Comments by fides_et_ratio

Comment #151966 by fides_et_ratio on March 29, 2008 at 7:14 pm

118. Comment #151857 by Hobbit on March 29, 2008 at 3:09 pm

If my child is sick, I take her to the doctor. I think everyone should do that. All the Catholics I know would do the same. In fact we believe in the effectiveness of medicine so much that we establish hospitals and hospices etc. 'faith head', keep thinking freely eh.

102. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151770 by fides_et_ratio on March 29, 2008 at 10:58 am

Steve, eating healthily and thinking freely are incompatable for the purposes of analogy of the type you used.

Furthermore, if you continually tell a child that she is thinking freely so that she repeats the statement in a mantra like fashion, she really isn't thinking freely. Free thought isn't a statement, it's a state of mind.

If you want to discuss whether or not someone should have the freedom to NOT "think freely", so that if they are told to "think freely", then that is a form of repression of free thought, then I am going to have to reach for the aspirin.

I think you seem to be a little confused on this issue Steve. I haven't argued the position that you're attributing to me. For the purposes of clarity, children don't think freely because you tell them to, they do it because an environment is created that enables them to think freely. For the record though, I don't think any such environment truly exists. In fact, I don't think I've ever met anyone who truly thinks freely, and if such a person thinks they do, I'd love to know how they know that they do. I'd also suggest a period of psychoanalysis, to disabuse them of the notion that their minds operate free from any baggage. If the mind, thought, is affected by relatively minor things such as a nice latte, any perceived freedom really needs to be questioned more than it seems to be by many here.

103. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151648 by fides_et_ratio on March 29, 2008 at 6:09 am

Steve,

Try this analogy:

Sounds like someone with influence is telling this girl that she has a good diet, and that a good diet is good. Can you really eat healthily if you are told you should?

This analogy just doesn't work at all. It's not the same thing. If you said that someone told her she must eat her greens, therefore it's not her choice to eat healthily, you'd be closer to the point I think.

104. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151403 by fides_et_ratio on March 28, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Critical Thinking

Our local Catholic schools teach this at A level. In fact it's compulsory for high achieving students.

I like to think freely, but still I can really think freely whenever I want 'cause I think thinking freely is good

Sounds like someone with influence is telling this girl that she's thinking freely, and that thinking freely is good. Can you really think freely if you're told to and can you really think it's good if you're told to think it's good?

105. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151370 by fides_et_ratio on March 28, 2008 at 2:58 pm

I would imagine that thinking freely means there are no ideas that are not allowed.

If you think thinking is just about ideas then I think you're already on the wrong path.

Having said that, which ideas to you introduce, in which order and which do you reinforce (by weekly meetings for example) to encourage 'free-thinkin'.

106. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151352 by fides_et_ratio on March 28, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Good to hear that young Jane's thinking freely. What does that mean though?

107. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149640 by fides_et_ratio on March 26, 2008 at 3:29 am

Atheism does not "lead" to anything specific. It is not a doctrine

If athiesm doesn't lead to anything specific, such as a better world than theism for example, then I wish you'd all agree on that and stop saying that it does.

108. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149630 by fides_et_ratio on March 26, 2008 at 2:59 am

The legislation emanates from a "militantly atheist and secularist lobby"? Oh yes, that would be it. Haven't you seen them on the streets and on your screens, all got up in their God Is Dead, Christians Should be Deader atheist headbands and red robes, burning Bibles, insisting on the teaching of Dawkins and Hitchens in school RS lessons, smashing icons and creeping up behind bishops and lifting their cassocks?

The irony of him using secular lobbyists to deny the existence of a secular lobby was consistent with the...

what Dr Wright and Cardinal O'Brien really seem to want is to tell the rest of us how to live.

...comment at the end. Cardinal O Brien was calling for MPs to be given a free vote. It's this sort of oppresive, intolerant behaviour that athiesm inevitable leads to, and that seems to be a mark of the secularist lobby in this country. It roughly translates as, 'religious people shouldn't have an opinion because...well... because they're religious and their opinion differs from mine', as it seeks to tell people how to live. It' a secularist lobby that Aaronovitch is both fully aware of, and fully a part of despite his extravagant denial.

109. John Templeton: God's sugar daddy

Comment #148571 by fides_et_ratio on March 23, 2008 at 10:09 am

8. Comment #148563 by Verylee on March 23, 2008 at 9:56 am

I apologise for not being clearer

No worries, I genuinely got the impression that you didn't follow his train of thought. I'm not a Septic, so should pick up on irony.

110. John Templeton: God's sugar daddy

Comment #148552 by fides_et_ratio on March 23, 2008 at 9:31 am

2. Comment #148494 by Verylee on March 23, 2008 at 7:58 am

Am I misunderstanding something here?

It would seems so. The following definition of love might help.

'Love is always patient and kind; love is never jealous; love is not boastful or conceited, it is never rude and never seeks its own advantage, it does not take offence or store up grievances. Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but finds its joy in the truth. It is always ready to make allowances, to trust, to hope and to endure whatever comes. Love never comes to an end.'

Happy Easter.

111. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148516 by fides_et_ratio on March 23, 2008 at 8:39 am

In all fairness, this seems a rather confused, poorly constructed article which is going nowhere with little idea how to get there. On the plus side though, it is short and it's not about PZ Myers being expelled from a film.

112. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145736 by fides_et_ratio on March 18, 2008 at 4:11 am

One of the things I'm grateful to this site for, is that it points me in the direction of so many valuable resources. I've just visited chirstianitytoday.com, it's a really positive website and quite attractive as a result. Well worth a peep.

113. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #145360 by fides_et_ratio on March 17, 2008 at 2:05 pm

134. Comment #145208 by Tyler Durden on March 17, 2008 at 11:16 am

You didn't sign off by caling me a prick this time, does that mean we're now approaching cordial terms?

114. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #145065 by fides_et_ratio on March 17, 2008 at 8:12 am

'I doubt if any educated intelligent person really believes in God.'

'There are about 3 or 4 good scientists in Britain who are genuinely religious.'

I wonder how RD reconciles these two opposing statements. Any suggestions?

115. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144965 by fides_et_ratio on March 17, 2008 at 5:41 am

I think the problem here is independent faith schools.

Which ones?

If any schools are doing this it should be challenged in my view. I'd also be interested to know what ofsted makes of this if it is happening.

116. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144955 by fides_et_ratio on March 17, 2008 at 5:05 am

66. Comment #144934 by Steve Zara on March 17, 2008 at 4:13 am

I see it as a major problem. This is not two alternative rational viewpoints that are being debated.

In that sense, I agree, they shouldn't be treated in a science classroom as two equal views on scientific matters. I was thinking more that it is a good thing that pre-conceived ideas are being challenged in schools. A result of learners having to evaluate and justify their thinking is generally regarded as a good thing in eduation as it develops reasoning. The degree to which students are prepared to evaluate their thinking seems to depend on the degree to which they engage with a subject. In this sense I think that 'er indoors could view the challenges posed by her students' prejudices as positives in the classroom.

The use of holy books to provide answers to scientific questions really has to stop.

I agree.

117. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144932 by fides_et_ratio on March 17, 2008 at 4:08 am

63. Comment #144924 by epeeist on March 17, 2008 at 3:58 am

Sorry, who's SWMBO?

She has noticed some increase in the religiosity of some of the girls and a consequent increase in the reaction against well accepted theories that go against teaching in the Qu'ran.

I don't see this as a problem, in fact I'd take it as a positive. Students are more likely to learn when they fully engage with a subject, and it sounds like they are starting to engage more. I'd be happy if this was my class.

118. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144898 by fides_et_ratio on March 17, 2008 at 2:44 am

I thought the teaching of evolution was a statutory element of the national curriculum. In which case, it has to be taught in all state-funded schools.

I wouldn't take too much notice of the above report, the musings of cabbies are sometimes amusing but they look out of place on this site.

119. Fleabytes

Comment #143419 by fides_et_ratio on March 14, 2008 at 5:23 am

5167. Comment #143409 by epeeist on March 14, 2008 at 5:15 am

But it's cold up there, Wapping's much warmer.

120. Fleabytes

Comment #143397 by fides_et_ratio on March 14, 2008 at 5:02 am

5120. Comment #143198 by Richard Morgan on March 13, 2008 at 3:56 pm

How about a nice coffee shop in London?

121. Fleabytes

Comment #142190 by fides_et_ratio on March 12, 2008 at 6:14 am

4673. Comment #142135 by Richard Morgan on March 12, 2008 at 3:51 am

Thanks for that. Alistair McGrath says something similar. Evidence for why people believe what they believe, as well as the effects of this belief, is a more productive approach for us all to take I think.

122. Fleabytes

Comment #142026 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 4:00 pm

robotoholic. I wish you all the best. If it doesn't work with the antabuse don't despair there are other ways. Try not to close your mind to the possibility of AA. I've had the good fortune to have a lot to do with AA over the years and as I said earlier, whilst there are many who believe in God in AA, there are many who don't. It is by no means a condition of membership. More importantly, to someone who suffers from alcoholism rather than merely being a heavy drinker, the most important thing is to find freedom from alcohol and AA seems to be the most effective way of doing that. There was a grain of truth in epeeist's post about finding like minded people. If you're an alcoholic there's no more ready supply of those than in AA, both theist and atheist in their outlook. The suggestion I'd add to those on here already, is to beware of suggestions about alcoholism from those with no personal experience of the illness. It's a well meaning, but dangerous game they play. I've heard my family talk about how much they know about alcoholism. I don't argue, just listen. They know lots about the effects of alcoholism but not the inherent fear and low self worth, and complete inability to control their drinking that alcoholism entails.

All the best.

Mark.

123. Fleabytes

Comment #141970 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm

4598. Comment #141961 by al-rawandi on March 11, 2008 at 1:26 pm

The power of belief as a positive most definately has been contested here. In fact it's the only real point of discussion for any of this. A discussion on God's existence is destined to go nowhere but round many roundabouts, and result in heads crashing repeatedly against walls.

124. Fleabytes

Comment #141960 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm

4545. Comment #141869 by Tyler Durden on March 11, 2008 at 10:01 am et al.

Sorry just finishing work after my last post. I was responding to a post from Steve Zara about the irrationality of faith in God. The most succesful method of treating alcoholism is the 12 step programme of AA. Whilst there are many in AA who don't believe in God, there are many more who have found freedom from alcoholism as a result of developing a relationship with their Higher Power in prayer.

Should've added that the wisdom of many people of faith is another factor in helping to persuade me of the truth of God's existence.

125. Fleabytes

Comment #141815 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 8:53 am

It's irrational for a recovering alcoholic not to pray.

I find evidence for God's existence in supposed coincidence, and the moral awareness of Catholicism that is lacking in secular society. As I'm not a scientist I leave science to those that study it and assume that, as many scientists believe in God, there's no conflict there anyway. At their core thay are both a search for the truth, I'm happy with that.

126. Fleabytes

Comment #141768 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 7:15 am

4273. Comment #140883 by Steve Zara on March 9, 2008 at 3:13 am

An interesting question. I came on here originally as a result of the frustration I felt at reading TGD. I've stayed as I've found it educational. My knowledge of science ranges somewhere from slim to non-existent, so I've enjoyed learning from the scientists and science articles posted on here. In terms of engaging in conversations, I'm motivated by misrepresentations of my Faith, and by the irrationality of some who claim reason as their standard. I've encountered lots of reasonable and some extremely intelligent people on here, I've also come across many who are definately undeserving of the term 'Bright' that Prof. Dawkins would like to bestow on them.

In addition, I've only just found this thread. I thought Paula's dismisal of McGrath was insufficient. It was an evidenced-based piece of work that was very well referenced. Portraying it as mere rhetoric is inaccurate at best.

127. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139573 by fides_et_ratio on March 6, 2008 at 5:51 am

So the Archbishop discussing religious law being incorporated in civil law, which has some basis in religious law, is as relevant as the president of the NFU discussing the same. I disagree.

128. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139562 by fides_et_ratio on March 6, 2008 at 4:59 am

82. Comment #139485 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 1:11 am

And when he speaks on matters affecting inter-faith dialogue such as the ones mentioned in the programme, his views carry more weight than the president of the NUF?

129. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139139 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 7:51 am

66. Comment #139135 by Philip1978 on March 5, 2008 at 7:37 am

I think that our democracy is enhanced by the presence of a variety of institutions (many of who, I disagree with) who represent different people on a variety of issues in different ways. It's right that the leaders of these institutions should be involved in public life and the issues of the day. As I've already said, parliament should make the laws. In the unfortunate event of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being in a position where it's leader(s) represent a large number of people, then yes, it should be given a voice on the public stage. This is because in a democracy your authority in these matters comes from the people you represent and is embodied in the office you hold.

130. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139098 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 5:56 am

45. Comment #139090 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:42 am

'The opinions of the Archbishop or Chief Rabbi are no more valuable than the head of the CBI when it comes to talking about AIDS for example and both sets of opinions would be of significantly less value than that of the Chief Medical Officer.'

I didn't suggest they were. Specifically what do you disagree with about my original post? It seems to me that most of what you've said is echoing my own sentiments. Except of course for the stuff you've made up to fuel the angry one's point-totalling ire.

131. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139096 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 5:52 am

44. Comment #139087 by irate_atheist on March 5, 2008 at 5:38 am

I said their voice not their opinions were authoritative.

I agree that their voice should be listened to because they represent poeple. I don't agree that the media or others should treat them with automatic deference as that implies that their views should go unchalleneged. I see the value of their views being debated.

132. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139079 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 5:28 am

41. Comment #139067 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:15 am

I think you've misread my post.

I disagree with you on your second point as I think the figures you've mentioned have a valuable part to play. It's unrealistic of you to think that the media shouldn't pay more attention to the union leader than the ordinary union member (automatic deference isn't a phrase I've used nor one I agree with), or the head of the CBI rather than the cornershop owner, or the Archbishop rather than myself. In fact, given that I didn't use the phrase mentioned, what specifically do you think I'm confused about in my post, and what do you disagree with?

133. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139055 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 4:56 am

37. Comment #139042 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 4:20 am

In an effective democracy power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a political elite to the extent that it excludes any other voice. Business leaders, Academic leaders, leaders from all fields including faith should be able to add to the debate. What makes their voice authoritative is often the office they hold. I think this is a good thing. Not that politicians should have to bow and do what they're told by these people, but that they can raise issues which otherwise would not gain publicity. When Robert Runcie raised the issue of the inner cities, Thatcher had to engage with it. When His Holiness the Pope spoke against war in Iraq, politicians around the world had to engage with it. Religious leaders are also representative, perhaps not of you, but of someone, this further justifies their role on public life. It's worth remembering that membership of faith groups is far larger than membership of political parties.

134. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139040 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 4:09 am

Depends if there's any banks going on the cheap.

135. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139028 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 3:43 am

The God

136. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139024 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 3:25 am

Interesting that the two clashes with PM's highlighted were with Mrs. T over the inner cities and with Blair over Iraq. I say fair play to the Archbishop in both cases. I was a great fan of Thatch but still see the value in a prominant apolitical figure raising relevant points in the media. I don't think our country would be a better place if politicians were free to wield their power free from such sobering voices as this and past Archbishops. If it's his office which enables him to challenge that power, then thank God for his office.

137. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #138966 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 1:58 am

I wish they'd showed his photo to someone other than a bunch of Mancs. If it's not on Coronation St. or in a bag of chips, it's unlikely they're going to know anything about it.

138. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135647 by fides_et_ratio on February 29, 2008 at 7:14 am

The evidence in my corner of London suggests that the taxpayer gets much better value for money from faith schools than non-faith schools. Maybe that's a good reason for supporting them. They do what schools are supposed to do and they do it very well.

139. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132747 by fides_et_ratio on February 25, 2008 at 7:16 am

A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry
For Whom the Bell Tolls - Hemingway
Our Man in Havana - Graham Greene
Siddhartha - Herman Hesse
Roots - Alex Haley

140. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #104026 by fides_et_ratio on December 27, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I understand there's been some repetition on this thread. I apologise for my part in this.

141. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102741 by fides_et_ratio on December 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm

And the 'oasis' grows ever murkier.

Let's observe the process.

Step 1: Belief in God is widespread and ancient, many books have been written about it.

Step 2: Richard Dawkins et al write books critiquing this belief and some of the books about belief.

Step 3: Some people read the aforementioned books critiquing belief in God and religion, and critique them.

Step 4: RD is asked in an interview what he thinks of some of these books and produces a rather amusing quote from Yeats about a dog not praising his fleas.

Step 5: Some people on the RD forum get a little carried away and in their excited state fail to realise the irony of belittling a critique of a critique for being a critique.

Step 6: Some of the critiques of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work.

Step 7: Many posters on RD's forum criticise the critiques of RD saying they haven't read TGD, again failing to recognise the irony inherent in a situation brought about by their non-reading of the aforementioned critiques and their brief critiques of them.

142. This Week's Flea

Comment #100712 by fides_et_ratio on December 19, 2007 at 7:10 am

60. Comment #100706 by Steve Zara on December 19, 2007 at 6:51 am

'I would have some respect for someone who wrote a book titled "Why I believe in Religion".'

There have been a few, which ones do you respect?

143. This Week's Flea

Comment #100702 by fides_et_ratio on December 19, 2007 at 6:26 am

Step 8: Said posters congratulate each other on their superior grasp of reason.

144. This Week's Flea

Comment #100700 by fides_et_ratio on December 19, 2007 at 6:25 am

145. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #100048 by fides_et_ratio on December 18, 2007 at 6:17 am

Hopefully the study will look at the effects of belief on the brain after different variables have been introduced. My experience of belief is similar to Debaser's. It's not a constant, hence the need for students to study, alcoholics to attend meetings, religious people to practise their faith, and visitors to richarddawkins.net to keep reading articles. The moment of insight ensures that the penny keeps dropping.

146. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #100013 by fides_et_ratio on December 18, 2007 at 4:15 am

I find this all very exciting. As a layman though one thing concerns me. My Dad's been in hospital since March and has had a few MRI scans which have shown different things at different times. It seems to be in its infancy. Is it too young to expect conclusions on faith yet? (given that for many religious, faith is often accompanied by doubt)

147. World History

Comment #98827 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 2:00 pm

56. Comment #98765 by octopus on December 14, 2007 at 8:31 am

Your point on corrolation and causality is one I agree with, but you seem to have misunderstood the small piece you've quoted. Placing it in context may help.

Having read articles that point out that HIV transmission is lower amonst practising Catholics in sub Saharan Africa than non practising Catholics, I was attempting to show that the notion that the Pope or his teachings are responsible for millions dying, is a mistaken one. There have been studies that have shown that the abstinence and fidelity approach has been more successful than the secular approach which concentrates heavily on the distribution of condoms with little emphasis on sexual practise.

I thought it was clear that the comparison I was making was like for like as in Sub Saharan Africa, having looked at the original post it probably wasn't clear to a reader not familiar with the frequency with which anti catholics use HIV in Africa as a stick to beat the Pope with. I think it did become clear in later posts though.

148. World History

Comment #98702 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 4:55 am

Tyler

"Really? Why? Because they don't suit you? Exactly what's "absurd" about them?"

Because they seem to have been made up. There would also need to be some analysis of HIV transmission within those groups for them to be of relevance. If HIV is transmitted more frequently amongst practising Catholics you may have a point, if it's less, you probably haven't. The statistics you quote don't address this issue and are therefore as irrelevant as they are absurd.

149. World History

Comment #98657 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 2:02 am

No Tyler,

Undoubtedly, the most effective way to stop HIV being spread by sexual intercourse is to abstain from sexual intercourse if you have the virus. I'm sure deep down you agree with this. If you met someone who you knew had the virus would you sleep with them as long as they wore a condom, or would you abstain?

150. World History

Comment #98654 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 1:58 am

Philip,

In a nutshell, there's a gulf that separates the Church that you (and most others on here) describe, and the Church I am a part of.

I grew up, and still live, in one of the more deprived areas of East London. I've seen who's there when people need help. The callous church you speak of is just not reality, it's merely a reflection of media portrayals of some people and some events.

More specifically, on the subject of that young girl. You seem to be blaming the Church for what happened to her. You also pay no attention to any psychological damage that she might suffer as a result of her own child being killed. It's a difficult situation undoubtedly, but the unavoidable flip-side is the millions of children's lives are terminated every year, and the Chruch is the major, and in some cases, only opponent of this.