1. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178359 by PaulJ on May 11, 2008 at 9:47 am

Despicable.

But how can this possibly have happened? Islam is a religion of peace.

(/sarcasm)

Reports like this make me want say, "OK then, if that's how it is, we're pulling out right now. You can stew in your own juice."

It's a gut reaction, but I can't see how the west can do anything at all to stop this kind of thing happening.

2. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178086 by PaulJ on May 10, 2008 at 1:16 pm

I'm kind of surprised to hear that. I've lived here for a year and never once have I touched the beef. Call me crazy but mad cow/hoof-and-mouth outbreaks here have kinda driven me away from British beef...

This did scare many away from British beef and like autism from the MMR vaccine it is completely illogical and unscientifically based because there is no human form of mod cow or foot and mouth disease nor is there even close to being a human form so please stop worrying.

The human form of BSE (mad cow disease) is new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

3. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177914 by PaulJ on May 10, 2008 at 12:30 am

Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.

There's no real point in discussing religion with theologians, because they nearly all argue from the point of view that God exists. If a theologian accepts that the question of God's existence is moot, then he or she has nothing left to say.

4. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177124 by PaulJ on May 8, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Comment #177089 by Noodly:

He's basically saying that there was an attempt by Christian apologists, operating around the time of the Age of Enlightenment (but he carefully avoids the 'E' word), that tried to prove the truth of God's existence by the use of evidence and logic - or what we now call Science. This backfired when they ended up proving that God is very likely not to exist.

This is how it works. If science (or anything else) shows that the probability of God's existence is extremely low, that's not because God very likely doesn't exist, it's because God isn't susceptible to logic or reason or statistics. This Catholic cleric is secure in his belief because he has decided that nothing can shake his faith. No atheistic argument of any kind will sway him. It's not based on reason - that's why his arguments appear to us so unfounded.

It's the same as conspiracy theory - any arguments you might put to him (no matter what they are) will simply reinforce his faith. Faith is beyond reason; it cannot be argued.

Sometimes I think we'd be better off making the case for private religion - a personal faith that doesn't impinge on other people, but since strongly held religious belief must surely affect how the believer relates to the whole universe and everyone in it, that's probably a forlorn hope. It may be a bit more possible in the UK than in America, but religion is pernicious, and if we're not vigilant the fundies will get more of a grip here (Britain) as well.

The issue as I see it, is that most people in Britain don't see religion as any kind of problem. As for the crazee fundies, these are regarded with bemused amusement - their views are so outlandish that few take them seriously. And while the general populus rolls its eyes and goes about its business, Intelligent Design promotional packs are sent gratis to cash-strapped schools desperate for classroom materials.

5. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177053 by PaulJ on May 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in? I usually find that the God that is being rejected by such people is a God I don't believe in either. I simply don't recognise my faith in what is presented by these critics as Christian faith.

Go on then. Which god do you believe in?

'Pope Benedict knows,' he said, 'that religion is about truth and not social cohesion.' A very accurate remark I think.

I think not.

People's spiritual and religious impulses are not being channelled in a deep enough way because there is a pervasive message that to commit yourself to God through a religious faith is to take a step back from being independent and mature.

There might be a reason for that....

Our starting point then must be that even in a culture that seems far from God, no one is without God's presence and action. None is without God. If we believe in God as the creator of all, this must be true.

Believing in something has no bearing whatever on whether it's true or not.

The second reflection is from a modern, or should I say post-modern, novelist called Douglas Coupland. In his novel, Life after God, he says this: "Here is my secret. I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt that I shall ever achieve again. I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God �" that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give because I no longer seem to be capable of giving; to help me to be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness, to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love". It reads like a cry from the heart of so many people today.

Inventing an imaginary friend to fill a perceived lack of spiritual companionship is just that - invention.

Many who deny God's existence treat God in this way, and they simply don't know how to ask the proper question about God. God is why the world is at all, the goodness, truth and love that flows into an astonishingly complex and beautiful cosmos, and we are the part of that cosmos, consciously and freely open to goodness, truth and love; and we are frustrated when this openness is blocked. We are designed for ultimate meaning and purpose, unrestricted truth and love: that is why Julian Barnes, atheist though he may declare himself, 'misses' God. God is at the heart of every person. And until that is acknowledged, we will always feel his absence.

Or maybe it's just indigestion.

'If there is no God, there is no one to tell us who we are.'

This, I think, is the heart of the delusion, and you can see it also in the previous quote. People of faith go on about 'meaning' and 'purpose' as if these are attributes of the universe (put there, of course, by God). Suggesting that the universe just is will usually be met with horrified denial.

If Christians really believed in the mystery of God, we would realise that proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative. Why are atheists so clear about the God who is rejected? A God who can be spoken of comfortably and clearly by human beings cannot be the true God. Si comprehendis, non est Deus, said St Augustine: 'if you understand, it is not God'. I wonder if we Christians have led people to think that it is easy to talk about God and to think that we know clearly what we are talking about. How much of modern unbelief is a product of a facile, deductive treatment of God, so that the God who is often rejected by people is the product of our thinking rather than being God in the mystery of his life?

Theology is too deep for the likes of us. Or anyone.

If Christianity gave European thought the impression that God can be conceptually determined and pinned down and proved as a hypothesis, then it is hardly surprising that there has been resistance, as science and culture have developed, to worshipping this idea of God.

OK then, let's have God as the mysterious unknowable idea. How do we get from that to believing that fermented grape juice transubstantiates into human blood with the aid of some hand-waving and magic words?

This whole lecture seems to be just another instance of "Not my religion...."

6. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162201 by PaulJ on April 16, 2008 at 10:26 am

I'd be in favour of teaching a scientific alternative to evolution theory in schools.

If there was one.

But there isn't.

7. Thy will be done

Comment #154525 by PaulJ on April 3, 2008 at 11:54 am

Saying grace is probably part of an institution's tradition, harmless enough in itself. I'd be unlikely to join in at someone's private residence, but I'd probably mouth the words if I was attending some formal dinner or other.

But the saying of prayers in a council chamber at the start of business is a different matter. There's an assumption on the part of the person who leads the prayers that everyone present agrees with such an act, and that it actually means something. If it happened to me I would be one of those with open eyes and unbowed head, but I'd still feel pissed off about the presumption - not a good way to begin proceedings, in my opinion.

As I see it, there's 'silent prayer' and 'communal prayer' - the latter being led by someone who speaks the prayer out loud. This is what happens in church. Those who want this kind of thing can go to a church and participate in communal prayer. As for me - no thanks. Silent prayer, on the other hand, can be done by anyone at any time, and I've no objection to anyone communicating telepathically with a non-existent over-mind (although I might question their rationality).

I do object, however, to having a workplace turned into church.

8. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146137 by PaulJ on March 18, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Sad news, so soon after his 90th birthday broadcast.

He was the last of the Big Three in science fiction: Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov.

9. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139739 by PaulJ on March 6, 2008 at 12:55 pm

The phrase "Lords Approve Abolition of Blasphemy" is quite misleading. Doesn't the lack of the word "Law" on the end completely change the meaning?

Not really. Blasphemy as a concept is entirely defined in terms of law. Abolishing the law abolishes the thing itself.

10. Fleabytes

Comment #129836 by PaulJ on February 19, 2008 at 4:06 pm

A veritable tour de force. Paula takes no prisoners.

11. The devilish church practice of exorcism

Comment #114982 by PaulJ on January 23, 2008 at 11:21 am

Check out this TV programme.

The Rev Bob Larson casts out demons wherever he finds them (and he finds them everywhere!)

12. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104934 by PaulJ on December 30, 2007 at 4:44 am

It's good to see religious commentators giving serious consideration to RD's theories for a change, rather than spouting the same old stuff we've seen before.

Nevertheless I think the bishop is wrong. He's saying that the 'human in-built morality' that RD talks about is there because humans are made in God's image, and that's why the morality is built in (because God put it there). He's got it the wrong way round. The morality that religious teaching claims it gets from scripture is already built in to humans by evolution, and scripture got it from there in the first place. (Scripture seems to have introduced a lot of distortion and extraneous stuff as well, but that's probably another discussion.)

13. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104632 by PaulJ on December 29, 2007 at 3:20 am

In theory, under the Catholic Church's Canon Law 1172, all priests can perform exorcisms. But in reality only a select few are assigned the task.

Under the law, practitioners must have "piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life."

Plus, of course, "bell, book and candle."

Is anyone taking this man seriously? Unfortunately I suspect the answer is yes.

I'd be interested in what the (atheist in all but title) Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, thinks about the pope's latest initiative.

14. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100050 by PaulJ on December 18, 2007 at 6:29 am

Here's my vote for a Super-8 cine film version...

15. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #97134 by PaulJ on December 11, 2007 at 1:27 pm

This looks like something that Dr. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science should be taking up. http://www.badscience.net/

16. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #92881 by PaulJ on December 1, 2007 at 4:36 pm

So there you have it - an object lesson: if you make a statement of fact (however abstruse) in a published work, someone, somewhere, is going to check up on it.

17. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92486 by PaulJ on November 30, 2007 at 3:49 pm

This whole affair is so patently ludicrous I can't help thinking we haven't got the whole story. Something else must be going on. Goldy's comment above suggests what this might be:

I believe the demonstrations were being prepared before her trial.

18. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92478 by PaulJ on November 30, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Pope Benny strikes again!

Christian hope also meant protecting the planet, even if people felt powerless to make changes in their lifetimes, he said.

Why bother doing anything positive, when hope in God is all you need:

The Pope urged Christians to put their hope for a better future in God.

The Roman Catholic Church is on the run. Actually this is pretty weak stuff, if accurately represented in this article. And this 'encyclical' is supposed to be some kind of pronouncement from on high?

19. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92471 by PaulJ on November 30, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Didn't the poll ask about vampires, or voodoo? Or superstition generally - walking under ladders, touching wood, throwing salt over one's shoulder...? Seven years of bad luck for breaking a mirror? Crossing the path of a black cat?

Must go now - and put on my lucky shirt before I go out.

20. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92465 by PaulJ on November 30, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Excellent interview.

I wonder, however, if RD missed a point that the interviewer raised concerning the evolutionary explanation for religious belief. When discussing the tendency for children to believe what they're told by authority figures - such as parents - the interviewer asked about the notion that 'God loves you and will protect you' (I can't remember his exact words). I thought he was going to press RD for an explanation of how this particular belief, inculcated into children, would tend to increase their survival (when in fact it might lead them to act rashly). But the discussion moved quickly on to another aspect of TGD.

21. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91579 by PaulJ on November 28, 2007 at 3:27 pm

This is a truly disgraceful affair - and the more publicity it gets, the better. The patent nonsense of imagined 'offence' must be exposed for what it is: a ridiculous conceit that does not deserve to be entertained by any sane person.

The UK Government's response so far seems mealy-mouthed and weak. But then 'blasphemy' is still part of British law, despite it being a victimless crime.

One thing though - how is a teacher supposed to know that giving male children a particular name is perfectly fine, but giving a soft toy the same name is not? (I understand that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', but what is the law? Chapter and verse, please.)

22. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90406 by PaulJ on November 25, 2007 at 3:38 am

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

I don't see this at all. How or where the laws of physics originated (if indeed that's a meaningful question) isn't relevant to actual research. The scientific evidence suggests that the laws operate in a particular way. It's okay to say we don't know why, and there's very little (if any) 'faith' involved.

23. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90403 by PaulJ on November 25, 2007 at 3:18 am

Comment #90400 by Northern Bright:

For once, I agree wholeheartedly with the Archbishop of York:

The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, said: "Mr Blair's comments highlight the need for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would dismiss faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith."

Religion DOES play a larger role in shaping our country than many of us realise, and faith IS clearly more than a private affair. This is why faith, even when held privately, must be challenged at every opportunity.

Agreed. I've never understood the 'moderate' view that religion is only for private consumption. How can it be, since if it's held with any degree of conviction it must surely affect everything a person thinks and does?

24. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89237 by PaulJ on November 20, 2007 at 4:43 am

My recollection of the TV programme is that it showed a number of police officers participating at events in the mosque. It's not really surprising therefore that the police felt they had to protest - viewers might have inferred that the police were condoning hate-speech.

The police might have had legitimate concerns about the programme, but they certainly handled them badly. Their action appears to have given the programme plenty of extra publicity.

25. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #88434 by PaulJ on November 16, 2007 at 3:41 pm

(Well, maybe all those tutorials at Oxford helped a bit...)

I hope those tutorials weren't with someone like McGrath, who always seems (as here) to be delivering a lecture - albeit one with very little content.

26. For the glory of God

Comment #88416 by PaulJ on November 16, 2007 at 2:17 pm

When I saw Ground Zero for the first time, I was quite taken with that steel cross. But I didn't see it as any kind of miracle - I assumed that it was simply a piece of the building remains that someone had erected as a symbol. Hardly surprising to find such a thing in the wreckage - there must have been dozens of them.

(My recollection of the cross is that it was covered with inscriptions.)

27. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83903 by PaulJ on October 31, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Well, that about wraps it up for "not my religion."

What a breath of fresh air!

28. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83887 by PaulJ on October 31, 2007 at 2:41 pm

The Church teaches that artificial birth control, abortion and euthanasia are wrong. It holds that nothing should block the possible transmission of life, which it teaches starts at conception and ends at natural death.

If Pope Benny is including euthanasia in his list, then Catholics should 'conscientiously object' to dispensing anything that can cause death by overdose, such as sleeping pills, or even paracetamol.

What they ought to do, of course, is conscientiously object to being employed as pharmacists.

29. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83564 by PaulJ on October 30, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Just wait till the religious right find out the story has gay angels in it...

30. Face to faith

Comment #82881 by PaulJ on October 28, 2007 at 5:51 am

Consciousness, morality and existence itself are obvious candidates - the things that the artistic, religious and moral imagination are so well equipped to ponder.

Ponder away as much as you like, but pondering won't give you any answers.

31. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #82679 by PaulJ on October 27, 2007 at 7:56 am

Comment #82621 by mark8

Comment #79437 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Just received my copy of skeptics answered Lol, for the paltry fee of one dollar.
Let's see they may have produced the book for less than the dollar, but it still cost them $8.80 to post. Result.

Got mine too this morning. It's a depressing read. Kennedy announces what each chapter will do, and as I progressed through them, eagerly anticipating his devastating logic, each chapter came to an end while I still waited. The whole book begs the question. Full of Bible quotes, the truth of the Bible is proclaimed because ... it's in the Bible. It's also a decade old, first published in 1997, so it makes no reference to recent atheist tomes.

32. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #78969 by PaulJ on October 15, 2007 at 2:53 pm

People will believe anything. Did you see that guru chappie in The Enemies of Reason talking about the 'rockness' of a rock?

There's no arguing with some people. They have a mindset that appears impenetrable by ... anything.

33. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78639 by PaulJ on October 14, 2007 at 2:13 am

Watch Craig defend mass murder....


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

Utterly despicable. I feel unclean after reading Craig's piece.

34. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77533 by PaulJ on October 9, 2007 at 3:01 pm

My employer has just instructed every employee to complete a detailed nationality/race/religious belief questionnaire 'to make sure we're not discriminating against any minorities'.

Local authorities in the UK have been doing this for some years with people or organisations making planning applications (many of them use the same PR company's questionnaire).

I always leave the questions unanswered, but put a note to the effect that the best way of avoiding discrimination against any group is not to have information about which group you're dealing with. (It's impossible to discriminate when you can't distinguish between groups.)

35. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75446 by PaulJ on October 2, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Will there be video?

36. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75017 by PaulJ on October 1, 2007 at 11:15 am

Seems to me that it doesn't really matter what definition of 'theology' is used. RD's point is that he's being accused of not knowing the subject he's railing against. But if theology (however defined) doesn't deal with the question of the existence or non-existence of God or gods, then clearly he doesn't need to have studied it to make the points he makes in The God Delusion.

37. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68868 by PaulJ on September 9, 2007 at 1:35 am

In fact, Dawkins, the Oxford scientist who wrote "The God Delusion," is even selling young people "Scarlet Letter" tee-shirts with a giant "A" – for "atheist" – on his website (and bumper stickers too). Somehow, atheism – just like homosexuality, which used to be considered shameful and something to hide – is now becoming hip, sophisticated, enlightened, even a badge of honor.

The tone of this article is obviously transparent, and its 'facts' appear suspect. But speaking as one of the not-so-young, I wore my scarlet letter tee-shirt for one day at Dragon*Con (the world's largest annual science-fiction convention) in Atlanta last weekend, and it did get comments, despite the inevitable proliferation of tee-shirt graphics at such an event.

On a related matter, I noticed that the organizers of Dragon*Con had mischievously placed the Skeptics Society stand next to that of Fans for Christ.

38. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68547 by PaulJ on September 7, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Ho hum.

This article is the same old stuff: "Not my religion," and "Theology is too deep for the likes of you," plus the occasional ad hominem attack just to spice things up.

39. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #65906 by PaulJ on August 27, 2007 at 10:05 am

Here

We

Go

Again ....

This is so tiresome. Religions of all kinds are obviously so tenuously based that they can be toppled - or at least seriously endangered - by the slightest criticism or satire, or even a suspicious look.

40. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #65866 by PaulJ on August 27, 2007 at 7:03 am

Afghan MP Mirwais Yasini said: "To have a verse of the Koran on something you kick with your foot would be an insult in any Muslim country around the world."

Too shocking!

Honestly, this is beyond a joke. Offence should not be something that can be given, only taken. It's therefore entirely the taker's choice, and the 'giver' should not be held accountable.

"How dare you look at me with those eyes that you've used to look at ... whatever ...!"

I think Mango's comment, "lighten up" is entirely appropriate. These people could save themselves an awful lot of bother if they accepted that such concern over 'offence' really doesn't matter. Don't they have enough to worry about without all this petty stuff?

41. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65706 by PaulJ on August 25, 2007 at 11:02 pm

"bedevilled by sectarianism"

How apt!

Good article. Someone who has looked at the situation and is telling it how it is.

42. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #65611 by PaulJ on August 25, 2007 at 5:51 am

This is a strangely uninformative article. The (anonymous) poster obviously has opinions on the talk, but didn't expound on them, apart from some veiled comments about RD's passion (without giving examples) or RD looking 'uncomfortable'.

Whilst Dawkins acknowledged the work moderates must play, he described his own strategy in terms of forming a two pronged attack against such extremists. For once Richard Dawkins lacked a convincing answer.

Well, I wasn't there, but I'd like to hear something of the description of RD's strategy "...in terms of forming a two pronged attack against such extremists." But this article tells me nothing. RD "lacked a convincing answer"? From this article, who knows?

43. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65488 by PaulJ on August 24, 2007 at 1:06 pm

The only explanation, Rudnick said, is it's empty of matter.

Maybe it's empty of time and space as well. A white hole.

Or... it's where a black hole used to be.

On the other hand, it could just be ET using a cloaking device....

44. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64457 by PaulJ on August 20, 2007 at 6:01 am

There was a TV drama in the UK not so long ago (called "Perfect Parents" I think - there's a thread in the forums about it) that had an atheist couple faking Catholicism in order to get their daughter into such a school.

The daughter was a willing participant in the deception (she had a book called "Catholicism for Dummies" by her bedside, if memory serves).

45. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64433 by PaulJ on August 20, 2007 at 4:43 am

This is standard Catholic Aided School admissions policy - discrimination, not on the basis of the applicant, but of the applicant's parents' professed beliefs.

46. The Out Campaign: Interview with Josh Timonen

Comment #64282 by PaulJ on August 19, 2007 at 11:34 am

Thanks for your hard work here Josh. I enjoyed listening to the interview, and was pleased to discover you're checking your email every thirty seconds... ;-)

47. When did the police start collaring television?

Comment #62958 by PaulJ on August 12, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Hardly surprising that the police wish to condemn a TV programme in which they are shown to support the organisation portrayed.

Or are they just pandering to so-called religious sensibilities?

One good thing - this fuss will focus more attention on the programme.

48. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62819 by PaulJ on August 11, 2007 at 5:09 pm

Lynch's article has been pretty much kicked to death over at Pharyngula.

49. Believe it or not: the sceptics beat God in bestseller battle

Comment #62818 by PaulJ on August 11, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Good to see that last paragraph. Maybe the message is getting through at last...

50. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62398 by PaulJ on August 9, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Students will examine the nature of God as they progress in their understanding of mathematics. Students will understand the absolute consistency of mathematical principles and know that God was the inventor of that consistency.

Say it enough times, then surely it must be true....

Students will learn not to choose violence, jealousy or dishonesty, but to choose obedience.

"You will choose to obey. You WILL!"