Open thread

Thank-you for posting an open thread.
Expatiation:
I do tend to expatiate, but I'll endeavor to keep this pithy.
I hate the attitude of the Catholic Church towards females; any Church that cannot welcome females as priests is an abomination.
I hate the promulgation of the idea that babies who go unbaptized cannot see Heaven but must be dumped into this Godless place called Limbo. I ask you: does this sound more like God-speak, or human insanity. I hate that babies have to be baptised at all. When do babies cease to carry the sin of their ancestors - Adam and Eve?
I question the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do onto you." This works if you're a do-gooder, but fails to work if you are a masochist or have lost too many screws. I prefer: "Do the rightest thing that you know!" coupled with Maya Angelou's wounderfuil quotation: "People do the best they can with what they know. When they know better, they do better." Whose job is it to teach them better? It's called lead by example, or offer your opinion (but take no vested interest in whether your example or opinion is followed).
I question the existence of a sky-God that has nothing better to do than listen to our prayers and most likely ignore them. I hate the platitude: God knows best. Rather, I believe that every living thing is part of God; therefore each of us carries within us a divine spark. It is out job to encourage the wee spark, be the hands, thoughts and heart of God on earth.
Thanks for reading...

Hi Will,
I rarely post here as the moderation drives a free spirit like moi crazy.

This story caught my attention yesterday:
San Francisco to ban circumcision:

"Those who violate the ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000), under his proposal. Circumcisions even for religious reasons would not be allowed. At this point, Schofield's proposal is an idea that would have to clear several hurdles to be considered."

https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/19/male.circumcision.sf/

Juxtapose that report with the ever brilliant commentary by Johann Hari

"If you are engaged in an act of cruelty, there is an easy, effective way to silence your critics and snatch some space to carry on. Tell us all that your religion requires you to do it, and you are "offended" by any critical response. Erect an electric wire fence around your nastiest actions and call it "respect"."

https://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-religious-excuse-for-barbarity-2137927.html

My point (& Hari's) is to ask why is it that religion as an excuse for cruelty continues unabated?

LucyQ,

Is that not the excuse religion uses for everything. The latest version to defend their right to be offensive is

"These are not my words but gods"

Dave -

"And since there is no god, I can do whatever I like."

That 'excuse' is also possible, isn't it Dave?

So nothing really to do with religion or anti-religion, and everything to do with good ol' human nature, methinks.

LSV,

Informed consent sums it all up.

"And since there is no god, I can do whatever I like.",

But LSV, that quote is only made by theists who do not understand that the ability to determine right from wrong, the ability to use our conscience and the ability to collectively decide when freedom of action is allowed and when it needs to be curtailed to protect others have got nothing to do with theism but is within us and not taught from a book of fairy tales.

An Atheist might say, "since there is no god, I can do whatever I like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else and is legal"

Dave -

Well, Dave, isn't it impressive that the human race possesses such a notion as 'right and wrong'? Funny that. Please explain which property of matter is the source of this 'ability'.

Until such time as people like you can do that, then people like us will continue to regard the necessity of morality as evidence that there is more to reality than merely atoms and molecules.

So perhaps you need to engage the brain before typing phrases like 'fairy tales'.

By the way... an atheist might say, "since there is no god, I can do whatever I like, even if it hurts other people". I can assure you that that possibility is more than mere conjecture, as it has really happened. Now shall I start with Uncle Joe, or perhaps the oriental gentleman with the little red book...?

Then again isn't it better to do something that benefits another purely because of that benefit, rather than the promise of eternal bliss beyond the pearly gates.

Please explain which property of matter is the source of this 'ability'

No. !

What would be the point as your only approach to such a debate is derision and verbal legerdemain.

Until such time as people like you can do that, then people like us will continue to regard the necessity of morality as evidence that there is more to reality than merely atoms and molecules.

You believe whatever you want to believe, it's no skin off my nose and I have no compunction to change your mind but don't be surprised if you hear me laugh sometimes, I can't help it.

So perhaps you need to engage the brain before typing phrases like 'fairy tales'.

Nope. ! I can type what I intend to type quite ably without a change in process.

By the way... an atheist might say, "since there is no god, I can do whatever I like, even if it hurts other people". I can assure you that that possibility is more than mere conjecture, as it has really happened. Now shall I start with Uncle Joe, or perhaps the oriental gentleman with the little red book...?

An atheist might say many things, so may a theist it does not make either a good person.

I entirely agree with LucyQ, religion is no justification for mutilating young children.

Christopher Hitchens writes about the mohel, the person whose job it is to carry out the mutilation. Amongst certain Hasidic fundamentalists the child's foreskin is removed in, how can I put it, a most peculiar way. He further writes that in 2005 a mohel was found to have given genital herpes to two small boys. Distinguished Jewish doctors have warned of the danger of the practice.

Dave -

"What would be the point as your only approach to such a debate is derision and verbal legerdemain."

Words written by someone who said the following about the beliefs of millions of people: "...and not taught from a book of fairy tales."

And he has the nerve to accuse me of resorting to 'derision'!! Does a rejection of hypocrisy feature in your 'atheist' morality, may I ask?

Or perhaps this wonderful 'atheist morality' doesn't apply to how you treat people who disagree with your worldview?

Pathetic.

Paul #8

"Then again isn't it better to do something that benefits another purely because of that benefit, rather than the promise of eternal bliss beyond the pearly gates."


To be honest I’ve reached the stage on this blog where I no longer know how to respond to comments like this.

I read so many misleading (intentional or unintentional) contrasts of supposed Christian doctrine with what is perfectly reasonable human behaviour that my reaction is now limited to.... ‘b b b but, but,”

Your comment in post 8 sets up a false dichotomy. “the promise of eternal bliss beyond the pearly gates.” isn’t even in the bible.

However when Dave says, “An atheist might say many things, so may a theist it does not make either a good person.” I find I can wholeheartedly agree.

Although, Dave, I'm not just so sure that we do know "which property of matter is the source of..." And neither am I so sure that the (what seems to be endless resort on W&T at the moment) to 'fairy tales' is furthering any kind of debate.


Natman #5

"Informed consent sums it all up."

And you would have a full (as in completely summed up) psychological understanding of what either 'informed' or 'consent' might be?

Dave,

Don't you realise? If it wasn't for the rules set down by a god, humans would be killing and stealing and raping and mutilating each other all over the place!

Obviously, (I can't believe you don't see this) societies with the highest levels of religous fevour are those with the best human rights records, justice systems and histories of stability and tolerance.

Conversely, those societies with minimal divine influence, like buddhist and Confusian adherants, are all too willing to invade, enslave and oppress all those around them.

It's as plain as day.

Natman -

I always knew that the USSR was run by a deeply committed Christian regime. That's why tens of millions died savage deaths. If only they had been (lovely, cuddly, tolerant) atheists...

(/using sarcasm - perhaps even legerdemain - to condescend to the level of the historically and philosophically challenged)

OK Peter but even if your version of the fairy tale doesn't allow for reward in the next life or being cast into the fiery lakes of damnation, if you have to ask WWJD before each act my point is made.

Paul

In my last set of comments I tried to explain my hesitation at getting involved; you replied with #15.

I have to ask, is that a serious response?

I can understand the continued use of 'fairy tales' to make a satirical point (quite clever), even the stereotypical and fundamentalist literalism of 'fiery lakes' (perhaps deliberate and ironic), but WWJD? If only you knew the contempt I have for such evangelical sound bites and trinkets.

BTW, 'evangelical', I am one, and the odd thing about a conversation like this is that I'm saying nothing to you that I wouldn't be saying to my fellow Christians.

I'd also have thought that describing, "Then again isn't it better to do something that benefits another purely because of that benefit" as "perfectly reasonable human behaviour" (I'd intensify 'reasonable' but I've been told on another thread that such acts aren't all that significant) was a world away from a religious cliche.

logica_sine_vanitate wrote to Dave -

"And since there is no god, I can do whatever I like."

"That 'excuse' is also possible, isn't it Dave?"

That is a very odd remark. Surely everyone is now learning to understand
evolution and how aspects of early hunter gatherer existence continues to influence our actions as modern people.

Person logica_sine_vanitate - Were you not born with the innate sense of what is right and wrong and to learn PDQ that doing no harm to others or their property is the best way to build a reciprocity in community?

Do you imagine CCTV in your head with a paternal voice from the control room whispering don't steal that?

Peter
any evangelical that doesn't threaten me with a lake of fire is to be welcomed, but if you accept "perfectly reasonable human behaviour" then Why God?

LucyQ,

Those with a theistic mindset would be lost, totally and utterly, if it wasn't for the morals and guidelines set down in whichever holy book they subscribe to this century.

At least, that's the impression I get from the likes of LSV, who seem to assume that without such rules written for them, they cannot distinguish between right and wrong. No wonder they have so much trouble when it comes to situations not explicitly described in their rulebooks.

It really is a fascinating and quite surreal experience trying to communicate to people who twist everything I say. Still I suppose one must be patient and persevering.

Actually, I better just check whether the book says that I have to be patient ... (pause while I look it up) ... Oh, yes, it says I must and WWJD supports it, so there you go... (/sarcasm again for dear old Natman's benefit, otherwise he might twist that comment as well. One can never be too sure!).

Now... take a deep breath ... count to 10 ... and here we go again...

Now, Natman, I know that you are desperate to fit everything into your lovely, inspiring, meaningful worldview (note to myself: tut tut sarcasm ... slap self on wrist), but I really must disabuse you of this notion that I only know 'right from wrong' because the Bible says so. I really would be most interested to know from where you derived this idea.

The fact that you describe the Bible as a rulebook, and that Christians are unable to make decisions which are not prescribed in detail in said back, reveals your almost complete ignorance of the teaching of that same book. But this 'analysis' of the role of the Bible is quite typical of the atheist. Since you don't believe that God is real, then, of course, you have to assume that God is not real for anyone else, and therefore you presume that we Christians live guilt-ridden lives merely according to a set of rules. Your conclusion is a way, I suppose, of trying to reassure yourself of the 'truth' of your own worldview.

I must commend you for, at least, trying to be consistent with your philosophy. Well done. I suppose that is progress, in a way. But a bit more consistency with your materialistic worldview may cause you to adopt a more subjective view of morality. For me, the fact that we all have a sense of 'right and wrong' is evidence that there is more to reality than merely atoms and molecules. Even atheists are part of that reality, even though they refuse to recognise it.

Keep up the silly misunderstandings, Natman. As I say, it is all rather surreal, and it is truly fascinating to see atheists incapable of living consistently with their own worldview, and affirming realities which only make sense within a theistic worldview. Quite amusing in fact, if the truth be known.

Typo alert: "in said back" should be "in said book"

That's sense perception for you - the brain thinks it's seeing something that's not actually there.

The joys of empiricism!

LSV,

"...the fact that we all have a sense of 'right and wrong' is evidence that there is more to reality than merely atoms and molecules..."

Really? -All- of us? This is something we're born with is it? Something infants are aware of? We don't need to teach our children right and wrong?

Of course we do, morality and a sense of right and wrong is relative, history is evidence enough of that. Your comment at the start of this thread ("And since there is no god, I can do whatever I like.") about atheistic morality betrays your opinion we somehow need a god and his set of rules to guide our lives.

Natman -

"We don't need to teach our children right and wrong?"

Why should we, if it is all relative? I thought you atheists were all into letting children make up their own minds - and not labelling them or 'brainwashing' them with any ideology. So therefore, what informs your morality, by which you teach your children?

And if you say that it is not based on any ideology, but is simply a basic human sense of right and wrong, then that rather proves my point: that we do have a fundamental sense of morality (even if it needs to be elaborated on in the education of children).

If you say that morality is relative, then I am quite amazed by your post 13 on this thread, referring to people killing, stealing, raping and mutilating. If morality is relative, then what's wrong with doing all these things? What if some people decide that such actions are 'good'? There is nothing in your worldview to say that they are 'wrong'.

The only way you can make any moral judgment or criticism at all is if you subscribe to an objective standard of morality. Otherwise, what are you appealing to? And if you then say that this standard is an inherent human sense, then, again, we are back to the point I made.

Any chance of an interview with Michael Behe William ?

I would imagine he'd be a much trickier subject than Ken Ham.

If morality is in fact innate, then it can be argued that it is a character trait that survives from generation to generation by way of adherence to it (coupled with enforcement of punishment for non-adherence to it) conferring a collective survival advantage on practitioners according to the pressures of natural selection.

The fact that I find morally upright women to be much more sexually attractive to me seems to affirm this.

The use of morality to prove God's existence is refuted by the existence of an unrefuted explanation for the existence of morality that does not require divine input, namely the theory of natural selection.

Incidentally, morality goes out the window pretty rapidly when confronted with mortal peril. Thus in war, when confronted with the enemy who threatens you, conscience is overridden by the survival instinct.

Referring to Uncle Joe, his concern was with the threatened survival of the state to which he dedicated his life to the development of. Thus, he cast those who opposed him as enemies who threatened his life, with the standard abandonment of moral principle that always accompanies war. You could also describe Stalinism as a quasi-religious cult that took advantage of religion's power to encourage and enforce deference to moral authority to achieve the bypass of personal morality necessary to facilitate the committal of such atrocities.

To blame his actions on his atheism is both factually misleading and insulting to atheists like me; are you attempting to say that I necessarily lack morality because I am an atheist?

Sean (@ 25) -

I am not saying that atheists lack morality (again my words are being twisted). I am saying that the acknowledged necessity of morality bears witness to the truth of a worldview which involves more than merely 'matter'. Atheists are part of God's creation, even though they refuse to acknowledge it, and therefore they (you) cannot avoid living in the reality of that which comes ultimately from God. Of course, you can benefit from "that which comes from God" without acknowledging its source - I have never disputed that. In fact, if atheists could live ordered and meaningful lives without morality, then perhaps my argument would be undermined.

As for your interpretation of Stalin: that argument can also be used to defend 'religious' people who commit evil, i.e. they were doing it, not necessarily because of a belief in God (as if such a belief is a sufficient condition for evil), but because of other factors, such as politics. But I notice that atheists have a grotesque double standard when deploying this argument. If a 'religious' leader commits evil, it must be because of his belief in God, but if an atheist leader commits evil it can never be because of his atheism (even if both leaders look to their respective worldviews to justify their evil)! Now, I think any intelligent and reasonable person would have to admit that that approach is truly ridiculous as well as deceitful.

If you atheists claim to be so moral, then why not include 'logical consistency' in your moral code. It's not a lot to ask, is it?

LSV
"necessity of morality" , equals proof of god
"Atheists are part of gods creation", equals proof of god
"living in the reality of that which comes from god", equals proof of god

Just because you say it doesn't make it true

paul james -

And just because you deny it doesn't make it untrue.

LSV,

Informed consent.

Look it up. It's an amazing concept.

Plus, you've never actually denied that if it wasn't for the bible, you'd be quite happy to kill and steal.

Are you really that shallow? That the only thing preventing you from being an evil person is the supposed 'word of god'? How do you think your god will react when you stand infront of him and he knows (because he knows everything, apparently) your only reason for doing good things is because someone told you to?

An atheistic moral code is far more than any religous one, because we do it for altruistic reasons, for the good of the many, not because some invisible sky monkey said if we didn't, we burn in hell forever.

LSV
Just concerned about your lapse into christianist woo old chap, ipsedixitism isn't your usual style.

Has anyone else noticed the lack of actual debate round here in recent weeks?


Paul

post 18, "Why God"

It's a good question and there are no one size fits all answers and I think I’ve said enough to hint at the fact I’m more than happy to try and explain, and listen. But, at the moment, I can’t get passed words like ‘woo’ and ‘sky monkey’.

Like I said, it’s not real debate.

LSV, I'm not sure where this idea of necessity arises. Morality exists because we have observed its demonstration consistently and predictably.

To suggest that morality proves the existence of God is not good enough to meet any objective standard of proof. It might prove sufficient for you, but you'll have to fill in the gaps for it to become the objectively acceptable proof you portray it to be.

Given that lack of objectively acceptable certainty, I expect you preface statements such as, 'Atheismts are...' with the qualifier, 'I believe...' because you are at the moment guilty of presenting articles of your faith as objectively acceptable fact. This is unacceptable, as I have previously demonstrated that such ideas lack the required certainty to accept their misrepresentation as facts.

Nobody accuses the religious who are guilty of this sort of crime of having therefore committed them for motivationally religious reasons. I thank you to clarify that the double standard you invoked in reference to this does not apply to my post. I, however, demonstrated how religion can function to encourage moral deference to authority, allowing the bypass of personal morality and thus allowing atrocities to occur. History is littered with examples of this. You've failed to answer this charge.

To clarify, nobody attributes the kind of atrocity we are talking about to the religiousness of the person responsible for originating the orders. However, the religiousness of the people down the chain of command can be taken advantage of to bypass the normal personal moral judgements that might otherwise be expected to prevent a person from participating in this kind of activity. This can be attributed to the fairly common religious practice of encouraging and enforcing deference to moral authority.

paul james (@ 31) -

"Just concerned about your lapse into christianist woo old chap, ipsedixitism isn't your usual style."

Throw a large rock at LSV, and LSV throws a large rock back.

Hurl a little pebble at him, and he throws a little pebble back.

Hence my curt and economical response to your 'sublime' offering (and it avoids having to repeat what I have already expounded on at length).

LSV
Yep. thought so

Sean (@ 33) -

"I, however, demonstrated how religion can function to encourage moral deference to authority, allowing the bypass of personal morality and thus allowing atrocities to occur. History is littered with examples of this. You've failed to answer this charge."

Apparently, so we are told by many atheists, Christian personal convictions (including a personal sense of morality) are considered illegitimate, because those same convictions can be institutionalised, with the result that that institutionalisation can be abused by those with political agendas.

But, of course, if atheist ideas are 'institutionalised' and then imposed on everyone with resultant abuse (as has happened in certain countries - I can think of a few off the top of my head), that does not delegitimise personal atheistic convictions!

Now I know, Sean, that you have tried to modify your position on this with your comment in post 34, but I can't understand the point of what you are saying. What has this got to do with matters of truth? All you are saying is that people can be exploited. So what? Are you suggesting that if a woman is exploited, that that calls into question her femininity? Or if a child is exploited that that undermines his or her status and nature of being a child? Likewise, if a Christian is exploited (even by others who profess the same faith) that that experience of exploitation delegitimises his Christianity?

This is a truly ridiculous argument. If atheists want to refer to atrocities committed in the name of God as an argument to attempt to debunk theism, then, if they really care about not being hypocrites, they ought to apply the same rule to atheism. But, from my experience, they are not prepared to. Why, may I ask? (I think I know the answer).

No LSV. I grow weary of your inferrence of extrapolation that I have not engaged in. If you wish to address my point, address it according to the limited way that I express it in. If you wish to extrapolate implications, present them that way, that your extrapolation might be open to challenge.

Your second paragraph is the case in point here. I'll thank you to add the proviso that I have not implied anything you've said here, because it's presented in a way that might be seen to attribute the ideas to me.

The only point you really make here is that institutionalisation shouldn't be used as a stick with which to beat people's personal beliefs. I agree. However, you were guilty of this first, by blaming Stalin's atheism and the atheism of the Soviet state for the atrocities that were carried out under that regime. Aside from specifically anti-religious crimes, a proviso you failed to add, there is no such thing as the causal link you draw with casual certainty, a certainty you fail to make any justification for.

I'm saying more, 'than people are vulnerable to exploitation.' I'm attacking institutional Christianity (and any other religious institutions that encourage the same abdication of personal morality in favour of deference to institutionally sanctioned moral authority) for structurally facilitating that vulnerability. That includes an attack on the specific aspect of personal belief concerning deference to external institutional morality which functions to legitimise the institution concerned.

Will, I'm not sure if my personal strength would let me listen to an interview with Behe, but then again maybe it is necessary to 'know the enemy'.

You can maybe make some time to listen to Hitchens debating another deranged (no nice words here) ID/Creationist at a US Baptist college last week.

"Live WebcastDoes a Good God Exist?"
https://pcawebcast.com/2010debate/

The ID/Creationist actually said that dinosaurs popped up on the planet fully formed. Man that guy can't tell time.

I think you also know that the term 'Intelligent Design' was coined by the Discovery Institute to mask the promotion of Creationism and this was proven in the Dover Trial.

Good luck, L.

p.s. Are you buying a ticket for the webcast of the Hitchen / Blair event at the Munk Centre (U of T) on Friday night?
https://www.munkdebates.com/home.aspx

Sean (@ 38) -

Well, Sean, ideas do have implications (or 'extrapolations', if you prefer). If I really have put words into your mouth, then I apologise, BUT can I take it, therefore, that the atheists on this blog will now give up this hypocritical argument against the claims of theism based on certain atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion? Natman, are you listening?

I reiterate: if theism is condemned because of atrocities committed in the name of religion, then, by the same logic, atheism should also be condemned because of the atrocities committed in the name of atheism.

Are we all agreed on this point, or not? (And if not, why not?)

By the way, atheism has demanded deference (including 'moral' deference) to its institutionalised form: USSR, Albania (as was), China (especially under the cultural revolution).

Lucy

Believing dinosaurs were fully formed at the time of creation is a straightforward acceptance of the Christian position according to the Bible. And since there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, the evidence would appear to bear that out.

Evolutionists can see evidence of design both in nature and the universe, but they dare not acknowledge it, because design demands intelligence.

Me? I'm happy to accept how God said He did it. (Genesis 1; Exodus 20v11) Does that make me 'deranged'? Or will you choose some nicer words?!

Pastorphilip, you have a very poor grasp of what transitional means. There's no reason why you shouldn't except both Evolution and God. Intelligent design could be regarded as Evolution if life is a coalescing of cells, into multi-cellular organisms dependent on environmental stresses and resources

PastorPhillip,

Nice use of flawed arguments (No transition fossils!), are you going to follow that up with "if we're descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?", that would be classic. How about "Everything I know about biology comes from the bible!".

What's Archaeopteryx? Just a strange feathered bird-like dinosaur? What exactly is your definition of a 'transition' fossil? You're straying dangerously close to lying with your bold assertion that there are no transition fossils. One might think you're deliberatly claiming something you know is wrong.

Creationists can see evidence of evolution both in nature and the universe, but they dare not acknowledge it, because they think their faith is useless without absolute, complete, utter 100% literal reading of the bible.

"Me? I'm happy to accept how God said He did it. (Genesis 1; Exodus 20v11) Does that make me 'deranged'? Or will you choose some nicer words?!"

Deluded is the word you're looking for.

Re Lucy@39
The original PCA webcast of the Hitchens/Dembski debate is down due to "overwhelming demand". Until it reappears well worth listening to Hitchens closing remarks here

Natman -

"Deluded is the word you're looking for."

Well, Natman, at least PastorPhillip subscribes to a worldview in which the word 'deluded' actually has meaning. That is more than can be said for a naturalistic worldview in which reason must be entirely subjective, and therefore in which concepts like 'truth' cannot logically have any meaning. Of course, you assert that your view (or rather "totally unproven theory") is 'true', but that is because you unconsciously steal the idea of 'objective truth' from a worldview you reject.

I don't expect you to understand this too well. But if I were you, I would be a bit more careful in your use of the word 'deluded'.

Dear Will,

Are you aware of a fascinating new book by the most widely respected and acclaimed journalist specialising in the Catholic Church, John Allen (of CNN and NPR), "The Future Church - How ten trends are revolutionizing the Catholic Church", in which Allen predicts that the Catholic Church 50 years from now will be influenced more and more by African and Latin American Catholics, and as a result the Church will be:

More pentecostal, eg more charismatic in nature;
More evangelical;
More focused on economic issues, and the plight of the poor, eg the Church will increasingly be seen as "leftwing" on the economy;
More focussed on ecological issues;
Still "conservative" on sexual ethics.

This is a really detailed, very well argued analysis. One might disagree with the emphasis Allen placed on some of these trends, but overall, it is clear that, broadly speaking, the Church is heading in these directions.

See here for further details- (https://www.amazon.com/Future-Church-Trends-Revolutionizing-Catholic/dp/0385520387

Best wishes,

Jim

Jim
strange that Allen predicts that fifty years from now the church will be more and more influenced by the African and Latin American church.

The stats after the latest consistory in Rome suggest the exact opposite.

Out of the 24 new Cardinals recently elevated in St Peters, no less than 8 are Italian meaning that one fifth of the (electing) college of Cardinals are now Italian.

Only 7 of the new Cardinals are from outwith Europe and America. Two thirds of the Catholic population of the planet are from the Southern hemisphere but only one third of the new Cardinals are from there.

Mr Allen also recently reported that Benedict should be commended for not 'stacking the deck' with archconservative Cardinals. When he said that, his 'respect and acclaim', which you mention, took a bit of a hit. Some people even claimed, outrageously, that Mr Allen now tends to file his copy with an eye on his next interview.

Jim

Seeing as there a general flippancy on these particular pixels at the moment...


#46

"overall, it is clear that, broadly speaking, the Church is heading in these directions."


You mean it's becoming more Protestant? ;-)

Come now, put the handbags away! Pastorphilips, I do believe you to have been deliberately provocative with your post there. You're guilty of misrepresentation (no, we do not see evidence for design, that's the very point of the argument), and just being plain wrong (your assertions regarding the fossil records are way wide of the mark).

Natman, you've got to keep your calm. No matter how angry it makes you to see science being spit on in this way, you need to stay the aggression of your responses, because if you don't, there are those who will in turn mount a moral high horse, serving to strengthen their views and push them further away, their alienation further reinforcing their trenchant refusal to engage in real debate and closing them towards allowing the evidence to challenge their preconceptions.

LSV, none of what you just posted has any kind of leg to stand on because of your seeming demand for absolutism. I've dealt with the relativity of certainty elsewhere, but your argument seems to be that pastorphillips must be more correct than Natman because he possesses a greater degree of conviction/certainty. Can't let that one go!

I think we're agreed that institutionalisation of moral authority is dangerous. It'd be good if you'd acknowledge that this practice has its origins in organised religion, and that organised religion to this day promotes the practice in a way that leaves everyone vulnerable to atrocity, from suicide bombings to the torture of homosexuals, committee in God's name.

LSV, I've had a look round now, and I see you've only posted this today. You're not worried about being accused of taking the easy option here? I mean, do you really find this to be of greater interest?

LSV, when I wandered back into this electronic tavern of free expression, you asked if you were supposed to feel afraid. I didn't know quite how to interpret this at the time, so I ignored it.

I want to know now. What was that supposed to mean? I don't want to accuse you of a sort of Freudian slip that actually betrayed a real fear, but my suspicion of how close to the truth that idea might be hasn't diminished.

But if not, what does it mean? If you're insinuating that I'm a bully, I'm not sure how to respond, except to state that I have no desire to be one and I would hope, if I am guilty of it, someone would point out the instance in question to facilitate my awareness and allow me the chance to apologise.

Sorry to bring it up at this time, I know you've got an awful lot more to respond to without this, but it bothered me at the time, and now that I've given the issue some distance, I wanted to address it.

Sean (@ 51) -

Please, Sean, clarify what you are talking about, because I am obviously missing something here.

Post 17 of the Vatican thread. Looking at it more closely again, it was more a question of yourself spontaneously (without prompt) choosing to making a massive deal out of fear you supposedly didn't suffer, but the question of how to interpret it remains largely the same.

Sean -

"Post 17 of the Vatican thread. Looking at it more closely again, it was more a question of yourself spontaneously (without prompt) choosing to making a massive deal out of fear you supposedly didn't suffer, but the question of how to interpret it remains largely the same."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! This 'analysis' of my comment didn't quite bring tears to my eyes like the Peter Kay biscuit dunking routine, but it wasn't far off!

Sean, have you really got no sense of humour?!

Or perhaps you don't understand irony?

I understand irony perfectly well, and my lack of amusement in this case is not indicative of a total lack of humour on my part. In this case, the irony would seem to rest on the premise that I WANT you to feel fear, or in other words, that I am a bully. I don't like the insinuation...in fact it makes my blood boil. Take it back or back it up please.

Very interesting article from a gay, conservative, catholic theologian. Gives very good commentary on what is really going on within the catholic church at the moment.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,730520,00.html

And here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1122/1224283832839.html

Sean -

Yes, I will back it up. Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the objective validity of logic is something I find deeply disturbing. I really don't understand how you can engage in a debate with anyone unless you accept that there are certain rules of debate, and the most basic rule of all is the authority of logic. If you don't accept this, then on what basis can you try to prove your point or assert anything?

I think the refusal to acknowledge the validity of logic is one of the most sinister things I have ever encountered. I make no apology for that. All human communication and even relationships fall apart without a recognition of the role of logic (even if this acceptance is subconscious). It's an intrinsic part of life, and without it there is only tyranny ("I can do whatever I like, and I don't need to give a reason why!"). There is no place for justice without it. No place for a moral code. No place for any ordered society. So, yes, the rejection of the authority of logic is a form of bullying. In fact the most pernicious kind of all, because you just try to force your views without having to justify them, since you believe that you do not need to.

If you accepted the role of logic, then I couldn't care less how aggressive you were, because, at least then we could have a discussion, even if it became quite heated and even insulting. I don't mind that. In fact, I am up for that. But your approach is something I find deeply disturbing.

No, it doesn't frighten me at all. All it does is make me wonder what on earth I can say to you.

I regret that I obviously misread your obvious sensitivity. Maybe you come from a different culture than me, and can't take some of the 'cut and thrust' that a lot of English people are quite comfortable with. I am willing to apologise for that misreading of your character. But your philosophical position is quite troubling, I have to say.

Having expressed a willingness to apologise, I have to make clear that Christian believers on this blog, and elsewhere on the internet, have to put up with a load of rubbish from atheists, and I want to make it clear that if stones are thrown at me, I return the compliment. Some people may think that is not very 'Christian', but the mildness of many Christians should not be exploited. If my beliefs are mocked, then I assume that I have the right to mock the beliefs of those who mock mine. If you don't like that, then hard luck, mate.

LSV, I like Grokesx's reply in the other open thread #128 (to try and get everybody discussing reasonably again )

56 romejellybean

A very interesting article indeed. People he associated with praised Hitler's efforts to exterminate homosexuals in concentration camps.

On the radio this morning I heard a C of E cleric moaning about women bishops. Men and women are equal he told us, but he didn't want them as bishops because women are more likely to favour gay clergy. These fifth columnist women!

but that is because you unconsciously steal the idea of 'objective truth' from a worldview you reject.

Well, you lot stole it from Parmenides of Elea and I'm pretty sure you'd reject his world view.

I'll repeat my assertion on logic. If one begins with a false premise, one can reach logical conclusions that are false. Thus logic is merely a benign tool; it possesses no authority in and of itself. The authority of logical conclusions depends on the authority of the premises with which it begins. I'm refuting the idea of logic's authority, not its validity as a process. Misrepresentation again.

I can take it as well as give it. That's not the basis for my objection. As I've already explained, to me, you've slandered my good name by accusing me of seeking to bully, to inspire fear. I take that kind of accusation very seriously, as no doubt would you if the boot was on the other foot. Take it back or justify it.

Just for the record, I don't really come from any one culture. The early years I lived in England I was an outsider due to perceived intellectual elitism, my teenage years in Northern Ireland I was seen as an enemy by both sides of the community because I couldn't fit into either side completely, and since then I've mainly been friends with foreigners, musicians and other societal outcasts. But whatever culture I would declare allegiance to, it would never be a culture that failed to take accusations of bullying seriously.

Sean -

In my post on the Vatican thread I did not accuse you of bullying. I was making a comment in jest, which I have explained. You are seeing something that is not there. Your understanding of my reference to 'fear' is totally distorted. I was using language ironically to denote that I was not afraid of your attempts to debunk my arguments.

That is the truth. Whether you accept it or not is your problem. This is all I intend to say about this pointless issue.

If your beliefs are mocked, LSV, it's as a result of their premises not being sound. Like it or not, but you can't mock disbelief in the same way. There isn't a premise to attack, so the justification for skepticism is harder to criticise.

If your beliefs are as self-evident as the certainty with which you espouse them, the mocking, and the criticisms they underline, wouldn't be worthy of a defensive posture.

As it is, when you throw a stone back, it gives legitimacy to those who threw the stone at you first. By choosing to defend your beliefs and failing to justify them, you give credence to the idea that you can't answer the criticisms, thereby suggesting they are legitimate.

This is underlined by your efforts to pin down your critics to absolute philosophical positions in order to justify a counter attack. If you were so certain of your views, your defence would be the only thing you'd need to satisfy your critics and give you peace. The counter attack would be moot. But you need it, because your defence alone isn't good enough to satisfy the requirements of the criticisms you face and allow you peace of mind.

Believe it or not, LSV, I'm glad of your contribution to the debate. It is controversy, not orthodoxy, which prevails as the strongest motivation for intellectual rigour, and although one cannot hope to live in an extreme world of either one in exclusion of the other, I would say I'd rather the times leant towards controversy, and heavily that way, than to have curiosity and passionate debate stifled by orthodoxy.

In that case, referring to post #64, I ask you where any suggestion of such a fear might have arisen, if not from me? It is a suggestion that arises entirely from within you. I therefore wonder why you would spontaneously deny fear, even flippantly (let's face it, the level of humour alone doesn't merit its inclusion on its own terms), when there has been no outside suggestion that you should. Is it a suggestion of real fear within you, or perhaps fear of fear developing within you? Who knows?

Sean -

It's late, so I will keep this short.

I only recognise logically coherent arguments. So you can blubber on as much as you like about my posts and my views. I will only respond to you when I see you mount a proper and credible attack on my position with logical arguments. Otherwise I am wasting my time with someone who really does not want a debate, and simply wants to give the impression of refuting my views by posting a large number of meaningless dogmatic comments.

So the choice is yours.

Peter -- I'll be interviewing Michael Behe this week. Look out for that on next week's Sunday Sequence

Thanks for that William.

I'll be looking forward to that one.

Believing dinosaurs were fully formed at the time of creation is a straightforward acceptance of the Christian position according to the Bible

No it isn't Philip.

It's a young Earth creationist interpretation of the bible i.e. the bible according to Henry Morris and John C. Whitcombe. it is not tradional Christian teaching.

The bible makes absolutely no mention of dinos anywhere.

LSV, if you reject my conjecture, that's fine. I presented it in this way, so there can be no confusion as to it demanding logical reply or debate.

At least you can't accuse me of misrepresentation though!

Oh, and I've never claimed anything so grand as to have refuted your views (misrepresentation), just questioned the premises upon which they rest, and the unjustified certainty with which you assert them.

LSV,

"Well, Natman, at least PastorPhillip subscribes to a worldview in which the word 'deluded' actually has meaning. That is more than can be said for a naturalistic worldview in which reason must be entirely subjective, and therefore in which concepts like 'truth' cannot logically have any meaning. "

You seem to think this is bad thing (perhaps you're deluded too). A free thinker will always be willing to concede that what they consider to be 'true' (for a given value for 'true') might be wrong and need altering at a later date.

Absolutism is simply setting yourself up for a potential fall at a later date.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Some questions that certain people would like you to ask Behe William, but, the usual pedantic and way way OTT moderation process have prevented me from posting.

Good luck with the interview anyway. Hope you fare better than Professor Keith Fox.

ID is Creationism. Any religious believer is essentially a Creationist since the implication of all religious ideology is that there is a maker.

Andrew Brown sums up Behe:

The futility of Intelligent Design
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/nov/23/religion-christianity?showallcomments=true

Giving Behe or Palin air time only encourages more sales of Chicken Soup for the Soul.

Peter, #70

According to Genesis 1, Dinosaurs would have been created on Day 6 of the Creation week, with the other land animals and Man.

Of course the Bible does not mention the word 'Dinosaur' - that term was coined relatively recently. But references to 'leviathan' and 'behemoth' could well refer to dinosaurs.

Natman #73

No absolutes...?? Are you abolutely sure about that?!!!
Seems to me that kind of thinking threatens an even greater fall!

It was J Edgar Hoover who said: "If only Americans kept the Ten Commandments, we would need no other laws." The morality which came from the Creator Himself cannot be improved upon!

That doesn't mean, LSV, that all of my posts are conjective. I trust that you, self-proclaimed logician that you are, will be able to tell the difference between the logically sound arguments I have posted regarding your misconceptions and the personal issue I raised with your implied attack on my character.

Otherwise, I shall take it that you had no comeback, and that you tacitly concede the genuine criticisms I have levelled at your proclamations. Because unless you answer those criticisms, that is the result of our debate.

pastorphillip, you want to reference J. Edgar Hoover in a debate about morality? The man who's better to have inside the tent urinating out than outside urinating in? That's who you go to for moral guidance? Seriously? Bit of a racist he was too...

There has never been a point in history in which people have followed the Ten Commandments strictly and unanimously. It can then be argued that there are aspects of human nature that violate these rules. Therefore, if one accepts the reasonable premise, one is led to the conclusion that to follow the Ten Commandments requires suppression of aspects of one's very nature. At the very least, an explanation as to how this dichotomy may be addressed would improve the validity of the moral code.

Not to mention the question of how it relates to Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Shinto and Confucian expressions of morality, with which there is both overlap and disagreement. To justify your certainty regarding the ultimate superiority of your moral code over that of others' you must first engage in a detailed study of those other codes. Failure to do so constitutes admission that your claim is made without justification.

Regarding your attitude towards absolutes, wouldn't you agree that your fear of an idea is no basis on which to make an argument against the truth of it?

PastorPhillip,

I sometimes wonder if you're living in the same world as the rest of us. How, on this earth, could not holding to absolutism set me up for a greater fall? The worst that could happen is I think 'Oh well, things chance, so can I'. I'd love to know what absolutes you can point to definitively.

I noticed you elected to ignore the evidence of transitional fossils, and my accusation that what you were saying might be interpreted as a falsehood.

I've thrown up another post in case my link here gets blocked by the moderators (it probably won't, but you can never tell).

A good essasy as to why it would be a very bad idea indeed for the law to be based on the 10 commandments is here.

Have a good read, PastorPhillip, it might enlighten you. If you still think it'd be a good idea, then please explain why.

Bravo Natman, that link's a superb illustration of how moral philosophy's progressed beyond these ancient ideas.

Natman,

Thanks for the link, very concise and helpful and a very interesting site I was unaware of.

Interesting link Natman, particularly the bit at the end on Politics and Democracy

PastorPhillip,

Really, someone calling themselves Pastor should know better. There are not 10 commandments, there are, I think, 612.
The 10 you are thinking of are the ones Moses came down the mountain with, carved on the tablets.
Phillip, tablets are stone, 10 was probably the most he could carry down the hill.
Elsewhere in the Bible you can discover the others. Nearby the 10 in Exodus is the commandment "thou shalt not permit a witch to live".
How PastorPhillip, what I want you to answer me, why so few witch burnings recently?
And I don't want you saying "there aren't any witches around these days", cos I can personally supply a list.

On the site that Natman linked to I found a great section on what's referred to as the 'Chewbacca Defence.' For those unfamiliar with the concept, I urge you to follow the link and do a search.

Needless to say, I've seen it attempted many times on here, but the prize biscuit goes to LSV, who receives the honorific, 'Chewie,' now, and again every time he's guilty of the tactic.

Peter,
Many thanks for your cryptic mention of Keith Fox. I found this analysis of the Fox/Behe debate and found it interesting to relate the discussion points to the Belfast event.
https://bcseweb.blogspot.com/2010/11/creation-watch-michael-behe-keith-fox.html

I'm not surprised people like us, who have a sinful nature, don't relish facing up to the Ten Commandments - they represent the straight line which shows up how crooked we are!

And yes, Natman that's the world we all live in!

Thankfully, in Jesus Christ and His Cross, God has provided a way out of our guilt and failure. (Check out Romans 5v6 & 8)....and out of our trying to wrigglle out of personal accountability!!

What about J. Edgar Hoover pastor? Nothing to say about him any more?

Made any investigation into foreign peoples' ideas about morality, or are you too xenophobic?

Sean #65

"If your beliefs are mocked, LSV, it's as a result of their premises not being sound. Like it or not, but you can't mock disbelief in the same way. There isn't a premise to attack, so the justification for skepticism is harder to criticise."


I'm adding this comment against my better judgement, and that partly because I'm struggling to take much any of this seriously at the moment; however, the penury of mocking aside, "There isn't a premise to attack..." But I'm afraid there is, it's called lack of trust.

PastorPhillip,

"I'm not surprised people like us, who have a sinful nature, don't relish facing up to the Ten Commandments - they represent the straight line which shows up how crooked we are!"

And in that simple sentence, it just shows that you're either a Poe or grossly deluded. The 10 commandments are impossible to live by in the modern world and were never intended so.

Natman


Let’s leave God out of it and do a bit of a 10 commandment rewrite while keeping the essential (albeit without God) message. I’ll begin with number 4 and I’d be interested, purely as a bit of secular debate, to know what your objections are to the following:

Have a day off, every week. Take the kids to the beach, pack up a picnic, put your feet up, chill out, enjoy the view.

Take care of your mum and dad; let’s do this while we can, while they are still with us. Call round, boil the kettle, make a cup of tea, enjoy their company.

Don’t kill anyone; respect the life of another; view them as you view yourself.

If you make a promise keep it. Your husband/wife/partner will flourish if you are loyal to them.

Respect the property of another, they have worked hard for it.

Don’t speak about your fellow human beings in ways that are not true.

Be content, we’ll be less fraught.



And that last line of yours - you’re coming shockin’ close to theology there!! :-)

Peter,

Not a bad exposition of Commandments 4 - 10 - but reckoning without God is a big mistake. As Jesus pointed out, honouring Him must come first and proper treatment of others flows from that.

It was the French philosopher Pascal who said: "There is a God-shaped void at the heart of every man" - Not surprisingly, only God can fill it.

As Augustine put it:" Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in Thee."

We were fashioned by God, and none of us will ever be truly fulfilled without Him. Faith in Jesus Christ brings Him within reach!

Pastor Phillip

"reckoning without God is a big mistake"

I quite agree, as I agree that "honouring Him must come first and proper treatment of others flows from that." Jesus, of course, was the one who truly honoured God, at least I expect that's what Christians like you and I will say.

Natman, however, doesn't agree with this understanding (hence the reason for starting at number 4), so I'm happy to play the 'ball game' in his stadium and see what happens.

Maybe as/if the conversation develops I'll comment on how the other dimension of the commandments, how they remind me of God.

peterm2, I don't get what you're trying to say here. Why is it that I should trust? Who is it that I should be trusting? That post makes no sense to me, so if it's not too much trouble, a little clarification and expansion would be appreciated.

I could write a big long post detailing why I am distrustful of the Christian message (and woe betide anyone who accuses me of ignorance; I know a lot more about Christianity than most Christians I've met). Instead, I invite you to explain to me why I can/should trust the message, both in and of itself, and above competing messages (Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Hedonism, Hellenism, Humanism, Islamism, Judaism, Nihilism, Shintoism, Taoism etc).

I'm open-minded enough to allow you the chance to convince me of your view, and I promise to give it due consideration. I'm not pinning my colours to any of the messages I mention above, but if you expect me to trust Christianity over and above them, you need to explain why.

pastor, what gives you such certainty? Upon what basis to you conclude that you yourself are certain of what you preach, and upon what basis can you conclude that you are certain of the universal applicability of the message you preach?

To reiterate a modern interpretation of the Commandments
1. I'm special.
2. I'm jealous. (You're not allowed to be jealous, see no 10.)
3. No paparazzi, please.
4. Introducing the six-day work week! (See your local religious authorities to see which day isn't the workday)
5. Mum and dad are good.
6. Don't kill.
7. Don't cheat (on your spouse(s)).
8. Don't steal.
9. Don't lie.
10. Don't ogle your neighbour's ass or his wives' ass or anything else of his.

They seem pretty straight forward to me Peterm2, still, human beings whether devout, pious or atheist seem to have difficulty with them in equal measure. So it doesn't seem to make a difference how much we expound our religious beliefs or lack of them. There are good people and bad people and that's how it is and always will be. Perhaps it's by a distortion in some who place their biological impulse to pass on their genes,to give their genes the best start in life with an advantage over & above everyone else's that makes some peoples actions fly in the face of the common good, resulting in some of these commandments being broken

Sean, hi.

I wasn’t and I’m not trying to convince you of my Christian beliefs; I was responding to your suggestion that one can’t mock disbelief in the same way (as belief), and that there is no premise (in disbelief) to attack.

And I know that there is quite a bit of water under the bridge as far as you and LSV are concerned, and I haven’t read it all, but that comment jumped out at me, and I wasn’t limiting my thinking to religious belief; perhaps you were.

I am simply saying that ‘trust’ (believing in, trusting others) is an important feature of all our lives, the religious and the non-religious. We all do it, everyday, in big ways and in small ways. Life calls for trust, trust gets things done. There are times I trust those around me, and there are times I don’t, and while this can be good and bad, in the main, trusting another takes a high view of them. With this in mind then I will hesitate before ‘mocking’ belief, and I will hesitate before lauding disbelief. Incidentally I'd also hesitate before mocking disbelief, some ordinary everyday things are worth believing in.

If I were evangelizing you, I would answer your question, “Why is it that I should trust?” with the words, because Jesus is trustworthy. However I know enough to know that for all sorts of reasons (often his followers) people do not find Jesus trustworthy. What I will say however is that all of us *do* trust, trust is a worthy thing and it is something I would like to be able to do more (again I’m not thinking just religion).

However, there are times when I struggle to ‘believe’ my own Christianity, and there are times I admire the belief of another, Christian or otherwise; and one more thing, yes, I think that the ‘religious’ message of new birth and redemption and salvation and all those buzz words I try to stay away from are centered on a man called Jesus, but that big list you wrote, I’m not ruling anyone out of what Christians call ‘a future hope’. And I'd add 'atheist' to the list.

Trust is what we do and it seems reasonable to me to apply it to ‘hope’, religious or otherwise.

'Hope', that's another thing we all do.

High five, Ryan!

You can do cynicism as well as me. ref, post 98.

But which do you think are worthwhile, which do you object to, that is my question?

This one, perhaps, “Introducing the six-day work week!”

Some people would love a 6 day working week. Many of them pick our coffee, our cocoa beans, stitch our clothes, weave our rugs.

Apart form that, don't be so literal. Washing the car is work, I hate it, carrying my paperwork home is work, I hate that too, housework is work, I hate that and when I read about rest I can know that my employer doesn't own me, and that I don't have to have that piece of unnecessary piece of paper on his desk on Monday morning just cos he said so.

Maybe I do need to get theological now; what the Hebrews heard, when whoever it was read numero 4, was, “No bricks!” I expect some of them cheered.

Peter@92

"Have a day off, every week. Take the kids to the beach, pack up a picnic, put your feet up, chill out, enjoy the view."

Make sure you do, because if you do any thing that can be construed as work the punishment will be a tad excessive.