1001. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84977 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 11:53 am

A Beattie quote about her book-

The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion - from the Introduction: In its war on religion, scientific rationalism constitutes the latest phase in the West's long history of domination by which it has sought to defeat every form of difference, including religious difference. The vast majority of the world's religious believers belong among non-Western cultures, and they include many millions of women whose views are seldom represented by their scholarly elites. This means that we need to cultivate a much greater awareness of both the limits and the oppressive effects of a debate dominated by the opinions of a small clique of white English-speaking men staging a mock battle about rationality and God, which fails to address the most significant humanitarian questions of our time. This includes the many different roles played by religion in sustaining and generating hope, meaning and creativity, without which we would be less than the humans we are.

1002. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84974 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 11:43 am

I keep my Flea books in the loo. They don't last very long.

I used to prefer to move with the Times, (I hate Rupert Murdoch), but this new material comes in a much handier size.

1003. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84971 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 11:39 am

Diacanu

Polly Toynbee and Martin Amis.

1004. AAI 07

Comment #84728 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 11:05 am

The term used in the UK is

"Health care, free at the point of delivery."

Its personal cost is clearly written on our wage slips.

1005. AAI 07

Comment #84725 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 10:45 am

NMcC

I'm a capitalist and I don't see a tax problem per se.

1006. Rome playing politics

Comment #84723 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 10:38 am

Viva Zapatero!

Grayling is getting better and better. I like his Hitch style joke at the end, but shouldn't it be-

[a conflict] between matador Zapatero and a load of Papal bull?

1007. AAI 07

Comment #84706 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 9:26 am

Logicel

Re: Chuck Feeney

I sure would like to meet him. I'd also be intrigued to find out when and why he gave $250,000 to Sinn Fein. Depending on the timing that donation might prove to be either his most or his least philanthropic act.

1008. AAI 07

Comment #84694 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 8:01 am

Steve

This is why I feel that representative democracy is the only way,

Agreed

On the narrow (!) issue of nuclear energy investment etc. we have to have experts who have experts working on our behalf. But I feel a formally derived set of indicators on voter desires about broad issues, personal taxation, corporate taxation, health spend , education spend etc. just helps everyone. It even helps ministers manage the unfortunate truths he feels the population has to face up to.

Poll results are rightly dismissed as of modest significance. A statistically devastating poll, open to the entire electorate, of scrupulous integrity and longevity, with fleshed out geographical detail would give politicians proper insight into voters minds for the first time, and also be the beginning of an educational process for the electorate as the economic facts of life are better laid bare for them by politicians and pundits.

[EDIT By simply asking the electorate for their view on selected items you may be forcing them for the first time to consider what their view actually is.]

1009. AAI 07

Comment #84682 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 7:21 am

Deeply sorry to hear your news, Scooter.

An epitaph I have always cherished is-

"To have been born at all is miracle enough."

Phil

1010. AAI 07

Comment #84681 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 7:18 am

Brian

Perhaps then initially as a recommendation, with league tables showing how closely government spending mirrors tax payer wishes?

Exactly! This stuff would be generated by the Office for National Statistics (in the UK), a body which should soon become independent of government like the Bank of England. The nature of the indexes would be the subject of parliamentary debate and added to as necessary.

1011. AAI 07

Comment #84669 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 7:01 am

Symbols of conspicuous consumption are essential. They tell me which way to run.

On the other hand a rich man or woman living inconspicuously is someone it would be worth talking to. Denied nothing, but choosing modesty, they likely know a thing or to about how to live a happy life.

1012. AAI 07

Comment #84664 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 6:49 am

Direct voter influence of taxation levels and governmental spending would be catastrophic. Carefully considered governmental budgets, balanced against a myriad different requirements would be trashed on a regular basis. The public can be fickle and can also be easily, if briefly, manipulated by non-democratic forces and random events.

What might work is a right as a voter to take part in a rolling poll of views on such topics. Carefully administered for neutrality of phrasing, these public indexes of formally and democratically collected opinion on where the various taxation and spending levels should be in various categories, could stand as a clear rebuke or endorsement of government or party policy.

Clearly and formally delineated public opinion could put an end to the daily misrepresentation of the peoples actual wishes by politicians and media alike and better hold them to account.

1013. AAI 07

Comment #84463 by phil rimmer on November 2, 2007 at 5:07 am

Scooter

Your question is to assume that I'm not having fun.

Not in the least. I rather had in mind a discussion about life choices, possibly discussing whether aspiring to a "dream job" with a high risk of failing is socially irresponsible. In short, whether a more aspirational workforce, brought about by the lower risk of failure in a more safety-netted society, might pay societal dividends?

The nice dichotmy to be made here is that a "good" job that pays well and gives you the largest personal safety net is to be contrasted with the "dream" job that may not guarantee an ideal personal safety net but gets you springing out of bed in the morning.

1014. AAI 07

Comment #84311 by phil rimmer on November 1, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Scooter, may I try another tack?

Do you love your job? If you could re-train might you change? Whats the risk of trying for something better? Something more fun?

1015. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #84212 by phil rimmer on November 1, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Miracles overlap.

1016. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #84209 by phil rimmer on November 1, 2007 at 12:26 pm

No one was ever born religious...

1017. AAI 07

Comment #84195 by phil rimmer on November 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Scooter

Is there anyway in which we can help the kids and still hold their delinquent parents to account?

1018. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #84179 by phil rimmer on November 1, 2007 at 11:32 am

If Professor Chris Heard is reading, or someone knows how to contact him, it would be great to get his view on this article.

I wouldn't expect him to come to such a vehement conclusion, but he could certainly comment on any errors in Edmund Standing's arguments, if they exist.

Having said that, endorsement would be lovely.

1019. AAI 07

Comment #84135 by phil rimmer on November 1, 2007 at 9:02 am

scooter

Better to show them how to fashion one themselves and allow them the respect of thinking they can rather than insulting them by just giving them the pole.

Great answer. Giving them EDUCATION is the best way of helping people. It helps them help themselves. And this is one of your main theses here isn't it? It feels great to be in control of your own life. And you are more likely to solve your own problems in future, if you have had success in solving previous problems.

Now this gift of education you've just given in the example above, does it come from taxes or from private charitable giving? I guess you'll approve of the latter, but if ALL tax dollars used to help the needy were guaranteed to have a substantial element of education for self-empowerment would that help matters for you?

1020. AAI 07

Comment #84069 by phil rimmer on November 1, 2007 at 5:34 am

scooter

I can't believe I finally have to say this, but teach a person to fish, stop giving the fish....

...and give them a fishing rod/pole.

1021. AAI 07

Comment #83930 by phil rimmer on October 31, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Steve,

I don't think they are. At least, I've come across a number of Libertarian atheists before. Goodness, the Mother of [EDIT] Objectivism was an atheist herself and saw it as an essential conclusion that all should come to.

They're both pretty much toeing the Libertarian line.

[EDIT due to writing bollocks. Tired]

1022. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83926 by phil rimmer on October 31, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Delicious article.

Edmund Standing holds a BA in Theology & Religious Studies and an MA in Critical & Cultural Theory

At least his education moved on to some more useful areas. We owe him for his earlier sacrifice.

1023. AAI 07

Comment #83916 by phil rimmer on October 31, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Brian

Easy peasy. Tax the arse of earnings...

Exactly. Taxation is a legitimate lever given to government. In seeking to curb CEO rewards you make capitalists wary of people wading in to right wrongs within the business community, and breaking things in an effort to fix them.

If you want to curb excess wealth Tax. If you want to curb CEO rewards (and there are abuses of shareholder interests) there are some great ways of enhancing accountability that none but charlatans should complain of.

Social engineering is not ignoble, but until we have a clear consensus of what needs to be achieved at an individual and societal level we can't begin to discuss the fine details of capitalism or the welfare state. [EDIT] like I've just done.....sorry

1024. AAI 07

Comment #83908 by phil rimmer on October 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Nice (emotional!) post VHD.

Rand's most glaring error is the tabula rasa view of the human mind. She would have loved Mr Spock from Star Trek.

Anyone prepared to take a pop at my second question about fearfulness?

1) How does society get to make the most of its human resources?
2) How does the relative happiness or fearfulness of a population affect the result?

Can I suggest that we try not to get into specific examples before trying to delineate a bit of philosophy? Things seem to deteriorate rapidly after specific examples are posted as argument.

So, a happy population seems a good idea, but does it lead to greater average prosperity? Does it lead to reduced ambition and lower national competitiveness? Would that be a good trade-off? Is it an ambition appropriate for governments? What about its converse, fearfulness?

Brian?
Notsobad?
Anyone?

1025. AAI 07

Comment #83784 by phil rimmer on October 31, 2007 at 9:13 am

The bottom line is we decide what the scale of CEO earnings should be, taxation and labour laws, and we commission the relevant legislation to make that happen.

Careful! The CEO earnings thing cannot reasonably be legislated directly. Capitalist activity better decides a value for things. Is the issue not about ground rules of accountability to shareholders?

1026. AAI 07

Comment #83761 by phil rimmer on October 31, 2007 at 6:56 am

I think a lot of people are watching this thread. I personally think this is the most important one we've had so far, because its about how we live our lives.

Lest I mislead anyone I have to declare my views , pertinent to this post, are as follows-

1) I would rather live (and do) in Steve99's and Veronique's world than Scooter's.
2) From Scooter's earlier post about himself he comes across as an entirely honourable person of scrupulous integrity. (Though I am concerned about some of the posts.)
3) My cultural heroes are the, inventor, industrialist, social reforming men of the Enlightenment. They invented our modern life and generated the wealth with which to pay for it.

I strongly suspect that contributors here are expressing views about how life should be, based on how life has been for them. Emotions prevail over all our choices.

Scooter did everything right. He got to where he is by his own efforts. He is rightly dismayed and angered by freeloaders, who consciously sought to better themselves at the expense of the hard-working and the virtuous.

I got to where I am after screwing up at least once. I left university with a science degree and the prospect of heading towards industry (which was hateful at the time. Accountants were just taking hold and cutting out the capital-consuming cancer of creativity) I taught at art college for a while then became an actor. Actors spend a lot of their time "resting" (out of work) and at the time would "sign on" (to receive "dole" money). I was a BAD actor and reluctantly rested quite a lot. BUT, I discovered what I wanted, i.e. being collectively creative with others. Whilst resting I worked harder than I have ever done, learned emotional truths about building teams and formed a vision of how I could do this collective creativity thing for the rest of my life AND get paid. The plan worked (eventually) and I am surrounded by a team of brilliant minds in a small technology company. I'm a happy and productive bunny.

Key questions to ask ourselves are-

1) How does society get to make the most of its human resources?
2) How does the relative happiness or fearfulness of a population affect the result?
3) If emotions are irretrievably woven into the human psyche can we afford to discount them in any discussion of an ideal society?
4) Does emotional = irrational?
5) Can we discuss emotions rationally?

I think a discussion of society's failures (I mean individuals who fail), whilst hugely important, is an item that should be discussed after answering the first two key questions. And after that is the discussion about dealing with the cheaters. (Scooter may want to reverse this order.)

1027. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #83627 by phil rimmer on October 30, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Hi, Paul.

Welcome back. Hope all is well?

I guess we'll have to disagree over House. I think its a mark of the clever writing of a cryptic character that allows us to project our different views on to him.

Whilst you were away there was an episode of House on the TV (Five US?) that I thought absolutely confirmed my view of him. Sadly I can't remember it clearly now... (It was the last of the ones where he is asked to fire one of his team by the "nasty", drug-company boss. He argues for an abortion to save a man's wife, then after she deteriorates he argues to save the child, or some such.)

I must admit, however, his social skills are appalling, borderline Asperger's....

1028. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83597 by phil rimmer on October 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm

But if you mean that you accept the "love your enemies" precept as long as it does not contradict any of the other ethical precepts you consider stronger.

I greatly appreciate your plate juggling in dealing with so many issues on this thread. Truly, though I feel the answers to your queries were already in #542.

Despite "loving my enemy" if there is a greater good to be done I may kill him. I may kill the one I love, "though it break my heart".

Your weasel-worded alternatives spoke of "returning no evil". No! We are discussing loving one's enemy. No contradiction, whatsoever in the rejection of your phrase above, or in both loving AND killing one's enemy.

Please, please unpick the logic of the FIRST paragraph of #542.

1029. AAI 07

Comment #83306 by phil rimmer on October 29, 2007 at 3:07 pm

190. Comment #83299 by mejdrich

But a cause and effect mechanism has been mooted here i.e., the USA is so religious BECAUSE of the lack of tax funded social support.

Is this possibly true, at least, to some extent?

If it is, you can vote to change your healthcare system. You can't vote those churches off your streets.

1030. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #83294 by phil rimmer on October 29, 2007 at 2:30 pm

An elegant hypothesis in favour of the second law of thermodynamics actually driving the local accumulation of complexity rather than merely dissipating it is as follows-

The 2nd law seeks (sorry for the anthropomorphism) to arrive at the "heat death" of the universe, when the energy state of all things will be the same and no further action will become possible.

By the principle of least action the 2nd law achieves this through the most efficient means, e.g. heat flows most between the parts of greatest temperature difference, not via less effective routes.

Complex process (or processes with complex structures) can be more efficient in "using up" available (i.e. useful energy.) A pan of water, heated from below, for instance, will exhibit the creation of hexagonal convection cells as this is a more efficient means to transfer the heat energy.

By extension, the argument goes, life is a means by which the end of the universe can be hurried along.

Now anthropogenic global warming makes a whole lot more sense!

1031. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83260 by phil rimmer on October 29, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Incidentally, it's horribly patronising to give up your seat to somebody who is merely old.

I agree. Its all about sensing distress and offering discretely.

My mother always taught me to stand up for women. Feminists soon cured me of that. And quite rightly.

1032. AAI 07

Comment #83247 by phil rimmer on October 29, 2007 at 12:39 pm

notsobad

Of course, disabled and such deserve to be taken care of by the rest of the society, but people who ruined their lives - and often lives of others - do not.

Ah, with those "others" you speak the truth. We are so often NOT the authors of our own misfortune. We can get fucked over not only by circumstance but also by the desperate and the greedy.

1033. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83189 by phil rimmer on October 29, 2007 at 8:09 am

Would you stand up for an old man? I do.

In my head, its all about seeing need, I think. My guilty secret is that I like the smile it elicits. It can make me feel good all day.

1034. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83051 by phil rimmer on October 28, 2007 at 5:56 pm

32,000 years ago the number of old people suddenly quadrupled in the fossil record. Speech probably became sufficiently sophisticated that their accumulated wisdom could be usefully shared. Scientists and historians were born. They were feted and fed. After two years, however, they'd run out of wisdom. (They've told the one about getting water from the glacier in the mountains and how to stun a gazelle.) No, to make it to a ripe old, and well-fed, age they have to start making things up, powerful, impressive things. An endless list of them. Religion and priests are born and real veneration of the old begins, and so does metaphorical standing up.

Genetic selection to learn from the elderly confers a few extra genuine points of knowledge that in turn confer extra reproductive fitness. Memetic propensity to learn from the elderly confers a mass of gobbledy gook and the techniques to generate more of it that in its turn confers years more of well-fed meme spreading.

The parasite of religion may well have served us proud for 30,000 years. For the last 2,000, however, the balance between fact and fiction didn't change as fast as it could have done.

More recently, we stand up because we see discomfort, because we see ourselves, because we can say thank you for their generation's contribution to our generation.

1035. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83039 by phil rimmer on October 28, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Cheers, Doc, and bonne chance.

Love, Philomena

1036. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83008 by phil rimmer on October 28, 2007 at 1:51 pm

534. Comment #82967 by Dianelos Georgoudis

My problem is that I cannot see what logical sense the ethical precept "love your enemies" can make to an atheist.

But you never unpick my arguments. Saying you fail to see the logic of my arguments is a cop-out. Where precisely does the logic fail? That I want my kids to be happy? That I don't want to bequeath my enemies to them? That the strongest solution I can conceive is to unmake my enemies as enemies if I can? That to stand the best chance, I wish to engage with them as brethren with the same concerns as me for their loved ones? That the only way I know how to do this is to earnestly strive to love them? (When face to face, you can't fake it.) Just where?

Does the logic fail simply because of the results of your experience?

Logic appears to tell me that if (whether few or many it doesn't matter) people started really loving their enemies the world would become a more dangerous place as other people would take advantage of that kind of behavior which they will perceive as weakness. In my own life, when I was actually nicer to people than the call of duty as it were, the results were ambiguous at best.

I'm deeply sorry to hear this. They must have been quite formative experiences for you to mention them here. As I explained in an earlier post, I was lucky enough (it would seem) to have enemies turn to friends. Why might it have worked out well for me? Perhaps because we recognized each other and the mirror image of our situations. Maybe our mirror neurons did the trick? Maybe, being greeted one day by an unexpected and genuine smile or a heartfelt comment about their kids, just kicked off a whole reinforcing process?

Can you love someone and then kill them? You sure can. It could be someone in horrific agony. Someone whose humanity has disappeared, a father on a life-support machine, or a spouse turned mad axe-man, or a brother with dynamite strapped to his chest looking for the nearest busy market. A betraying lover or would-be lover...

Can you love them at the moment of killing them? Sometimes. (I hasten to add, my ex-lovers are all alive and well.)

The ethical precept is not "return no evil except in the following cases: a) if brutally attacked, b) if by killing somebody you save several lives, c) etc. etc). Neither is it "love your enemies, or at least their children after you eliminate their parents".

We agree. The ethical precept is "Love your Enemy". I reject out of hand all your proffered weasel-worded alternatives.

We surely agree, that other ethical precepts are in play also? It is the simple fact of the existence of these that subverts the first precept from being simply a Pacifist's charter. I WILL fight and kill for the greater good. But I know I will also have my heart broken.

Can we love the dead? Sure. Look after their kids and make them proud of their parents. Is this logical? Wonderfully pragmatic!

1037. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82546 by phil rimmer on October 26, 2007 at 4:52 pm

468. Comment #81947 by Dianelos Georgoudis

The pretense discussion was a misapprehension of mine. I had it in mind that you were intimating pretense on my part. It seems I imagined that. Apologies. Equally wrong was the Wilde aphorism you quoted. I didn't intend that at all, but just let it pass. I intended only that the seeming paradox of love your enemy was like a typical paradox of Wilde's used in his aphorisms.

Sham, therefore, was unnecessary also. Consider it dropped.

The rest I am disappointed in. As ever you miss the meat rather more catastrophically than I do.

You miss that an atheist may love his children, care for their happiness, which will in turn possibly depend on children of their own. Bringing children into an unsafe world is a great motivator for self-sacrifice. (The childless, too, may well invest emotionally in adopted, fostered or otherwise related kids.) Not a hint from you that this chain of love is quite the match for the christian one you quoted...sky daddy loves you so s'pose we must too.

Your keenness not to engage with this is curious. Further, you completely fail to acknowledge that I gave two rational reasons why, if one's enemy becomes the mad-axeman, the more moral action (given the issue of time and the number of others at risk) may be to kill him. (On another thread on the same theme I proposed an improvement on Love your Enemy, to whit, "Strive to love your Enemy. If you can't, cherish his children.")

I shouldn't be surprised at your hasty disengagement really. I think you just stubbed your toe on the uncomfortable fact that an atheist (a Pod Person, for chrissakes!) had a fully logical reason to hold moral convictions you thought only possible for a Christian.

Ah, but no. I am not a rock you hit. I am a string of words from outside your head. And you always did have problems with third person data, didn't you?

1038. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81376 by phil rimmer on October 24, 2007 at 4:26 pm

439. Comment #81174 by Teratornis

What could be more loving than bringing people to their maker.

"Onward, Christian soldiers. Mete out that tough love!"

"Love thine enemy", always seemed a scary prospect on the lips of a religite. I hope less so from an aging hippy who, as a student, had THAT picture of a flower in a gun barrel on his wall.

1039. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81340 by phil rimmer on October 24, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Dianelos,

(429. Comment #81140 )

I'll try and join the dots for you.

Pretense is an interesting issue. C.S.Lewis was all for it. Answering, "How does one become a Christian?", he replies, "First pretend. Going through the motions of what it is to be a Christian, you will wake up one morning to discover you are no longer pretending." This is how we might change any aspect of our lives. We first imagine ourselves with a skill, with a lover, with a more peaceful life…The seeds of a desire are strengthened and refined through our ability to imagine this future state. This is pretense with an earnest intention to become.

There are enough clues in my few sentences to show that sham doesn't and will never "cut it" for me. It is not sustainable in a relationship. A good life, the life we would wish for ourselves, flows. Lies as much as enemies create turbulence and steal quality, and a dishonest desire will as like bring a dishonest response.

"I wish to be loved. I will hate my enemy." This is reciprocal??

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If this is only for in-group as you imply, then it's a pretty tarnished Rule.

Why strive for love when something lesser will do? Many answers, but try these-

1)To truly fix the problem for my children's children I must end up in a relationship with my enemy that is "inheritable" by our respective descendants. The stronger the relationship, the better the result.
2)It takes love to approach something truly repellent.
3)Love, or at least, desiring it, is disarming, indeed shocking to the potential object of your desire.
4)To be loved.

Hitchens sees a (metaphorical) mad axe-man running at his wife and kids. He may be right. His argument is routed in a specific instance. Mine is quite general encompassing enemies from individuals to nations and supra-national groupings. The differences hinge as much on a perception of available time. Other "Goods" are to be done apart from striving to love your enemy. Given the complexity of trying to balance these, his best and my best will inevitably differ.

1040. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80970 by phil rimmer on October 23, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Dianelos

so I am really curious to understand how two atheists could arrive at such diametrically opposed moral beliefs.

Your God, you're right! How is it people unfettered by dogma and proud to be free thinkers could arrive at a different set of moral beliefs?? Is it possible that atheism isn't actually a set of beliefs after all??

I see also from the tone of your post that you doubt my sincerity. That speaks volumes....

Loving your enemy....you see now I'm sorely tested.

I hate having enemies. They steal my life just by existing. I wish them gone.

The injunction, to love your enemy, is like that injunction simply to be good, an impossible challenge, but always worth the effort. It is a Wildean paradox that smacks you in the face and sticks in the brain. Its roots lie in the live-and-let-live, reciprocal philosophies of Epicurus and Confucius. Subsequently it received its familiar formulation when offered to a people subject to an enlightened occupying force.

I simply discovered that by imagining my enemies as friends they could often become so. Rivals often have good reason to be similar. Motivations can be entirely congruent.

The joy and effectiveness of collegiate working has been the big discovery of my life. As stewards of the fading, pale blue dot we must work together as never before. If I possibly can, I will strive to have helped set in train long term solutions. But, if I bequeath my enemies to my children I have wasted time, and taken us closer to the edge. Killing my enemy makes my son his son's enemy. Someone has to plan an end. We must all think that is our responsibility,

Loving the man and hating the poison in his head makes perfect sense. Given time and the gift of rational dialogue, metaphorically swapping family photos, the poison may well be drained leaving a happier residue.

Time, sadly, is the key. The proverbial mad axe-man running at my wife and kids, will undoubtedly result in me committing my first murder. The injunction to do good prevails over that of loving my enemy.

1041. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80793 by phil rimmer on October 23, 2007 at 4:03 am

Dianelos

it only makes sense within a theistic understanding of reality

You [EDIT] [EDIT} tinker! Why would you use a perfectly good brain to misrepresent what I said?

Hitchens challenge remains unanswered.

I, in effect, substitute love of mankind, love of my childrens children for love of God, and that gets me, personally, to the same place, to whit- striving to love my enemy.

Hitchens challenge remains unanswered.

1042. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80757 by phil rimmer on October 23, 2007 at 1:35 am

Let me posit a better injunction.

Love your enemy. If you can't. Love his children.

[Edit]Oops. That really doesn't come across well does it? I'll try and phrase it a little more clearly later.

1043. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80754 by phil rimmer on October 23, 2007 at 1:18 am

Dr B.

When everything is loved, nothing is loved.

Absolutely true, but as a personal challenge it has allowed me to distinguish a good man with a slightly infected mind from someone with a bomb and after my blood. Happily, in the latter case, love flies out the window. In the former case I may actually make things better, if not for me, then my children. I don't wish to bequeath them needless enemies.

1044. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80690 by phil rimmer on October 22, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Dammit. A few minutes ago an intelligent religite(? well he hasn't passed the Turing test) just posted this-

"Love your enemies". Now Hitchens himself wouldn't make that statement of course, but why couldn't any other atheist make it? Because it only makes sense within a theistic understanding of reality, within a reality in which all people are loved by God and therefore deserve our love too no matter what, a reality in which all people are literally our siblings in spirit.

as a riposte to the Hitchens challenge. An absolutist view of atheists and very, very insulting.

Trouble is Hitchens would have screwed this one up for me...

1045. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80687 by phil rimmer on October 22, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Dianelos

"Love your enemies". Now Hitchens himself wouldn't make that statement of course, but why couldn't any other atheist make it? Because it only makes sense within a theistic understanding of reality, within a reality in which all people are loved by God and therefore deserve our love too no matter what, a reality in which all people are literally our siblings in spirit.

Oh Please!

I seem to have posted this a little over 24 hours ago on another thread-

Re prayer- I introspect endlessly on my actions and my beliefs hoping to do better. Re forgiving enemies- I strive continually to do so and have been rewarded handsomely for it.

and last time I looked I was still an atheist.

What weird, weird ideas you religites do have.

PS. Anyway, with brother Bonobo my family seems to be bigger than yours.

1046. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80681 by phil rimmer on October 22, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Riley,

I'm afraid Hitchens really doesn't come across to me as you describe. Maybe I didn't listen carefully enough or I misapprehended his intention and heard what I wanted to hear.... Or maybe I got it right. I'll certainly listen with greater care next time he issues his challenge.

However when fantasy Hitchens said "See-eee!!! not one of them can answer my challenge!" I distinctly heard, ""Nyaaa,na na nyaa na."

Tell me I'm not wrong. :-)

1047. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80640 by phil rimmer on October 22, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Steve99, Denoir,

Whilst it seems somewhat marginal to suggest that Quantum randomness may actually intrude into brain processes, another random process exists that seemingly might.

Thermal noise.

Here's an abstract fro the June 1987 Quarterly Review of Biology.

"Thermal Noise and Biological Information"
Horton A. Johnson

"Thermal noise limits the efficiency of all information-handling systems. This principle, which is a routine consideration in electronics, is just as fundamental to the handling of highly specific information by living organisms. The rapid basal turnover rates of cells and intracellular proteins and the high energy consumption of regulatory organs, previously unaccounted for, can be explained to a large extent by the need to compensate for the steady loss of essential information due to thermal noise."

It would seem possible that other sorts of cell might also be affected.

Rather nice that Horton A, should write about Johnson noise...

1048. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80628 by phil rimmer on October 22, 2007 at 11:22 am

158. Comment #80324 by Riley on October 21

phil rimmer: Hitchens would deride a sensible answer??
riley: Yes. Waffle, waffle. No (sic)
phil rimmer: But you already provided a good response with your fantasy Sharpton.
riley: And fantasy Hitchens would go, "Nyaaa,na na nyaa na."

Riley, if he did you have my permission to throw rotten eggs at him, and I would gladly hand them to you.

But, none of your fantasy has happened. Somehow I think you underestimate the intelligence of Hitchens AND his opponents.

1049. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80401 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Bluejway

Re: Reason

Doubt is reasonable.
Corroborated evidence is reasonable.

You don't doubt doubt is reasonable, do you?

1050. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #80373 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 1:51 pm

65. Comment #79588 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Brian.
Stonkingly good! Eloquent. Elegant.