is the essence of Faith. Humankind has struggled with this since the very beginning of time or as described in the Bible, since the fall of man’s innocence in the Garden of Eden. The Bible is a documentary of GOD’s attempt to convince us that all we needed was Faith. Throughout the centuries, the Bible tells story after story regarding examples of GOD’s repeated attempts inspire humankind to make the choice of Faith. The coming of Jesus gave us a living example of Faith. Only through Faith, could the man who lost his beloved son to suicide continue to live. Faith, that despite his tremendous anguish, there was a reason for his son’s existence and death. He does not know what that reason is today other than his Faith that it is part of a non-worldly plan. The Bible tells a story of another Father who faced the death of his beloved son. Abraham was a man of great Faith. All who knew him observed his tremendous Faith. GOD used Abraham to teach others what a life of Faith could do for them. But GOD instructed Abraham to kill his own son. Abraham truly loved his son. He would rather kill himself than his son. But that was Abraham’s choice, not GOD’s. Abraham knew he faced a choice: To have Faith or to not have Faith. Mourning his decision would not offer any solution, nor bring “closure” to this insane situation. Neither did mourning offer a solution to the aforementioned man who lost his son to suicide. Only Faith offers a basis in which to live, make a decision, and not literally destroy ourselves with the unthinkable thoughts of trying to find a worldly purpose for tragedy. Abraham chose Faith and GOD spared his son. It appears to me that the man, who lost his son, was spared by GOD as well because he had Faith.

What is Faith Like?

On the occasions of driving my car for long distances, for many hours without stopping, I’ve noticed something interesting. The longer I am driving, and the more tired I become, I proactively concentrate more and more on the road in front of me for fear that if I do not, my car will veer into the other lanes or off the road. What is interesting to me is that by doing so I focus my eyes nearer and nearer to the road right in front of the car instead of focusing my eyes on the road well ahead of me. I remember when I was taking driver-education classes that the instructors encouraged us to look where we were going instead of where we were. On a long straightaway I found that if you look several hundred yards in front of the vehicle, the car moved smoothly and remained centered in the lane in an effortless manner. When driving this way, I am at ease and am enjoying the ride. On the other hand, when I looked at the road only a few yards in front of the car, I find my path is jerky and requires great effort to keep it centered in my lane. When I drive this way, I have feelings of fear and anxiousness. My daughter is an equestrian and her coach has taught her to always look ahead to the path she wants the horse to go. The same phenomenon I experience in the car occurs for her on the horse.

Living a life of Faith is similar to this. When I am focused on living in Faith as taught by Jesus, my life moves forward smoothly and effortlessly. I am at peace and am enjoying the ride. However, when I am not living a life of Faith but rather attempting to control outcomes and make sense of unexpected results, disappointments and tragedies, I am anxious and fearful. This is the choice GOD has given us to make. We make it consciously or unconsciously. But we indeed do make this choice. The world we live in tells us hundreds if not thousands of times per day, to control outcomes and be practical. Earthly wisdom teaches us - no brain-washes us, that living our life by metaphorically looking directly in front of us is the way to avoid disappointment, anxiety and tragedy; when in fact it does the opposite.

Does living a life of Faith, truly and in fact, allow us to live in peace, increase our physical and mental strength and endure disappointment and tragedy? Yes! Is it observable and repeatable? Indeed it is! This is the amazing news! Jesus told us this and it is an absolute fact. Faith works. Interestingly, “Faith” or “No Faith” are the only facts. Both are observable and repeatable; and it is our choice.

“Faith” and “No Faith” both meet the criteria for being a fact. By living in Faith, living in peace and strength is observable and repeatable. By living a life of No Faith, life ultimately provides fear, anxiety and tragedy. It too is observable and repeatable. Two belief systems - two facts, one choice.

If Faith is all we need, then wouldn’t there be evidence in our lives that there was a spiritual purpose? Yes, and there is. This is where those moments of inspiration, miracles or insight we feel provide the evidence of the effect of the divine cause. I have Faith that all people have these moments that are uniquely personal and unexplainable in worldly pragmatic terms that are the evidence of the existence of a divine purpose. But, like me, I also believe people resist exploring this evidence and concluding what can only be, because the human influences we have created for ourselves over time have “smuggled a false premise into our minds.” To see this evidence that exists right in front of us; we must change the premise. We must observe life through the lens of Faith. If we do change that premise, evidence of GOD starts to appear to us in an overwhelming number of ways.

[Bill Davison]

? - Who Needs Absurd ‘Beliefs’ - ?
Reflections of an Octogenarian.

Religiosity? – Throughout life, I’ve never regarded this subject as deserving of any serious thought - - -
However, with quietus in the offing, the excessive religious coverage in the media inevitably agitates the neurons.
Of late, these irritants have provoked a deep re-appraisal - - - that has utterly confirmed my basic intuition!

******************************
Logical conclusions after a lifetime of listening inadvertently to the delusive portents of various ‘Faiths’.

A simple story. No need for the meandrine moonshine of ‘erudite intelligentsia’.
Just take yourself back in time & examine unvarnished facts.

Please acknowledge that the primitive mind was bound to generate, quite naturally, mythological imagery of an Elysian nature.
Also, one must accept that the relative ignorance of early Humanity, coupled with understandable fears of the unknown, provided those individuals seeking power over their fellows (a natural human trait), with the conditions to set up as Medicine-Men - Witch-Doctors - Sorcerers - Soothsayers - - - et al, all claiming to have insights & contact with a ‘power’ - of sorts.
So began the blight of Shamanism - - - leading on to airy-fairy religions.

As time unveiled the past, these facts have not been fully appreciated.
Hence - The ensuing rash of religiosity has not been branded for what it really is - - -

An early conceive - of ignorance & apprehension - - -
Perpetuated thro millennia by IMPOSTORS - Preying on credulous naivety.

The natural process of evolution, via many devious pious paths, has now landed us with the present crop of Archbishops - Ayatollahs - Rabbis - Popes - Imams - JWs - & a host of other hypocritical sect leaders, incessantly brainwashing the largely unthinking masses with their ridiculous & childish ‘Holy Beliefs’.

The Billy Grahams of the world, gifted with gab & showmanship, use their ‘bewitching powers’ to prey on the gullibility of the artless.
Yes indeed, in modern form, the Witch-Doctors are still at it! Mountebanks All!

With it’s initiation as above, religiosity can’t be recognised by any sane person to have the gravitas necessary for any authentic ‘Belief’. Seeking reality is anathema to the pious ones. They critically comment on facts of life that are painstakenly unearthed by the practical hard-working talents of seekers of truth. Knowledge of physics & biology would never have advanced if left to ‘Holy’ men.
Sun would still be orbiting Earth. The dim past is their’s, with mystical rites that are still prevalent, albeit with modern trappings.
They are an absurdity! Their endeavours to exalt religiosity by the erection of ever more imposing ‘Places of Worship’
merely highlights – Monumentally – the benighted phases of Man’s past. - - - Hell’s Bells! - - - What a shambles!

Weighing up the World-wide situation, a substantial proportion of Humanity are unable to let go of their forebears’ primitive ‘belief’ in a Creator that demands a daily dose of supplication. A person’s specific ‘belief’ is dictated by that part of the globe from where they originated; a simple inheritance of the parents’ unreal ancestral teachings, largely unquestioned! No need to be a ‘Religious Scholar’ (what a fatuous preoccupation) to comprehend why all of this utter humbug survives.

Persistent indoctrination over millennia leave the susceptible with feelings of unease when they attempt to ditch the ingrained silly ‘beliefs’ inherited from similarly misinformed forebears. Most take an apathetic route & run with the various childish theosophical myths passed down through the generations via pious, shallow-thinking naivety - preferring illusion to reality - fantasy to truth.

It has always been decreed that acting on evidential communal common-sense, ie, utilizing everyday experience & research is the only way forward.

The need to consult Biblical, Qur’anic, or any other ancient crap-laden fairy tales in order to pursue a decent & considerate existence beggars belief!

The facts listed above are beyond dispute – Theism? / Divinity? – All absolute Man-made hokum!

Any thinking person realises that the Universe is truly an awesome Quantum / Astronomical creation.
As part of that creation, our attempts at it’s full understanding seem futile.

Probing the Atom or ‘Heavenly’ space & we’re contemplating Infinities.

Fouling up our minds with a rag-bag of archaic religiose twaddle does nothing to help enlighten our ignorance!

Anyone taking this farcical subject seriously has to be absolutely pickled in traditional folklore and/or in a sad mental state. Using it’s bogus validity for an easy living and/or monetary gain it’s impostrous practitioners must have no damn conscience at all.

Far too much reverence is devoted to the abstract of religiosity. Vast volumes of impotent bombastic rhetoric has been generated by impostors who use their dominant dishonest acumen to sublimely charm others to wander in an
unreal ‘Spiritual Wonderland’ that is totally unworthy of any honest contemplation!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A rational response to
the ‘standard’ questions posed by religious organisations.

What is the point of life?

Need there be a ‘point’. Nature instructs all of life to reproduce; to what end, we just don’t know & it’s most likely that we never will. We can speculate, but are very far short of the necessary knowledge to form a valid judgement!

Certainly, life’s purpose cannot be identified by any ancient
decrepit ‘Belief’!

Nature, red in tooth & claw, is pitilessly indifferent to an individual’s quality of life; the fittest for any environment will prosper. Individual quality of life is a lottery. We have arrived & must make the best of it.
Self-deceivers pray for Ethereal help; none is discernable - - - Quite definitely a DIY job!

We live, utilising facts that the experience of life plus research, provides!

The paralogism of religious charlatans can’t match the knowledge we now possess, scant though it be.
Mystical Theosophy is drivel of the first order.

What happens when we die?

Starkly, when the brain ceases to function, that ‘being’ ceases to ‘be’.
The motivation driving that unique combination of elements is no more!
A ‘Spiritual Future’ ????? - - - Pure self-indulgent fantasy!
The chemo-electrical activity of the brain – the mind – is capable of generating any illusive mirage.
If that imagery is not backed up by factual proof, it remains a fantasy.
To give any credence to life after death, one must be round the bend, if not well up the straight!

Natural cognition (common sense), affirms life’s future as solely dependent on reproduction!

Is forgiveness possible?

With almost limitless mutations possible, genetic functioning can be expected to produce individuals with characteristics of an exceedingly complex gradation, in a myriad of aspects – eg - - -

Brilliant to Thick – Jovial to Morose – Benign to Sadistic – Hetero to Homo – ad inf.

Religions provide a very accessible dump for the guilt generated by the various indiscretions to which all humans must, in some respect, be victim.

Do not kid thyself – No one is immaculate!

Those gifted with conscience & a degree of ‘normalcy’ just have to live with the unfortunates & scallywags – amongst whom - the ‘Confidence Men’ - enjoying a very comfortable living with their pretentious ‘Divine’ prognostications!

Further thoughts

With the barbarous & brutal acts of differing factions, the mutiplicity of silly ‘Beliefs’ has always been a handicap that humanity can well do without. - - - Common sense must prevail!
As the sponge-like mind of an infant readily absorbs info, authentic or fallacious, in teaching the necessary basics of life, the follies of illogical & delusory religions should be emphasized - - - Strongly!
Offspring should be brought up from birth unprimed with needless pestilential ‘beliefs’. - - - Glaringly Obvious!

Preachers pontificate on a subject so ‘Holey’, it is artlessly transparent. Visualise it’s benighted origins & it’s quite obvious that the early human mind was bound to generate mythological imagery of an Elysian nature & from there, receptive fanciful minds took over. ‘Beliefs’ were surely born of ignorance & fear of the unknown! With this realisation, why can’t we all recognise simple basic facts & treat all ‘faiths’ of today as ever they really were - - -
A continuing evolution of irrational early thought.

In this more enlightened age - Pure Phantasmic Godswallop!

The Rt Rev Fred Flintstone & his equally-misguided confederates of all other ‘Faiths’ should have dug themselves out of the Stone-age long long ago!

The Past is unveiled thro Time!
Let’s all Profit from it! - Not Perpetuate it! - - - - A m e n

[dante]

I was struck Hitchen's uncharacteristic lack of rigour. He warned against religion's defenders when they say that you cannot blame religion for all the evil in the world when you had movements like Stalinism that were both simutaneously evil and overtly anti religious. Hitchen countered that the anti-religious fervour of Stalinism became a religion in itself and thus the exception that proves the rule that all religion is bad. Stop there! You can't say that "the world would be a better place without religion", and then tack onto the end "plus all the religion-like, non religious movements that exhibited extremist traits that we tend to associate with religion". The fact that non religious movements like Stalinism became religion-like isn't a footnote or an afterthought - it's the crux of the argument. The problem isn't religion per se – it human beings' proclivity for EXTREMISM - religious or otherwise! Religion is just the one easily recognisable – and often charicatured - face of it. Blaming the "R" word misses the point. It scapegoats religion for all extremism in the world and in doing so, punishes all the moderate and good religious people the world over - a very extremist, and quasi religious standpoint if ever there was one! The wif of intolerance and souless Marxist reasoning in Hitchen's and Dawkin's discourse reminds us why we need religious spirituality (from time to time)- it's part of our human make-up and a counter balance to rationalist extremism.

[Denis Collins]

David Hallett said:

' Denis, thanks for the response, and I'm sorry to be slow saying so. '

You are welcome.

' I still have grave reservations about your degree of certainty re consciousness (I think this problem is much harder than you seem to) but this is not the place for such discussions, which are inevitably long and fraught with terminological difficulties. '

Actually, I am not CERTAIN that consciousness is entirely physical, though I do think it very likely is. I do appreciate that this is an immensely tough question- as I said before, the human brain is the most complex thing we know of, and we are only just beginning to get to grips with its workings. It is possible that its (literally!) mind-bogglingly complex interactions are not sufficient to explain consciousness, but I think we should assume that they are until and unless someone can show that they are not.
After all (and here comes some inductive reasoning- which is not perfect but works more often than not!) the history of science- in its widest, loosest sense- can be summarized as the ongoing debunking of supernatural claims about the world and their replacement with physical explanations.
Our distant ancestors thought every stream, mountain, tree, beast, etc contained a spirit or deity of some kind.
The same was believed of the stars and planets (and this belief still, unforgivably, lives on in western astrology).
As the Gospels show, epileptics (I suffer from this condition myself) were thought to be possessed by demons. (Depressingly, a Christian fundamentalist who collared me recently claimed that these were REAL demons that Jesus cast out! How did he know that? Because the Bible says so, of course!)
This list can be added to ad infinitum, and note that science has dispensed with the need for all of these entelechies, and that all educated, rational people now accept this- with just two exceptions.....

One is God- many people think, wrongly in my view, that science hasn't dispensed with the need for a God to explain existence, morality, etc.
The other is Cartesian dualism, the view that Peter King (see below) and you (it seems) hold. It is true, as I have said, that science hasn't yet given a full and satisfying physical account of consciousness, but since every other question it has thus far tackled HAS indeed ended with just such an explanation, I do indeed have faith- JUSTIFIED faith!- that this too will come to pass.

David later said:
' Suppose your brain is less like a computer and more like a TV. It's needed for you to experience consciousness, and damage to it will mess up the "picture", but it's not the originator of the signal. You may now be duly incredulous!

If you can propose a scientific experiment that will distinguish between this theory and the one you prefer, I will be greatly impressed. '

We have had Peter King, an Oxford philosopher (a staunch atheist too!) speak to us at CUAAS on this subject, and his view is somewhat like yours. He does indeed come up with some potential experiments that might decide the question (Google him to read about them), but I have to say that I- along with the rest of the audience, as far as I could tell- found these unconvincing, as indeed we found the basis of his dualism, which is a re-formulation of Descartes' arguments. Most modern philosophers believe these to have been well answered.

I prefer the arguments of another CUAAS alumnus, Dan Dennett- have you read his (hubristically entitled!) 'Consciousness Explained'?