Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)
by David Robertson
UPDATE11-15-06: David Robertson has continued his discussion of The God Delusion here:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/novb06.htm
Reposted from:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/nov06.htm
Thaks to James for sending it in.
Dear Dr Dawkins,
Forgive me for writing you but I am really frustrated. You see, I read your book, The God Delusion (great title but of course it does just open itself to the rejoinder in the title above — which I am sure many others will pick up on). There was so much in it that I could identify with and yet so much that was to my mind just simply wrong. I would love to discuss it with you, or with those who are your disciples, but I'm afraid that I am not an Oxford Don, I don't have access to the media you do, and I am not part of the Establishment. Therefore it is very difficult to dialogue about these things. And of course you have stated that you do not discuss with 'fundamentalists' or those who would be stupid enough to disagree with you. Apparently you want 'intelligent' conversation and anyone who believes in revelation or supernaturalism is de facto non intelligent, therefore not worth discussing with. Given that the subject you are so vehement about is the whole question of supernaturalism and whether there is a God or not, do you not think it is kind of loading the dice to only discuss with those who already share your presuppositions?
Anyway although I do not expect you to read this, I am writing it for my own benefit and for the sake of those who having read your book, perhaps share the same frustrations, or maybe have even been influenced or feel threatened by it. Of course I realise that most people who buy your book will already be converts — they already share your faith and will be looking for reassurance or confirmation. Although your book is an evangelistic work, written with the specific intention of converting religious readers to atheists by the time they reach the end, you know as well as I do that the vast majority of people who read it will already be convinced. You are preaching to the choir. This is rather obvious even from the people who write the blurb on the jacket cover, admittedly not normally unbiased objective judges. Stephen Pinker, Brian Eno, Derren Brown and Philip Pullman all wax lyrical about your book — but then they would wouldn't they? Each of them being convinced atheists already and fairly desperate to have their particular belief system endorsed. Pullman wants your anti-faith book to be put into every faith school (nothing like wanting to indoctrinate children is there?). Eno says it is 'a book for the new millennium, one in which we may be released from lives dominated by the supernatural'. Heady stuff. But best of all is Derren Brown who affirms The God Delusion as his 'favourite book of all time'. It is 'a heroic and life-changing work'. He wants those who are 'secure and intelligent enough to see the value of questioning their beliefs will be big enough and strong enough to read this book'.
Well, I have read it. I did expect to be challenged. But actually I was very disappointed. Of course it was well written, very entertaining and passionate. But at an intellectual and logical level it really misses the mark. I'm sorry but I honestly think I could have made a better case for atheism. Most of the arguments are of sixth form school boy variety. And this from the 'one of the worlds' top three intellectuals' (as the book jacket so helpfully reminds us). Is this really the best that atheism has to offer? (Memo to self - why did I once feel so challenged by atheism?). What is disturbing about this is that your fundamentalist atheism will actually be taken seriously by some and will be used to reinforce their already prejudiced anti-religion and anti-Christian stance. Your 'arguments' will be repeated ad nauseum in newspaper letters columns, opinion pages, pubs and dinner tables throughout the land. You will forgive me saying this but it seems remarkably similar to the kind of thing that 'intellectuals' were putting out in 1930's Germany about the Jews and Judaism. Just as the Jews were responsible for all the ills in Weimar Germany, so according to your book religious people are responsible for the majority of ills in today's society. Along with John Lennon you want us to 'imagine' a world with no religion. A world which you claim would have no suicide bombers (I assume it slipped your mind that the majority of suicide attacks have been by the secular Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers?), no crusades, no 9/11, no Israeli/Palestinian wars etc. By the way John Lennon was one of my heroes and I loved Imagine. Then I grew up and realised that it took a great deal of imagination to take seriously a song which spoke of imagining a world 'with no possessions too' written by a man who lived in a mansion and had an abundance of possessions, whilst there were millions dying from lack of resources. It seems to me that your vision/imagination is almost as unrealistic as Lennon's. You want us to imagine that there is no God. And then you do not really address the consequences of such a belief. Of course you have some awareness of what these are. That's why you tell us that although when it comes to biology you are a strict Darwinianist, when it comes to politics, society etc you cannot go that route. Social Darwinianism would bring Hell on earth. I agree with your conclusions — I just find it difficult to follow the logic.
Over the next few weeks I want to write a letter in response to each of your chapters. As you correctly point out each of them deals with issues that are fundamental to our existence, meaning and well being as humans. But let me finish off this introductory letter by looking at a couple of other things you state in your own introduction.
You state that your book is for those who have been brought up in a particular religious faith and now either no longer believe it, or are unhappy in it and want out. You want to raise the consciousness of such people to the extent that they can realise that they can get out. Do you really think that people are that stupid? Do most people not already know that is perfectly possible to leave a religion and not suffer any significant social consequences — at least in non-Islamic countries? I was brought up in a religious home and knew from a very young age that not only was it possible to leave, but that for many people it would be considered normal. Indeed none of my four siblings currently attend Church. In Evangelical Christian terms they would be considered 'backslidden'. But perhaps you are right — maybe they have been raised to a higher consciousness first? I fought my own battles so that I could be free to think for myself. But it was not just, nor even primarily, against the religious teachings of my parents or others (and I did fight against them), but also the patronising expectations of teachers, media and others who just assumed that the only reason anyone would be religious was because of parental influence, brainwashing and a weak mind. You know the real relief came when I realised I could be a Christian and think for myself and seek to make a difference in the world. And that I did not have to buy into the all the quirks and cultural things of religious groups, nor the fundamentalism of the secularists who just knew that they were right.
I cannot think of a single career option in Britain where being an atheist would place you at a disadvantage (unless you are thinking of becoming a bishop — although given the recent history of men like Holloway that does also appear to be a career option for atheists). However there are many people for whom admitting they are 'religious' is a severe block to their career and life. Those who seek to be Christian politicians, singers, businessmen, teachers and social workers often face significant prejudice and irrational fear. It is sometimes advantageous to deny one's faith or even to leave it. Being a Christian is more often than not a stumbling block to one's chosen career path, rather than the other way around.
Of course there are those who belong to cults who exercise a form of mind control tantamount to brain washing but surely even you would not argue that every religious person is in that category — imprisoned in the snare of their own religion until the good knight, Sir Richard Dawkins, rides to their rescue and sets them free?! You seem to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of consciousness and needs to be set free by becoming an atheist. Of course you offer no empirical evidence for this. Like much of the book it is a presupposition (even a prejudice) which does not appear to be founded on anything other than you would like it to be so. Have you ever thought that there might be many others who are in the opposite position — brought up in an atheistic secular society and discovering that they can actually believe in God? Would you give them the freedom to do so? What would you do if your daughter turned out to be a Bible believing Christian? Would you disown her? Would you even allow her that choice? Or have you done your best to inoculate her against the virus of religion? I remember one young man, highly intelligent, who came to a Christianity Explored group. When he was asked his religious position he said 'I'm an atheist, but I'm beginning to have my doubts'. I laughed. A backslidden atheist! I thought that was quite neat. Maybe there are a lot more of them than you think. You ought to be careful about the raising of consciousness — maybe people will become tired of your modernist certainties and instead find refuge in the clear fresh air of Jesus Christ!
I also smiled when I read your complaint that atheists were persecuted and misunderstood. Apparently you are the new 'gays' who need to 'come out'. Forgive me for saying this but I had not noticed that atheists were particularly silent or poorly represented in British society (or even American). In Britain all our government institutions, media outlets and educational establishments are primarily secularist. The National Secular Society or the British Humanists get a far bigger exposure than the vast majority of Christian churches — despite the fact that most secular societies could fit their members into a phone box. Even when the Prime Minister is asked a relatively innocuous question about whether he prays, his media minder Mr Campbell felt compelled to point out 'we don't do God'. Atheism and secularism are without doubt the prevailing philosophies of those who consider themselves the elite.
You were given the immense privilege of having editorial control of your own TV series 'The Root of all Evil'. Can you tell me when Channel 4 or even the BBC last gave an evangelical Christian the opportunity to produce a film demonstrating the evils of secularism? Do you not think that in an open and democratic society when you are allowed to make a 'documentary' attacking whole groups of people that they should at least be allowed some right of reply? Of course that is not going to happen — because as you well know, those who are primarily in charge of our media outlets are those who share many of your presuppositions and prefer to make programmes which present Christians as either weak ineffective Anglican vicars, or tub thumping American Right Wing Evangelists who want to hang gays. Anything other than this simplistic view would be wrong. It is propaganda — not truth, not reason, not debate and most certainly not fair.
A few weeks ago it was reported that there was a meeting of BBC Executives where some had the gall to challenge the prevailing BBC philosophy. At that meeting it was admitted that the policy of the BBC was that secularism was the only philosophy to which others must eventually come. In other words other philosophies and belief systems can be tolerated but they must never be allowed any real say in the BBC. Some had the audaciousness to suggest that perhaps the BBC should recognise that secularism was a philosophy and not the philosophy. I hope that you will support such pluralistic open-mindedness.
But I suspect that you have written your book, not because atheists are a persecuted minority needing to come out of the closet, but rather because the atheist hegemony is now being challenged from all sides. In fact, having had a century of elitist domination and control many in the Western World are beginning to wake up to the fact that the secular emperor has no clothes. The 20th Century can truly be called the Failed Atheist Century. Can I recommend that you read an excellent book on this subject, written by one of your Oxford colleagues Niall Ferguson, The War of the World (History's Age of Hatred)? He shares your evolutionary secularist presuppositions but his account of the 20th Century is a stunning indictment of the failure of secularism and 'science' to bring peace on earth.
Your book comes across as a desperate attempt to shore up secularism's crumbling defences. To that extent it reminds me a lot of some of us in the Church, who faced with what seems to be overwhelming odds and staring defeat in the face, sometimes issue evangelistic tracts, articles and books which rather than really being aimed at the conversion of unbelievers are really designed to shore up the faith of the faithful. The God Delusion fits nicely into that category. I am sure you will delight your disciples, such as Philip Pullman, establishing what they already believe, but I very much doubt you will make any impact on others who are less fixed in their opinions and who really are seekers after truth. What I do appreciate about what you say is that, unlike the cowards and the lazy who want to deny its existence, you admit that there is such a thing as truth. You may laugh at the idea that the truth is ultimately found in Jesus Christ. However I remain an optimist. I believe not only in truth but also in the power of God and his Holy Spirit to bring enlightenment to even the darkest mind. So there is still hope for us both,
Yours etc
David Robertson
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/novb06.htm
Reposted from:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/nov06.htm
Thaks to James for sending it in.
Dear Dr Dawkins,
Forgive me for writing you but I am really frustrated. You see, I read your book, The God Delusion (great title but of course it does just open itself to the rejoinder in the title above — which I am sure many others will pick up on). There was so much in it that I could identify with and yet so much that was to my mind just simply wrong. I would love to discuss it with you, or with those who are your disciples, but I'm afraid that I am not an Oxford Don, I don't have access to the media you do, and I am not part of the Establishment. Therefore it is very difficult to dialogue about these things. And of course you have stated that you do not discuss with 'fundamentalists' or those who would be stupid enough to disagree with you. Apparently you want 'intelligent' conversation and anyone who believes in revelation or supernaturalism is de facto non intelligent, therefore not worth discussing with. Given that the subject you are so vehement about is the whole question of supernaturalism and whether there is a God or not, do you not think it is kind of loading the dice to only discuss with those who already share your presuppositions?
Anyway although I do not expect you to read this, I am writing it for my own benefit and for the sake of those who having read your book, perhaps share the same frustrations, or maybe have even been influenced or feel threatened by it. Of course I realise that most people who buy your book will already be converts — they already share your faith and will be looking for reassurance or confirmation. Although your book is an evangelistic work, written with the specific intention of converting religious readers to atheists by the time they reach the end, you know as well as I do that the vast majority of people who read it will already be convinced. You are preaching to the choir. This is rather obvious even from the people who write the blurb on the jacket cover, admittedly not normally unbiased objective judges. Stephen Pinker, Brian Eno, Derren Brown and Philip Pullman all wax lyrical about your book — but then they would wouldn't they? Each of them being convinced atheists already and fairly desperate to have their particular belief system endorsed. Pullman wants your anti-faith book to be put into every faith school (nothing like wanting to indoctrinate children is there?). Eno says it is 'a book for the new millennium, one in which we may be released from lives dominated by the supernatural'. Heady stuff. But best of all is Derren Brown who affirms The God Delusion as his 'favourite book of all time'. It is 'a heroic and life-changing work'. He wants those who are 'secure and intelligent enough to see the value of questioning their beliefs will be big enough and strong enough to read this book'.
Well, I have read it. I did expect to be challenged. But actually I was very disappointed. Of course it was well written, very entertaining and passionate. But at an intellectual and logical level it really misses the mark. I'm sorry but I honestly think I could have made a better case for atheism. Most of the arguments are of sixth form school boy variety. And this from the 'one of the worlds' top three intellectuals' (as the book jacket so helpfully reminds us). Is this really the best that atheism has to offer? (Memo to self - why did I once feel so challenged by atheism?). What is disturbing about this is that your fundamentalist atheism will actually be taken seriously by some and will be used to reinforce their already prejudiced anti-religion and anti-Christian stance. Your 'arguments' will be repeated ad nauseum in newspaper letters columns, opinion pages, pubs and dinner tables throughout the land. You will forgive me saying this but it seems remarkably similar to the kind of thing that 'intellectuals' were putting out in 1930's Germany about the Jews and Judaism. Just as the Jews were responsible for all the ills in Weimar Germany, so according to your book religious people are responsible for the majority of ills in today's society. Along with John Lennon you want us to 'imagine' a world with no religion. A world which you claim would have no suicide bombers (I assume it slipped your mind that the majority of suicide attacks have been by the secular Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers?), no crusades, no 9/11, no Israeli/Palestinian wars etc. By the way John Lennon was one of my heroes and I loved Imagine. Then I grew up and realised that it took a great deal of imagination to take seriously a song which spoke of imagining a world 'with no possessions too' written by a man who lived in a mansion and had an abundance of possessions, whilst there were millions dying from lack of resources. It seems to me that your vision/imagination is almost as unrealistic as Lennon's. You want us to imagine that there is no God. And then you do not really address the consequences of such a belief. Of course you have some awareness of what these are. That's why you tell us that although when it comes to biology you are a strict Darwinianist, when it comes to politics, society etc you cannot go that route. Social Darwinianism would bring Hell on earth. I agree with your conclusions — I just find it difficult to follow the logic.
Over the next few weeks I want to write a letter in response to each of your chapters. As you correctly point out each of them deals with issues that are fundamental to our existence, meaning and well being as humans. But let me finish off this introductory letter by looking at a couple of other things you state in your own introduction.
You state that your book is for those who have been brought up in a particular religious faith and now either no longer believe it, or are unhappy in it and want out. You want to raise the consciousness of such people to the extent that they can realise that they can get out. Do you really think that people are that stupid? Do most people not already know that is perfectly possible to leave a religion and not suffer any significant social consequences — at least in non-Islamic countries? I was brought up in a religious home and knew from a very young age that not only was it possible to leave, but that for many people it would be considered normal. Indeed none of my four siblings currently attend Church. In Evangelical Christian terms they would be considered 'backslidden'. But perhaps you are right — maybe they have been raised to a higher consciousness first? I fought my own battles so that I could be free to think for myself. But it was not just, nor even primarily, against the religious teachings of my parents or others (and I did fight against them), but also the patronising expectations of teachers, media and others who just assumed that the only reason anyone would be religious was because of parental influence, brainwashing and a weak mind. You know the real relief came when I realised I could be a Christian and think for myself and seek to make a difference in the world. And that I did not have to buy into the all the quirks and cultural things of religious groups, nor the fundamentalism of the secularists who just knew that they were right.
I cannot think of a single career option in Britain where being an atheist would place you at a disadvantage (unless you are thinking of becoming a bishop — although given the recent history of men like Holloway that does also appear to be a career option for atheists). However there are many people for whom admitting they are 'religious' is a severe block to their career and life. Those who seek to be Christian politicians, singers, businessmen, teachers and social workers often face significant prejudice and irrational fear. It is sometimes advantageous to deny one's faith or even to leave it. Being a Christian is more often than not a stumbling block to one's chosen career path, rather than the other way around.
Of course there are those who belong to cults who exercise a form of mind control tantamount to brain washing but surely even you would not argue that every religious person is in that category — imprisoned in the snare of their own religion until the good knight, Sir Richard Dawkins, rides to their rescue and sets them free?! You seem to think that anyone who is religious is actually at a lower level of consciousness and needs to be set free by becoming an atheist. Of course you offer no empirical evidence for this. Like much of the book it is a presupposition (even a prejudice) which does not appear to be founded on anything other than you would like it to be so. Have you ever thought that there might be many others who are in the opposite position — brought up in an atheistic secular society and discovering that they can actually believe in God? Would you give them the freedom to do so? What would you do if your daughter turned out to be a Bible believing Christian? Would you disown her? Would you even allow her that choice? Or have you done your best to inoculate her against the virus of religion? I remember one young man, highly intelligent, who came to a Christianity Explored group. When he was asked his religious position he said 'I'm an atheist, but I'm beginning to have my doubts'. I laughed. A backslidden atheist! I thought that was quite neat. Maybe there are a lot more of them than you think. You ought to be careful about the raising of consciousness — maybe people will become tired of your modernist certainties and instead find refuge in the clear fresh air of Jesus Christ!
I also smiled when I read your complaint that atheists were persecuted and misunderstood. Apparently you are the new 'gays' who need to 'come out'. Forgive me for saying this but I had not noticed that atheists were particularly silent or poorly represented in British society (or even American). In Britain all our government institutions, media outlets and educational establishments are primarily secularist. The National Secular Society or the British Humanists get a far bigger exposure than the vast majority of Christian churches — despite the fact that most secular societies could fit their members into a phone box. Even when the Prime Minister is asked a relatively innocuous question about whether he prays, his media minder Mr Campbell felt compelled to point out 'we don't do God'. Atheism and secularism are without doubt the prevailing philosophies of those who consider themselves the elite.
You were given the immense privilege of having editorial control of your own TV series 'The Root of all Evil'. Can you tell me when Channel 4 or even the BBC last gave an evangelical Christian the opportunity to produce a film demonstrating the evils of secularism? Do you not think that in an open and democratic society when you are allowed to make a 'documentary' attacking whole groups of people that they should at least be allowed some right of reply? Of course that is not going to happen — because as you well know, those who are primarily in charge of our media outlets are those who share many of your presuppositions and prefer to make programmes which present Christians as either weak ineffective Anglican vicars, or tub thumping American Right Wing Evangelists who want to hang gays. Anything other than this simplistic view would be wrong. It is propaganda — not truth, not reason, not debate and most certainly not fair.
A few weeks ago it was reported that there was a meeting of BBC Executives where some had the gall to challenge the prevailing BBC philosophy. At that meeting it was admitted that the policy of the BBC was that secularism was the only philosophy to which others must eventually come. In other words other philosophies and belief systems can be tolerated but they must never be allowed any real say in the BBC. Some had the audaciousness to suggest that perhaps the BBC should recognise that secularism was a philosophy and not the philosophy. I hope that you will support such pluralistic open-mindedness.
But I suspect that you have written your book, not because atheists are a persecuted minority needing to come out of the closet, but rather because the atheist hegemony is now being challenged from all sides. In fact, having had a century of elitist domination and control many in the Western World are beginning to wake up to the fact that the secular emperor has no clothes. The 20th Century can truly be called the Failed Atheist Century. Can I recommend that you read an excellent book on this subject, written by one of your Oxford colleagues Niall Ferguson, The War of the World (History's Age of Hatred)? He shares your evolutionary secularist presuppositions but his account of the 20th Century is a stunning indictment of the failure of secularism and 'science' to bring peace on earth.
Your book comes across as a desperate attempt to shore up secularism's crumbling defences. To that extent it reminds me a lot of some of us in the Church, who faced with what seems to be overwhelming odds and staring defeat in the face, sometimes issue evangelistic tracts, articles and books which rather than really being aimed at the conversion of unbelievers are really designed to shore up the faith of the faithful. The God Delusion fits nicely into that category. I am sure you will delight your disciples, such as Philip Pullman, establishing what they already believe, but I very much doubt you will make any impact on others who are less fixed in their opinions and who really are seekers after truth. What I do appreciate about what you say is that, unlike the cowards and the lazy who want to deny its existence, you admit that there is such a thing as truth. You may laugh at the idea that the truth is ultimately found in Jesus Christ. However I remain an optimist. I believe not only in truth but also in the power of God and his Holy Spirit to bring enlightenment to even the darkest mind. So there is still hope for us both,
Yours etc
David Robertson
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, November 10, 2006 | PermalinkComments 501 - 550 of 580 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers502. Comment #15213 by Paul Creber on December 29, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Hello David,I am surprised that you still fail to understand the significance of our arguments against a "fine-tuned" universe. Torbjörn has explained it mathematically, and referred you to several websites which amplify its relevance. For my part, I have provided two analogies which mirror its fallacy.
Nevertheless, I shall try again. Imagine this scenario:
"It's the World Cup, 2222. Scotland are the hosts, and they face England in the final at Hampden. Tickets are like gold dust, but David Robertson manages to acquire one (this guy has influential connections). He takes his seat in the stand, and you'll never guess who is sitting next to him. It's quite incredible, uncanny really, but the seat is occupied by none other than Jacques Dubois, from Rennes, North Western France. Yes, out of 70,000 people in Hampden, David Robertson finds himself sitting next to none other than Jacques Dubois, a complete stranger. The odds against this happening are amazingly long. Indeed, Kenny Dalglish has estimated that if David Robertson had been sitting just ONE SEAT to his right, he would not have been sitting next to Jacques. And if Jacques had been sitting just ONE SEAT to his left, he would not have been sitting next to David. And if neither of them had got hold of a ticket, or if neither of them was a football fan or if neither of them had been born, they wouldn't be sitting there at all. Whatever the result of today's big match, we shall never cease to ponder the astounding, wonderful, amazing and incredible phenomenon of Hampden 2222 – North Stand, Row 12, Seats C and D.…"
David, please tell us what, if anything, is wrong with the reasoning in the paragraph above.
Other Comments by Paul Creber
503. Comment #15216 by Joadist on December 29, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Alex Staton,I really despise the 'we can't disprove God' fallacy.
We have disproved God countless times. Every time we do, the Theist change the definition of God.
We cannot disprove tomorrow's definition of God. But it is a simple matter to disprove any definition of God that exists today.
Define God, and I will disprove it.
IE: God created the Universe. Therefore God is a PHYSICIST.
God created the Universe out of nothing. Therefore God is a really talented Physicist.
Other Comments by Joadist
504. Comment #15641 by tiredntroubled on January 1, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Mr. Robertson,I simply can't understand why God created man in the first place. God does not need man's companionship or his praise. Why make man when the majority(or whatever it is) of the world will rebel against Him. God, who knows all things, must have known this fact before the "creation." Therefore, God also must have known before the creation of the world that he will be sending a whole chunk of his living and conscious creation to the fiery depths of hell. Why waste time on inferior beings like us? Why love us?
I guess my question ultimately lies on the question of predestination. Why make a person knowing that he will burn in hell forever?
The God Delusion has only increased my doubts in God, but I am desperately ( perhaps foolishly-according to Dawkins) trying to hold on to Christianity.
!!! Please clarify this issue for me!
I need to set my beliefs in order because I am writing a paper for English class concerning the rhetorical devices of The God Delusion and Dawkins, basically I need to choose a side in the argument. Again, I'd appreciate your input.
Other Comments by tiredntroubled
505. Comment #15688 by BillySands on January 2, 2007 at 4:31 am
Paul "David, please tell us what, if anything, is wrong with the reasoning in the paragraph above."
Oh that's easy, Scotland reach the world cup final? :-)
joadist
Every time whe disprove a messianic prophecy, or show the world is not 6000 years old and flat, we disprove the christian god. It is amazing that all a theist can do is point to (soon to be filled) gaps in our knowledge as evidence of the certainty of his conviction that he and his cult alone are miraculously informed of the absolute truth of the universe - a truth that sees them alone as special and escaping eternal torment (invented by themselves). These people need to pitied, not scolded.
Other Comments by BillySands
506. Comment #15735 by Paul Creber on January 2, 2007 at 11:27 am
Billy wrote: "Oh that's easy, Scotland reach the world cup final? :-)"Easy mistake to make, Billy, but I was of course referring to the World Cup in tossing the caber.
Other Comments by Paul Creber
507. Comment #15747 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 2, 2007 at 12:36 pm
>>David Robertson<<David, David, David. Tut tut!
I do wish David you'd refrain from (a) Ad Hominem attacks - something you've accused me of by stating I've made this 'personal', when I asked what was evil with me being an Atheist and (b) Refrain from making judgements about my understanding of posts in here please. I'm doing fine. I've never claimed to be the brightest person in here. Indeed, I am a learner. I am capable of learning - something you seem unable to do - as you KNOW that God did it all!
"JESUS JESUS JESUS LA-LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you Atheists!" This is what you are coming across as, I'm afraid to say. You won't even consider the possibility of there being no God. It took me a long time to finally find Atheism. It took me 20 years of hard thinking - I am very secure with this position. Of course, if you could demonstrate God to any of us, we would all be delighted to be beievers. Sadly, this will not happen.
>>So you didn't understand it either! That's what I thought…<<
Please refrain from insinuating that I am some sort of thicko. This is the umpteenth time you have resorted to sarcastic attacks against us Atheists - and from a man supposedly representing God, it is become weary and tiresome. It's also not very clever.
I'd be a LIAR if I said I understood EVERY word of Tjorborn's original posting. Yes, some of it I am still researching and looking up. I got the gist of it though. I copy and paste many Atheist postings in here - study them - and try to learn. I do NOT have any intention of telling you what I did or didn't understand - because you have an agenda to piecemeal all Atheist's words with your derogatory tone. You're not here for debate. You're here to stir up trouble and generally upset Atheists. You have no honourable intentions with your visits. You're not playing by Jesus's rules. When will you turn the other cheek - and discard your anger? You Sir, are ANGRY with Atheists - and in particular, with Professor Dawkins. I think he must have hit some sore point with your beliefs - but you can't admit it, because you've invested a life time into it. That's the truth, isn't it? You're afraid. Afraid he could actually be right.
If you truly believe in God and you're truly a Christian, you really should start showing some better manners in here. You are extremely rude, (and I've apologised in the past for things I may have said - you NEVER apologise), extremely sarcastic (a low form of wit) and your rabblings make no sense to rationalists.
I was a Christian, but I couldn't live with the Contradictory knowledge of the Bible any longer - I don't believe any sane man could. Indeed, the great Professor Dawkins has opened my eyes. I find him much more credible than the Bible or any religious sect for that matter. You must admit that even YOU don't really know if your Lord exists? Sure, the Earth is beautiful. I can see the reasons for belief. It ain't necessarily so, though, is it?
When will you start bringing some logic into these forums? I can concede in a notion of a supreme being - all Atheists can. You're not doing a good job of demonstrating your God's existence at all, I'm afraid. Your mind is closed. I and My fellow Atheists minds' are open - to the possibility of a God and to the eternal question of existence. I've visited your website and I'm afraid I'm very displeased with the mindset in there. You seem to make Atheists out to be Satan incarnates with Professor Dawkins as some sort of mythological Atheist God that we all adore and worship. You are extremely deluded and you clearly demonstrate everything that the Professor has written in his latest work The God Delusion!
David, you also conveniently forget that the Bible you so dearly cling to is littered with contradictions. Now, you clearly have a decent mind, so I shan't suggest or be sarcastic in tone, when I ask - do you understand logic?
Logic is wonderful. Logic answers questions. It is said, that if one arrives at a contradiction in thinking or a theory, then one has arrived at an illogical error. The Bible is full of them.
Consider this please, David: You claim (I don't know how, but assuming you use the Bible for the source of such claims) that God is all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing.
Can you not see the problematic contradictions we have here?
God creates man in his image. Except he creates Gays, who are to be condemned. Yet he had to have known before-hand, who was to be Gay and who was to be straight. He has the power then, to not create Gays, yet he still goes ahead and creates them. The supernatural elegance of his Gay creations is something to be ridiculed, banned and forbidden - by your Bible's standard. This is something you can't white-wash with fancy words (as you have been doing so far) or with fanciful polemic vocabulary.
God then decides that women should be 2nd-class citizens. They should suffer in childbirth (because of original sin?! PLEASE!) How can an all-knowing, all-loving God EVER be forgiven for condemning all women for what Eve did? HUH! That makes sense! He then has some plebian write down words of prejudice in the Bible such as:
"It is not permitted for women to speak in church."
This is clearly not the works of a supernatural God. It is clearly the prejudiced hands of mankind, centuries ago. Same with the Gay issue. Mankinds intolerance of homosexuals, centuries ago and written down as the law of God.
We're told killing is wrong. It is one of ten commandments. Yet the Bible is littered with killing and ethnic cleansing. Killing is even allowed, in the New Testament. Is it right, or is it wrong? Could this be the intolerance of savages, thousands of years ago, yet again, emerging and favouring their particular sect?
Can you NOT see this? Can you NOT understand this problem David? How will you wriggle out of these problems this time? You've not answered directly any questions asked of you. I'd like some clear English explanations, without Bible quotes which 'seem to be open to intepretation' or some other scape-goat.
And I am correct about numbers. They are an abstraction. You could say God abstracts with Maths - fine, no problem. Numbers don't exist as a real entity though, do they? If so, then demonstrate to me here please - maybe a Theist might be able to teach me something. You can't teach me anything with that Bible though. It's garbage. Utter tripe. You should be ashamed of yourself, defending the Bible. Yeah, it's got it's lovely Goldilocks side - but it has a dark side, as well you know. Or do you?
Tell us Atheists what bad parts of the Bible are right please? We'd be very interested to hear that. Especially stimulating would be how you explain homicide, genocide, infanticide, ritual rape, homophobia, sexism and all the other attrocities committed in the name of your Lord. We'd love to know how you feel about this.
Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief
508. Comment #15758 by Greywizard on January 2, 2007 at 3:24 pm
David A Robertson, just a few remarks on your earlier post. I'll quote you, and then comment.'…the Bible teaches that God created ex nihilo.' This is not altogether correct. In Genesis 1 we are told that God's spirit moved over the face of the waters - or chaos (something seems already to have been there). In the second chapter, the second story of creation, it is clear that the earth already existed in a dry and lifeless form to which God brought order and life. The whole question of creatio ex nihilo is a fairly deep theological problem, and it raises others in its turn. But, almost certainly, the Bible itself does not teach this, although theologians later took this as an implication of the idea of God presumed by the Bible.
'… it's a useful analogy for atheistic materialists. Where did the matter come from for the Big Bang? Oh it was there. It's matter all the way back…..' Well, it might be, might it not? There's no contradiction in supposing matter all the way back, contracting to a singularity, and then exploding in a Big Bang, for eternity.
'I have never met anyone who thinks that God is a man with a white beard in the sky.' Actually, it is well known, in cognitive studies of religion, that people's ordinary, everyday, 'online' beliefs, and their theological understandings are very different. Most people use the concept of a finite god, with limited knowledge and capability, just like other persons they know, but when asked, many of them can also give you the more orthodox theological line as well.
'I believe in a personal God. But I do not think I have the right to either limit him or to claim that I understand him. However I do trust him – on the basis of the evidence he has provided.' Well, if you could point to evidence, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? It would all be nicely settled. (See later, the comment on revelation.)
There's a lot of ad hominem stuff in your post which I'll just ignore, but you should really watch it. I'm really surprised when I read on the Free Church of Scotland page that you're actually a moderator of discussions! This is extremely troubling.
'Is that the only way we can survive? Are you really saying that my having a bacon sandwich this morning is an argument against the existence of God? Has atheist apologetics really come down to this?' What a terribly shallow response to someone who wants to know how the pain and suffering of animals - they could be the ones we eat or animals in the wild - is consistent with the goodness of God. You really should be ashamed to speak in this flippant way about a subject of real depth and concern.
You quote Torbjörn Larsson - "As a scientist Dawkins knows that any theory is provisional and may be replaced by a better one. Why should he hold any idea to be firmer? That would be like... religion." And your answer is: 'Precisely. Which is why its use as a rhetorical device is actually dishonest.' In what sense is Dawkins using this (what exactly?) as a rhetorical device?
'Religion may be wrong in the area of design as regards biology that does not de facto mean it is wrong in seeing design in the universe. Dawkins extrapolates backwards from the theory of biological evolution to making it a universal theory which disproves God.' No, that's not what Dawkins does. What Dawkins does is to say that the examples of complex design that we know are the products of evolution over long periods. Design is the end product of an algorithmic process. There is some evidence that the solar system has 'evolved' in a similar way, from clouds of debris gradually taking form as planets and their satellites revolving around the sun, a more structured system developing out of a more chaotic soup of fragments of matter. His point is simply that assuming a designer is assuming something for which there is no evidence in our experience of how design has actually developed. It's a reasonable point of view, and it really puts the burden of proof on the theist to show why this is not the case. To my knowledge theists haven't really responded to this challenge. In order to respond, you really have to work at it.
'I have no problem with the idea that God used evolution to create.' You may have no problem but there is a problem there, since God is really an unnecessary hypothesis. What you are calling creation takes care of itself.
'You have the arrogance to assume that you[r] definition of faith (belief without evidence) is the one that we hold to.' And yet you would have quite a job producing the evidence, wouldn't you? You believe in God, you believe that God has revealed himself to us, you believe that God is the creator of all things, but you have no evidence. If your belief is not faith, it's at least a presupposition of faith, so it is not arrogance to ask you to produce the evidence upon which your beliefs rest. This is an example of how religious people squeak out of the issue again and again. But you do have beliefs, and those beliefs still demand evidence, so, call it faith or something else, an answer is still required.
'Revelation is part of the evidence that God gives. In fact without revelation we would not know him. Indeed I question whether we could know anything without revelation.' Wow! This really is offering up a hostage to fortune, because there is no way to tell when something is or is not an actual revelation from God, and not just a supposed one. How do you know when something is revealed? The Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, the Granth Sahib - all of these are claimed as revelations. What shows that you've really got one? You're surely not going to claim that the moral perfection of the Bible is evidence enough. Or, how about conformity to what we know from other sources - like science and history? My guess is that, other than sheer assertion, you can point to nothing whatever which gives us a reason to suppose that the Bible is God's revelation.
'I hope you will all be enlightened!' This really is patronising. In fact, for someone who represents a church, your response here is most awfully arrogant and distasteful. Is this really what Christians are like?
Other Comments by Greywizard
509. Comment #16184 by David A Robertson on January 5, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hi Guys,Hope y'all had a good new year and Christmas. The latest article on TGD is now online on the FC Website if you want to have a look - http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/decd06.htm
824. Comment #14696 by Fedler on December 24, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Fedlar, thanks for your comments.
"Something that is not a personal experience can only be heresy, unless it's backed up with sufficient evidence or logic. These comments seem contradictory."
Why would something that is not personal experience be heresy? I have not personally experienced that Australia exists but I have no reason to doubt it. On the other hand I could experience things which may not be real – I could for example have an hallucination. So experience and evidence should go together. They are not necessaraily contradictory.
"God is outside time and space…" vs. "…faith without evidence is just stupid."
"Please provide your precise proof of how god is outside time and space, or else your faith in this statement is just…well, stupid (your own words)."
There is of course a difference between 'precise proof' and evidence. Also the trouble with your demand is that the only proof you will accept is that which is confined to time and space. The evidence for the statement that God is outside time and space is logical and revelational. It is also within time and space because if you had completed the quote you would have found that I argue that God is also in time and space. There are 'footprints' of the Creator and there is above all the evidence of Jesus Christ.
"Anything CAN be used to justify anything…" vs. "I specifically argue against the God of the gaps idea."
"If it CAN be used to justify anything, then the God of the gaps is still a valid argument, specifically regarding your feelings on evolution."
No the point is that whilst it CAN be used, it does not necessarily mean that it SHOULD not be used.
" It seems ironic that the religious believers turn up their noses at evolution,"
There are many religious believers who do not turn up their noses at the idea of evolution.
"You stated how God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing (because the Bible says so). Yet, at the same time, theists claim how absurd evolution is because it spontaneously creates life out of nothing."
You will forgive me saying this but I think your understanding of the theory of evolution is wrong here. I have never heard an evolutionist claim that evolution 'spontaneously creates life out of nothing'. I had thought that evolution was the about the evolving of life from already existing matter. Or has the term evolution now evolved itself to a new meaning?
.
"Any unknown is attributed to god, until the scientific community finds the answer, then the goalposts are moved"
Again I am not sure you are listening. We are not claiming that an unknown is evidence for God, but rather that a known (the conditions for life in the Universe) is evidence.
"Other than claiming Jesus was born of a virgin, do you have references for human virgin births"
Are you seriously suggesting that the only way for a woman to conceive today is via sex? I had thought we had developed the technology to avoid that.
"You seem to indicate how as atheists we aren't allowed to have faith, as if faith is strictly for believers. No one else can have it. Then, you seem to indicate it is inherent in all of us (even atheists). Our definitions of faith may be different, but these statements are contradictory even without different definitions."
Of course atheists are allowed to have faith. That is what I stated. Atheism is a faith – a belief system which you claim is based on evidence and which I suggest also includes a fair amount of wishful thinking and acceptance of presuppositions which have not themselves been clearly evidenced.
826. Comment #15203 by Torbjörn Larsson on December 29, 2006 at 1:58 pm
"Dawkins extrapolates backwards from the theory of biological evolution to making it a universal theory which disproves God.
Again, this is your interpretation, not evident in the facts."
If you read The God Delusion and especially the chapter 'Why there is almost certainly not a God' then it is quite clear that this is what Dawkins claims. He uses the biological evolutionary principle that the complex comes from the simple and cannot be the other way round to 'prove' that there is no God. Who Designed the Designer is a question that only works if you believe that everything has to be evolved. This is a theory which goes way beyond the evolution of life on earth and is not something that is immediately obvious.
. "You should also explain why you can conflate Dawkins claim of "improbable" (low, non-zero probability) with 'impossible' ('disprove'), since this is also a contrafactual use of probabilities."
It's called common sense and honesty. Dawkins no more believes in God than he does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a rhetorical device he can use the word 'almost' but in reality he is as certain as one can be about anything.
I have no problem with the idea that God used evolution to create.
"Your hangup is evident. "
Not to me. What hangup are you talking about? If the scientific evidence is for evolution then I have no problem with that. Why is that a hangup?
.
"It seems to be at the core of your insistence that religion needs to make claims on science, a business that is both futile and dangerous to truth."
I agree. But the mistake you are making here is to assume that the only evidence acceptable is scientific. Furthermore I believe that all truth is God's truth and that science and religion are not opposed. Why should they be? Science is only the study of what God has made.
"As I said, while faith may be bounded rationality, it isn't coherent rationality with science and observational knowledge."
Really? Who says? There are many scientists who think that it is.
827. Comment #15213 by Paul Creber on December 29, 2006 at 2:43 pm
"I am surprised that you still fail to understand the significance of our arguments against a "fine-tuned" universe. Torbjörn has explained it mathematically, and referred you to several websites which amplify its relevance. For my part, I have provided two analogies which mirror its fallacy."
I do find it a little disturbing that you think the 'fine tuned universe' is a fallacy. You will forgive me but I am more inclined to go along with people like Paul Davies (non-thiest though he is) .
Nevertheless, I shall try again. Imagine this scenario:
"It's the World Cup, 2222. Scotland are the hosts, and they face England in the final at Hampden. Tickets are like gold dust, but David Robertson manages to acquire one (this guy has influential connections). He takes his seat in the stand, and you'll never guess who is sitting next to him. It's quite incredible, uncanny really, but the seat is occupied by none other than Jacques Dubois, from Rennes, North Western France. Yes, out of 70,000 people in Hampden, David Robertson finds himself sitting next to none other than Jacques Dubois, a complete stranger. The odds against this happening are amazingly long. Indeed, Kenny Dalglish has estimated that if David Robertson had been sitting just ONE SEAT to his right, he would not have been sitting next to Jacques. And if Jacques had been sitting just ONE SEAT to his left, he would not have been sitting next to David. And if neither of them had got hold of a ticket, or if neither of them was a football fan or if neither of them had been born, they wouldn't be sitting there at all. Whatever the result of today's big match, we shall never cease to ponder the astounding, wonderful, amazing and incredible phenomenon of Hampden 2222 – North Stand, Row 12, Seats C and D.…"
David, please tell us what, if anything, is wrong with the reasoning in the paragraph above. "
Certainly – it is the presuppositions in the analogy which make it fall down at every level Firstly there are 69999 other people in the stadium who can be observed and proved (that cannot be said about billions of other universes) Secondly there is a stadium and such a thing as the world cup. Thirdly being next to Jacques is not a necessary condition for my existence. Fourthly the probability of me sitting next to Jacques is still far lower than the probability of there being the fine tuning necessary for the Universe in the first place. The analogy falls down at every level.
828. Comment #15216 by Joadist on December 29, 2006 at 3:56 pm
"We have disproved God countless times. Every time we do, the Theist change the definition of God."
Must have missed something Joadist. When did you disprove God? And when did Theists change the definition of God. That definition has been pretty straightforward for the past 2000 years!
"But it is a simple matter to disprove any definition of God that exists today.
Define God, and I will disprove it."
God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable. God is love. God is triune. God is personal.
829. Comment #15641 by tiredntroubled on January 1, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Thanks for your comments. They are really important and serious matters. If you would really like to discuss them then please contact me at david.robertson@freechurch.org. I think the most important thing about your question 'why does God love us' is simply the fact that he does. I would also urge you not to give up on Christianity. There are significant problems but they are the problems of life and love – the atheist way is the way of the barren wilderness.
As regards your English paper then perhaps I could suggest that you look at the rest of my articles on the Free Church website which look at the issue. www.freechurch.org
832. Comment #15747 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 2, 2007 at 12:36 pm
"JESUS JESUS JESUS LA-LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you Atheists!" This is what you are coming across as, I'm afraid to say."
Sorry NLB, but I think that that is what you want to hear me coming across as. I think you have already your mind up about anything that I would say. I have tried not to keep citing religious clichés and biblical texts at you. Sorry that I have failed.
"You won't even consider the possibility of there being no God."
I have considered that possibility often.
"I am very secure with this position."
I realize that. Your reactions indicate your security.
"I do NOT have any intention of telling you what I did or didn't understand"
I did not really understand his post either. I thought you might have been able to help but it seems as though you are in the same boat.
"You're not playing by Jesus's rules."
I thought you did not believe in Jesus – so why should you be bothered about his rules?
"You Sir, are ANGRY with Atheists - and in particular, with Professor Dawkins. I think he must have hit some sore point with your beliefs - but you can't admit it, because you've invested a life time into it. That's the truth, isn't it? You're afraid. Afraid he could actually be right."
I'm afraid that you should leave the amateur psychology alone. No, I am not angry with Dr Dawkins and I am most certainly not afraid. The God Delusion does not really offer a challenge. There are other atheist writings which are far more effective.
"I was a Christian, but I couldn't live with the Contradictory knowledge of the Bible any longer - I don't believe any sane man could. Indeed, the great Professor Dawkins has opened my eyes. I find him much more credible than the Bible or any religious sect for that matter."
Again I understand that. You have replaced one religion with another, and one prophet with another. However I am intrigued by what you consider to be the contradictory knowledge of the Bible. Could you let me know what this is?
"You must admit that even YOU don't really know if your Lord exists?"
I do know. I am as sure of the existence of Christ as I am of anything.
"When will you start bringing some logic into these forums?"
I try to do that all the time. Obviously not very successfully.
"I can concede in a notion of a supreme being - all Atheists can."
Most atheists I know do not accept that there is a supreme being. That is why they are atheists.
"The supernatural elegance of his Gay creations is something to be ridiculed, banned and forbidden - by your Bible's standard. This is something you can't white-wash with fancy words (as you have been doing so far) or with fanciful polemic vocabulary."
Again you are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Bible. It does not tell us to ridicule, or ban homosexuals. Neither does it tell us that God makes people homosexual. Nor that women should be second class citizens. I cannot defend what you are saying because I do not accept that that is what the Bible teaches.
833. Comment #15758 by Greywizard on January 2, 2007 at 3:24 pm
'…the Bible teaches that God created ex nihilo.' This is not altogether correct. In Genesis 1 we are told that God's spirit moved over the face of the waters - or chaos (something seems already to have been there). In the second chapter, the second story of creation, it is clear that the earth already existed in a dry and lifeless form to which God brought order and life. The whole question of creatio ex nihilo is a fairly deep theological problem, and it raises others in its turn. But, almost certainly, the Bible itself does not teach this, although theologians later took this as an implication of the idea of God presumed by the Bible."
The word used in Genesis 1:1 is Bara and is used of creating ex nihilio.
'I believe in a personal God. But I do not think I have the right to either limit him or to claim that I understand him. However I do trust him – on the basis of the evidence he has provided.' Well, if you could point to evidence, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? It would all be nicely settled. (See later, the comment on revelation.)"
I keep trying to point to evidence but the bottom line is that there is no evidence that would be acceptable to those whose presuppositions already exclude the possibility of the supernatural.
"There's a lot of ad hominem stuff in your post which I'll just ignore, but you should really watch it."
I have noticed this accusation keeps coming. Would you like to evidence it? I have many posts on this thread so please give me some examples of ad hominem. And would you accept that ad hominem is a major part of The God Delusion. One example is citing Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist and 'God Hates Fags' fame.
"His point is simply that assuming a designer is assuming something for which there is no evidence in our experience of how design has actually developed."
That is true for biology but is not true for example for my computer. Just as you mock creationists who hold to Paley's watchmaker argument why should it be self evident that evolutionary biology on earth means the same in the cosmos?
"'I have no problem with the idea that God used evolution to create.' You may have no problem but there is a problem there, since God is really an unnecessary hypothesis. What you are calling creation takes care of itself."
Not at all. For there to be evolution you need the right conditions and the materials in the first place. But you really have this one sown up. If you can demonstrate that there is a natural cause (I would call it a secondary cause) then you think that you can exclude God. You thus rely on the God of the Gaps theology to prove there is no God. That is not a position intelligent theists accept. When I give thanks to God for the food on my table I am not saying that it fell from the sky miraculously. I know it came from Tesco's and I paid for it. But ultimately I do believe that it came from God.
2And yet you would have quite a job producing the evidence, wouldn't you? You believe in God, you believe that God has revealed himself to us, you believe that God is the creator of all things, but you have no evidence."
I disagree completely. We have plenty evidence but I suspect that your presuppositions mean that you will not accept any evidence that I would offer. Could you let me know what evidence you would accept?
"'Revelation is part of the evidence that God gives. In fact without revelation we would not know him. Indeed I question whether we could know anything without revelation.' Wow! This really is offering up a hostage to fortune, because there is no way to tell when something is or is not an actual revelation from God, and not just a supposed one. How do you know when something is revealed?"
Of course it is a hostage to fortune because you do not accept the concept of revelation. How do we know? Personal experience, internal consistency, historical consistency, factual accuracy, etc.
"'I hope you will all be enlightened!' This really is patronising. In fact, for someone who represents a church, your response here is most awfully arrogant and distasteful. Is this really what Christians are like? "
I kind of hope that all Christians are not like me. I am intrigued that you think that hoping that people will be enlightened is awfully arrogant and distasteful. There are many atheists who have expressed the hope on this website that I will be enlightened. The site itself claims to be an oasis for 'clear thinking'. One assumes that you find that this too is patronizing, arrogant and distasteful. I personally don't have a problem with it. If atheists believe that they have the truth and that they have come to this view through enlightenment then I consider it very nice that you want me to be enlightened as well. Why should I not return the complement?
Other Comments by David A Robertson
510. Comment #16193 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Hey David,What a lot of evasive hot air. Again you try and appeal to the authority of others. If you dont understand torbjorns comments, how can you refute them? oh that's right, you didn't, you apeal to authority. Why not take some time to understand it and think about it. You clearly are the one who knows what answer he wants, but cant defend his position. Why do you bother? how many wavering theists is that now that you are sending towards atheism. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK
Nor do you get paul's point either. Your answer would embarass a child. BY ASKING FOR EVIDENCE OF AD HOMENEMS, YOU REALLY ARE SETTING YOURSELF UP HERE. It is becoming painful to watch.
I see your church are considering shutting down their message board because you want to pretend to have a nice public image. Why give folk a false impression? that's dishonest
Other Comments by BillySands
511. Comment #16198 by J.C. Samuelson on January 5, 2007 at 12:51 pm
@ David A. Robertson # 834 / 16184Please forgive me if anything below has already been said and/or dealt with. I haven't read every comment, and so may have missed more than a few items.
"...experience and evidence should go together."
That, at least, is encouraging. However, it is my experience that most theists rely on primarily personal experience to validate their belief, and accept uncritically any evidence that seems to support their position, sometimes to the point of absurdity.
"...I argue that God is also in time and space..."
This would seem to suggest that given an appropriate set of criteria God could ostensibly be tested for. Unless of course you argue that God is not 'testable' in the scientific sense, which leaves us precisely where we were before. As a practical matter, it makes no difference whether God is inside or outside the universe (whatever that means) if ultimately it is forever beyond the reach of science.
You seem to suggest that God could be tested for indirectly, as in looking for the "footprints" of God, by which I guess you mean the design inference. The question is what would constitute these footprints? You state elsewhere (or imply) that this evidence already exists. I find that odd, since the only so-called "footprints" in biology have been determined to be so through an arbitrary rather than scientific process, and refuted quite effectively by Dr. Dawkins and others - even by other similar organisms not determined to have been designed.
"We are not claiming that an unknown is evidence for God, but rather that a known (the conditions for life in the Universe) is evidence."
Invoking the anthropic principle, I presume? If this is the "footprint" to which you refer (or one of many) then I think you may be on shakier ground than you suspect.
The anthropic principle, as you apply it, works against your hypothesis, just as it works against those who would use the anthropic principle to show that life is likely to evolve on most Earth-like planets. Both use the fact that intelligent life arose here as a referent.
Life may indeed be very improbable even on Earth-like planets, which works against the latter theorist. However, the former theorist is arguing that life is unlikely to have evolved anywhere but here. This hypothesis predicts our non-existence, which means the datum supplied by our existence defies the prediction, thereby disproving it. Special intervention (God's Hand) is not and cannot be part of the prediction unless it can be tested, which most theists admit goes against not only their theology but also science.
What the anthropic principle hypothesizes is that because of our reference point (us), we can reasonably conclude that the conditions for life exist in the universe. Obviously they do, because here we are. We can further adduce that because life exists here, it may exist elsewhere on planets residing in the "Goldilocks Zone" and having other Earth-like qualities, though certainty is limited to our reference point.
All the anthropic principle says is that there places in the universe that allow for conditions hospitable to life, nothing more. There is a huge leap to be made from this to concluding that the Earth is the only such place. As Dr. Dawkins points out in TGD, the anthropic principle is an alternative, not a help, to creationism.
"Are you seriously suggesting that the only way for a woman to conceive today is via sex? I thought we had developed the technology to avoid that."
Are you seriously suggesting that such technologies are equivalent to deistic insemination? If not, the comparison is an irrelevant dodge.
"Atheism is a faith - a belief system which you claim is based on evidence and which I suggest also includes a fair amount of wishful thinking and acceptance of presuppositions which have not themselves been clearly evidenced."
On its face, atheism is a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence. There is no verifiable evidence that ghosts exist, yet those who disbelieve in ghosts aren't held to a standard they can't possibly meet; it is the believers who must provide evidence for their claims.
Atheism is further informed by positive evidence that man creates many gods, most of which have wound up on the scrap heap of history; positive evidence that religious texts have proven unreliable scientifically and historically; positive evidence that dogma is a harmful product of magical thinking, whether religious, psychological, economic, or nationalistic; and of course, positive evidence that regardless of which god you worship or spiritual path you follow, one can experience the same phenomena that some describe as being "filled with the Holy Spirit" and others call "becoming one with the universe." Heck, we can even measure that phenomena.
As far as wishful thinking, please clarify what you mean. I see several possibilities.
"...science and religion are not opposed."
Certainly a non-confrontational position to take. However, scientific evidence stands in stark contrast to the reports extracted from religious texts. If you accept those portions of scripture as faulty, is it not reasonable to question the rest and demand an equal accounting of evidence?
At some point during your reading of the Bible, you are forced to suspend this demand and simply believe based on unverifiable faith.
"God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. God is love. God is triune. God is personal."
And what would you say to those who would describe God differently? Would you say that any other definition is faulty? If so, why? What evidence can you present that verifies these properties of God you've shared with us? It is clear these properties were extracted from the Bible, so what is your basis for belief that the Bible is a reliable source of information about God? After all, you've admitted to dismissing the Genesis account by accepting evolution (i.e., that part is unreliable).
"...contradictory knowledge of the Bible. Could you let me know what this is?"
Too big and too off-topic to address here, but I, for one, would be happy to discuss it elsewhere. If interested, email googleman70@yahoo.com.
"It does not tell us to ridicule, or ban homosexuals."
You're right. It tells you to kill them.
"Nor that women should be second class citizens."
Really? which Bible are you reading, anyway? Jesus himself may not have been a misogynist, but the rest of the Bible...
"...there is no evidence that would be acceptable to those whose presuppositions already exclude the possibility of the supernatural."
Perhaps true. However, I would submit that by definition there can be no evidence of the supernatural. Only the natural is testable in the sense that we can only observe the natural, collect data from the natural - the supernatural is beyond that. As soon as we can test it, it ceases to be called supernatural and is re-labeled as natural (as in lightning, volcanoes, tsunamis, the moon & stars, and so on). If we could test for God, directly or indirectly, such an entity would then cease to be supernatural and enter the realm of the natural. Most theologies are quite resistant to that idea, and for good reason. Kind of anti-climactic, don't you think?
My question to you is, why do you accept the supernatural? Why is your favorite supernatural entity more real than someone else's supernatural entity? Do you accept all things labeled as such? Of course not. You demand evidence. The atheist simply demands evidence for one more god than you do (yes, I know that's a tired saying, but applicable).
"If atheists believe they have the truth..."
What is this obsession with having The Truth™? I'm interested in what best describes reality as we experience it. Gods, the supernatural - they don't match in that our only sources for information on them are unreliable at best, corrupt or dangerous at worst.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
512. Comment #16200 by Ole on January 5, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Happy New Year, David!You wrote in your latest article:
If you destroy Christianity (which is your aim) then you will leave a spiritual and moral vacuum in Western Europe which will either be filled by a new fascism or Islam. Then you will find out for real the fact that all religions are not the same.
There are brave people in the world fighting against Islam - Richard Dawkins is not alone.
Take a look at this:
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
The clash that we are witnessing around the world is not a clash between religions. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.
I won't quote all - but what she talks about is of course your monotheistic god from the bronze-age. She (like me) does not believe in Jahve, God or Allah. She, like Richard Dawkins, me, and most of us in this discussion, "went one god further". ;-)
Wafa Sultan, You really made my day!
Ole
Other Comments by Ole
513. Comment #16202 by Joadist on January 5, 2007 at 1:27 pm
David,God is a spirit. Great!
Now I know what God is. Unfortunately, I no longer know what a spirit is.
Would you please define spirit for me?
Other Comments by Joadist
514. Comment #16209 by Paul Creber on January 5, 2007 at 2:47 pm
POST 827: "It's the World Cup, 2222. Scotland are the hosts, and they face England in the final at Hampden. Tickets are like gold dust, but David Robertson manages to acquire one (this guy has influential connections). He takes his seat in the stand, and you'll never guess who is sitting next to him. It's quite incredible, uncanny really, but the seat is occupied by none other than Jacques Dubois, from Rennes, North Western France. Yes, out of 70,000 people in Hampden, David Robertson finds himself sitting next to none other than Jacques Dubois, a complete stranger. The odds against this happening are amazingly long. Indeed, Kenny Dalglish has estimated that if David Robertson had been sitting just ONE SEAT to his right, he would not have been sitting next to Jacques. And if Jacques had been sitting just ONE SEAT to his left, he would not have been sitting next to David. And if neither of them had got hold of a ticket, or if neither of them was a football fan or if neither of them had been born, they wouldn't be sitting there at all. Whatever the result of today's big match, we shall never cease to ponder the astounding, wonderful, amazing and incredible phenomenon of Hampden 2222 – North Stand, Row 12, Seats C and D.
David, please tell us what, if anything, is wrong with the reasoning in the paragraph above."
DR: Certainly – it is the presuppositions in the analogy which make it fall down at every level.
PC: What presuppositions? By whom? The only presupposition I am aware of is yours, and it runs something like this: "I suppose there is an intelligent creator of the universe and conclude that because of his existence, the universe is fine-tuned. Moreover, from the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, I conclude that there is an intelligent creator".
DR: Firstly there are 69999 other people in the stadium who can be observed and proved (that cannot be said about billions of other universes)
PC: Who said anything about billions of other universes? My analogy relates only to the probability of this ONE universe being fine tuned for the sustenance of life.
DR: Secondly there is a stadium and such a thing as the world cup.
PC: There is a universe and such a thing as planet earth.
DR: Thirdly being next to Jacques is not a necessary condition for my existence.
PC: Who said it was? My point was merely that without any a priori prediction that you would be sitting next to Jacques, its probability was precisely the same as the arbitrary chance of you sitting next to any of the remaining 69,999. It was no big deal. Similarly, without any a priori prediction at the time of the Big Bang of the arrival on the scene 10 billion years later of a remote and insignificant speck of dust capable of producing life, its probability was precisely the same as the arbitrary chance of a number of alternative outcomes. It was no big deal.
DR: Fourthly the probability of me sitting next to Jacques is still far lower than the probability of there being the fine tuning necessary for the Universe in the first place.
PC: Which means you accept that the probability of a fine-tuned universe is certainly far higher than one in 70,000 – short odds when we consider the immensity and complexity of the whole shooting match. Why didn't you concede as much in the first place? It appears we are in broad agreement after all.
…unless, of course, you meant to write "higher" instead of "lower". I suspect that this is the case, and it may be that you're trying to play chess with too many people at once, David.
By the way, you say you find it "a little disturbing" that I should regard the fine-tuned universe as a fallacy. If by "disturbing" you mean that I am disrupting your presuppositions, I am glad to be of service. If, on the other hand, you use the word "disturbing" in the patronising sense that others know better than I do, please allow me to draw your attention to what Stephen Hawking has to say on the subject:
"From that definition we see that the WAP (weak anthropic principle) does not require the assumption of a supernatural agent being responsible for the creation of the universe and of life" (A Brief History of Time).
I quote Hawking not because I place any credence in arguments from authority, but because you clearly – and misguidedly – do. Try to argue your own case on its merits, David. Otherwise we may be left with the impression that, stripped of all those surrogate lifebelts, you will sink like a stone.
On the subject of fine tuning, I should make one further point. Even if we concede for the sake of argument that you have a case, we still find ourselves a million light years from the Christian God. Your argument leaves the door wide open for Wotan, Mars, Jupiter, Thor, Allah or a veritable committee of deities to claim fatherhood of the cosmos. More plausibly, it makes a case for the sort of deism that for all practical purposes differs little from atheism – a god who winds up the clock and sets the alarm, then walks away to play no further part in the proceedings.
You have repeatedly made the point that much of the evidence you are offering for your position is of a supernatural variety, and you have frequently castigated us for, as you see it, a predisposition to disregard such testimony. On the matter of "fine-tuning", however, we occupy a very different battlefield; here we are debating nothing more ethereal than matter and energy. Many will regard it as significant that in this arena of shared presumption, you have failed to make the slightest headway towards building a case for Christianity.
Other Comments by Paul Creber
515. Comment #16210 by Fedler on January 5, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Oh, dear, I told myself in my last post that I was leaving this thread. But, it's like the scene of an accident. You don't want to look, but you just can't help yourself…Why would something that is not personal experience be heresy? I have not personally experienced that Australia exists but I have no reason to doubt it. On the other hand I could experience things which may not be real – I could for example have an hallucination. So experience and evidence should go together. They are not necessaraily contradictory.
The difference though is you don't doubt the existence of Australia because you know people have been there, walked on it, seen it, smelled it, etc. The evidence is there and we are aware of it, although indirectly through other people. Like Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot floating around Jupiter, there is no evidence of the teapot, not even indirectly through the experiences of other people. I've never known anyone to have any credible experiences of god, either direct or indirect. As stated many times, that difference likely flows from our different definitions of evidence.
I agree that experience and evidence CAN go together, but not always. For example, you mentioned you could have an hallucination. Having an hallucination of god, for example, is not I would call evidence. Hallucinations can mostly be explained by brain chemistry, but I admit I don't know anything about brain chemistry so I'm getting out of my element.
"Please provide your precise proof of how god is outside time and space, or else your faith in this statement is just…well, stupid (your own words)."
There is of course a difference between 'precise proof' and evidence. Also the trouble with your demand is that the only proof you will accept is that which is confined to time and space. The evidence for the statement that God is outside time and space is logical and revelational. It is also within time and space because if you had completed the quote you would have found that I argue that God is also in time and space. There are 'footprints' of the Creator and there is above all the evidence of Jesus Christ.
Again, I would talk more about this, but it would come back to our differing definitions. I would assert that if god does come into our time and space, then there ought to be some tangible evidence of god somewhere. You assert that JC is evidence of god, I do not.
" It seems ironic that the religious believers turn up their noses at evolution,"
There are many religious believers who do not turn up their noses at the idea of evolution.
True, but they twist it around so that it all of a sudden must have been a tool of god. They claim god used evolution to start biological life, but the vast majority I know can't seem to accept the possibility of evolution without god himself starting it.
"You stated how God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing (because the Bible says so). Yet, at the same time, theists claim how absurd evolution is because it spontaneously creates life out of nothing."
You will forgive me saying this but I think your understanding of the theory of evolution is wrong here. I have never heard an evolutionist claim that evolution 'spontaneously creates life out of nothing'.
You're right. I've never heard of an evolutionist claim that evolution created life out of nothing. But, that's not what I said. I said theists claim how absurd evolution is because it creates life out of nothing. But, then theists (such as yourself) turn around and state 'God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). This is a contradiction – atheistic god of the gaps.
.
We are not claiming that an unknown is evidence for God, but rather that a known (the conditions for life in the Universe) is evidence.
With the exception of the initial bang of the Big Bang, the conditions for life in the Universe are known (through physics and cosmology) to have evolved to their current state ever since the first nanosecond after the bang. The unknown is what is left. This unknown gets attributed to god by believers. Atheists believe an answer will someday be found and it's premature to give a god the credit.
"Other than claiming Jesus was born of a virgin, do you have references for human virgin births"
Are you seriously suggesting that the only way for a woman to conceive today is via sex? I had thought we had developed the technology to avoid that.
OK, I'll admit I hadn't thought of IVF. I was thinking of the more traditional method, "the old college try" as my college friends used to say. However, that's still a far cry from immaculate conception.
Of course atheists are allowed to have faith. That is what I stated. Atheism is a faith – a belief system which you claim is based on evidence and which I suggest also includes a fair amount of wishful thinking and acceptance of presuppositions which have not themselves been clearly evidenced.
Most presuppositions which have not been clearly evidenced are the result of mathematical equations and hypothetical scenarios based on current evidence at hand. I dare say that a lot of theories have moved beyond our technological advancement. We just don't yet have the technology to accurately test a lot of our equations, especially in physics and chemistry. However, the 'wishful thinking' is based on current evidence or knowledge. For a simple example, if I throw a ball in the air, I know it will come down. I don't have any doubt. I can't pinpoint exactly where it will land, but it will come down. I can approximate where it will land based on the trajectory, wind speed, weight of the ball, etc, but unless I whip out my notebook and do all the equations precisely I can only approximate. (Besides the ball will land before I have the equations written down anyway, so there's little point).
The equations currently in progress are leading somewhere, and though we can't pinpoint where they will lead, approximations can be made. As the data is refined, the 'landing' comes in clearer focus.
Other Comments by Fedler
516. Comment #16222 by Paul Creber on January 5, 2007 at 4:02 pm
An excellent post, Fedler. It prompted me to marvel at David Robertson's claim that scepticism and rationality somehow embrace "wishful thinking".The facts, of course, are this: He professes to believe that he will spend a lifetime of communion with the creator of the universe, followed by an eternity of bliss. We freethinkers, on the other hand, suppose that to the best of our knowledge, we shall spend a brief snapshot of time on this planet before returning to the oblivion that characterised our pre-birth. Wishful thinking? Someone around here is standing on his head and it's not you or me, Fedler.
Other Comments by Paul Creber
517. Comment #16266 by Fedler on January 5, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Mr. Robertson,I have read your new article on the Free Church website and have a few comments:
In discussing memes and children naturally having trusting obedience which is good for their survival, but gullible to 'mind virus's' such as religion [Dawkins' term], you state three reasons why the meme explanation falls down:
Firstly there is no empirical evidence of such a theory – this is once again a 'science of the gaps' just making things up as you go along in order to fit everything into your all encompassing evolutionary theory.
At least in what I've read, memes have never been called a 'theory' – more of a concept. This statement appears to be like asking someone for proof of the 'happiiness theory'. Happiness is more of a concept or a state of mind and not something that can be proven empirically, at least to my knowledge.
Secondly if it were true then your own ideas, including Darwinian evolution, would be considered memes as well.
How so? If anything, Darwinian evolution is more of a meme complex. One definition of memes on www.dictionary.com states "The term used especially in the phrase "meme complex" denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an organised belief system, such as a religion. However, "meme" is often misused to mean "meme complex". Even still, how so? You don't explain this point at all and move right on to point #3.
Thirdly as Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge, points out "Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider context, they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic". And I would go way beyond that. They are dangerous. If you regard religion as a virus what should be done with a virus? It should be eradicated.
That's it. Is that a point? I think that's just quoting someone else. Explain, please.
Your next paragraph continues…
You state that you do not like confrontation and that you 'regularly refuse invitations to take part in formal debates'. I'm afraid this will not wash. Your book is highly confrontational. The fact that you are not prepared to debate is I suspect more to do with the fact that you prefer to be confrontational about people who are not present. You surround yourself with those who agree with you before being aggressive about those who do not.
I can't speak for Dr. Dawkins, but I suspect that he doesn't debate because it's hard to have a debate over differing concepts. Debating with theists, to Dawkins, is probably about arguing over the color of unicorns. But, putting that difference aside, I don't see any substance to what you say. You don't appear to be debating the content of what he says in the book, only that you don't like it that he doesn't debate regularly.
Whilst it would only be a fool who denies the fact that some aspects of religion and some religious people have caused a great deal of harm in the world, it is equally foolish to make the kind of irresponsible sweeping statements that you do here – in order to foster the myth that religion is in essence harmful. This is an atheist half truth which is widely accepted.
I understand you don't like his statements, but what about the content of what he says? In addition, I don't know of anything 'widely accepted' when it comes to atheists.
But you don't like being called a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is someone by your definition who believes 'in a holy book'. A fundamentalist would never change their mind "we believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that". Really. I believe that the Bible is true. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I believe that God is the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe that all human beings are created equally in his image. And I would abandon these beliefs tomorrow if new evidence arose to disprove them. So that makes us even?
This seems a bit childish and, again, does not respond to any content. Just more Dawkins-bashing.
Now of course you argue that your hostility that you 'occasionally voice towards religion is limited to words'. You are not going to bomb anyone or behead anyone or fly planes into skyscrapers. But on page 318 you directly contradict yourself when commenting on the old adage "Stick and stones my break my bones, but words can never hurt me". You declare "the adage is true as long as you don't really believe the words". What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you are concerned about the impact that words used by religious people may have then you must apply the same criteria to yourself. When you go around describing religion as evil and as a virus you should not be surprised if there are those who hear your words and put them into practice in a way you would not like. Nice middle class professors from Oxford do not kill (unless you watch Inspector Morse) but then neither did nice middle class Professors from Nuremberg in the 1930's.
I don't see content. Perhaps I'm missing it somewhere.
You go on to list some examples of atheists doing bad things (burning churches, talking about executing Christians [from the Church Arson website]) and then say,
Of course it would be entirely wrong to take the actions and words of a handful of atheist extremists as being indicative of atheists in general (just as it is wrong of you to take the actions and words of a handful of 'Christian' extremists as indicative of Christians) but please bear in mind that your vehemence and language can have consequences that are as serious as the consequences of the vehemence and language of some 'religious' fundamentalists.
I feel you almost had a point talking about atheists doing bad things, but then you turn to more bashing of Dawkins for his vehemence and language ("How dare you say such things!").
As Dawkins states in the TGD and Sam Harris states in "The End of Faith", they assert that those 'moderate' Christians who are not fundamentalists create a buffer zone around the fundamentalists and makes it taboo to criticize them, even though everybody knows they're doing stupid things. However, as has been said here many times, even if religion were eliminated, people would still find ways to be jerks to each other. Unfortunately, I think we can both agree on that one. You continue…
Secondly you do not debate – which gives the impression that you know you are right and that there is nothing really to discuss. It also reinforces the impression that you operate within a very closed world view. In this sense your website has more fundamentalist believers than many religious ones I know. Another sense in which you can be described as fundamentalist is the way that you attack anyone who dares to disagree with you and how you gleefully jump upon books that support your point of view. An example of this is when you hammer Mother Teresa as a woman with 'cock-eyed judgement' not worthy of a Nobel Prize and 'sanctimoniously hypocritical' on the basis of one hostile book you read. Thirdly you caricature, mock and misrepresent those who disagree with you. This is easy to do when you do not debate with them but it is not fair.
Again, I don't see a discussion of content, however it's now very clear you don't appreciate Dr. Dawkins having a different opinion.
Another example you use of extremism is Pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church of 'God Hates Fags' infamy. "It is easy to write Fred Phelps off as a nut, but he has plenty support from people and their money". You even cite as evidence for this the fact that since 1991 he has been able to organise one demonstration every four days. Is the fact that one self publicising head banger manages to organise a handful of people every four days to carry obnoxious banners proof that religion is dangerous? Are you really blaming Mother Teresa, the Pope, Billy Graham, one thousand million Christians throughout the world and even yours truly for every lunatic who expresses their mental and emotional imbalance in religious terms? That is as rational as my suggesting that because Dr Josef Mengele was a scientist, all scientists are to blame and therefore science should be banned. The point is simply that anyone could produce a list of fringe mentally imbalanced people on any subject. That does not invalidate the subject.
I agree with you to an extent. However, I don't see atheists picketing on street corners with banners saying "Religion Sucks", or suicide atheists willing to kill themselves for being too rational. Dr. Dawkins is not blaming Mother Teresa, et al., only saying that their willful turning of 'the other cheek' to such atrocities does nothing to stop it from happening.
You have a good reason for equating Christianity with the unbalanced fringe. It suits your purposes to agree with them as to what Christianity is. That's why you interview extremists. You set up straw men and then it makes you look so much more reasonable.
Straw men? OK, I've heard that before. So far, your latest article is more attacking Dawkins than the content of what he says. However, I'm sure it makes you seem more reasonable.
You define faith as believing something without evidence – a definition which is just something that you have made up in your own head and has nothing to do with Christianity.
I like using www.dictionary.com because it's very user-friendly and cites many different dictionaries, but one of the definitions of 'Faith' (among other similar definitions) is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Another definition states, 'belief that is not based on proof'. I admit there are other definitions listed on the website, but these show Dr. Dawkins didn't just make up the definition to suit his purposes. He used an acceptable definition.
You wrap up the article agreeing with Dr. Dawkins that 'we are innately predisposed to be creationists', but then add,
Can I make a tentative suggestion to you? That the reason that human beings worship is that there is someone to worship? That the reason we have a sense of God (as opposed to other animals – when did you last see rabbits holding a prayer meeting or cows a worship service?) is because God has given us that sense? That the reason we are spiritual is because we have a spirit?
I'd like to flip the question around. Could the reason that human beings DON'T worship is that there is NOT someone to worship? That the reason we have no empirical proof of God is because God does not exist? As you say, perhaps the boot is on the other foot.
Other Comments by Fedler
518. Comment #16536 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 7:28 am
Posted this response to his recent article on davids siteOh dear, David is preaching to the converted again, as usual, I find that I can not bear to read his poor quality criticisms for any length of time.
Let me set you straight, Dawkins' argument of religion being a by product of other pshychological processes does not depend on his proof that god does not exist. If we make a massively illogical assumption that your god alone exists (we have at least 33 million to chose from), then we still have to explain why people have devoted time etc to 33 million other gods, who in your monotheistic view are false and therefore, their worship is pointless. Dawkins backs up his claims with experimental studies. Other than the fact you don't like what he has to say, what do you have to back up your beliefs?
to quote from Martin's signature
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Henry Roberts, Historian, (1901-71)
Perhaps, you could actually quote conway morris in context. You seem to personally think we should bow to the authority of experts in their field (as long as the agree with you), so what does a paleontologist know about anthropology? I'll bet it is taken out of context too. Dawkins is an expert in his field and says you are wrong. Hmmm, how do we decide who is correct? I know, evaluate the evidence for ourselves. This is a general deficiency in your articles and discussion with you on the RDF. PRESENT EVIDENCE. Rational people decide for themselves, and not believe because someone else says so (waits for predictable ad hominem)
Why would atheism be a meme?
Again, you ignore evidence and just dismiss off hand.
How do you explain other religion existing, if not through cultural inheritance?
Poor stuff Dave. I may deal with the rest later
Readers may wish to see how badly David's arguments are doing on the Dawkins site for yourself. Some of the people on this site have a better grasp of the subject and a better manner than David. Feel free to come on the threads for yourself. Be respectful and atheists will generally respect you (no guarantees though)
http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson
http://richarddawkins.net/article,460,10-myths---and-10-truths---about-atheism,Sam-Harris
Sorry if this seems harsh, but at least it is an honest evaluation
Other Comments by BillySands
519. Comment #16587 by Paul Creber on January 7, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Apologies: In Post 839 I incorrectly quoted Stephen Hawking as saying: "From that definition we see that the WAP (weak anthropic principle) does not require the assumption of a supernatural agent being responsible for the creation of the universe and of life"What Hawking in fact said was: "The weak anthropic principle states that in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or in time, the conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only in certain regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence."
Although this amounts to very nearly the same thing, I felt it was important to put things straight. The error arose from my mistaking a commentary on Hawking for Hawking himself.
Other Comments by Paul Creber
520. Comment #16671 by David A Robertson on January 8, 2007 at 2:08 am
836. Comment #16198 by J.C. Samuelson on January 5, 2007 at 12:51 pm"...I argue that God is also in time and space..."
"This would seem to suggest that given an appropriate set of criteria God could ostensibly be tested for. Unless of course you argue that God is not 'testable' in the scientific sense, which leaves us precisely where we were before. As a practical matter, it makes no difference whether God is inside or outside the universe (whatever that means) if ultimately it is forever beyond the reach of science."
501. Comment #14786 by BillySands on December 25, 2006 at 4:39 am
I've noticed how the religious try and justify their beliefs peudoscientifically when it suits them. I found this one on the David's site:
"God knew well about female eggs, since He created them. It even speaks about the ''seed of the woman'' in Genesis 3:15."
http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=1790.0
the verse isn't even about eggs, but ofspring. It is a poor attempt to find evidence that god knows of something that contempory society could not possibly know. Needless to say, I put him right - and David, I would do the same in a scientific context too.
Other Comments by BillySands