101. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #101121 by ADH on December 19, 2007 at 11:28 pm

"But that is not what Harris expects to find. He suspects the machines will show that "belief is belief is belief." And that conclusion, he admits, may put him at loggerheads with familiar foes. No one, he says, could accuse him or anyone else of trying to disprove God's existence on the basis of an fMRI. But faith is more vulnerable. "People who feel that religious faith is a singular operation of the brain — if they admit that it's an operation of the brain at all — would object to what I'm doing, since it may show that faith is essentially the same as other kinds of knowing or thinking. The whole thing will seem fishy to anyone who thinks we have immaterial souls running around in our bodies."

Any rational individual on this site will see that this is just crass - on a par with 19th century Phrenology. What would neuroimaging of "faith" actually prove? It would prove that our brain is physically, "mechanically" if you like, involved in the act of believing in God or in any other religious proposition. So what? How does that impinge upon the content of the proposition? Maybe neuroimaging will prove different in the presence of a belief statement than in the presence of a fact statement: eg "Chevrolet make trucks". What about the statement "My wife (mother/son/husband etc.) loves me". Would this be represented as a "faith" statement or as a "fact statement"? What implications would it have in the event of it being the former? Would it actually be, in itself, a reason for doubting the truth of the alleged "love"?

This is a variation on the "genetic fallacy" theme. Being able to trace the physical, cerebral, location of a person's response to a religious statement says sweet FA about the truth value of the statement. Surely this should be obvious even to a brain like Harris'?!

This neuroimaging scan might show faith mingled with doubt on the part of many believers. The presence of doubt in the mind of a believer is nothing that a believer need be ashamed of. As the father of one of the people Jesus healed said before the miracle occurred: "Lord I believe - help me [overcome] my unbelief". Just as the presence of faith does not reflect on the content of the proposition, neither does the presence of doubt reflect on it, even if that "doubt" turns into unbelief. Some people ("doubting" Thomas for example) are innately sceptical, even with regard to their most deeply held convictions while others are innately credulous. You'll find both believers and unbelievers in both camps.

102. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99224 by ADH on December 16, 2007 at 1:25 am

The future of the Public Square without the Chistian faith:


"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot,
With a pink hotel, a boutique,
And a swinging hot spot.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Late last night I heard the screen door slam.
And a big yellow taxi took away my old man.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got till it's gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Joni Mitchell

103. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99218 by ADH on December 16, 2007 at 1:07 am

"Former faith heads, raise your hands"

If devotees of the Christian faith are faith-heads, what are devotees of the good Dick Dawkins?? :-)

104. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99217 by ADH on December 16, 2007 at 1:05 am

I can prove it by saying that I found what Christopher Hitchens said about the relative value of Christian as opposed to secularist art and poetry. I share his enthusiasm for the devotional poetry of John Donne and George Herbert. I love the poem he mentioned by Philip Larkin.

I also found it interesting that Hitchens does not want faith to be banished from the public square. He said, under pressure from the others, that it was because if there was not faith there would be no one for him to debate. But I suspect that there his more to his reason than that. I suspect that he would feel the loss intensely.

I was bemused by their reflections regarding the possiblity of persuading intelligent Christians that there is nothing in their faith (see my previous post). Hitchens himsel realised how naive it is to imagine that belief in God will ever be driven out of people's minds.

What other proof do you need?

105. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99214 by ADH on December 16, 2007 at 12:50 am

I've watched it Diacanu. It made me think of four killjoys gathered around their mind-games in a public square and watching the faithful file into a church. They sit their scratching their heads in the early afternoon sun, unable to understand how these people, many of them intelligent scientists during the rest of the week, can be so entrapped in such sinister superstitions. As they look at where these people are going all they see is a grim grey building, the stained-glass windows of which present a dull, almost black, monotone, quite oblvious to the fact that inside the building the colours come alive. Presently the worshippers emerge from the building, their eyes bright with the glory of God, their whole view of reality utterly transformed, and our four friends smirk knowingly at each other, tut-tutting loudly.

As they tap the reassuring solidity of the concrete ground beneath their feet, they chat wistfully about how wonderful it would be if they could only show these people the error of their ways, show them that there is actually nothing in it, that they are deluding themselves, that all this building is doing is obscuring the sunlight, impeding the progress of those who would raze the structure to the ground, pave it over and put up a library (without any religious books, naturally), or another shopping mall, ... or a parking lot

When they do engage some of the more "intelligent" parishioners in conversation as they come out of the church, and hear them speak of "faith" or of seeing something of the majesty of God in, for example, a frozen waterfall, they (naturally) accuse them of suffering from a kind of "schizophrenia", of having unaccountably "compartmentalised" minds. "How can we rescue younger intelligent minds from this tragic fate?" they ask themselves, glaring angrily at this grey building with its darkened windows casting its menacing shadow over the public square.

The point is, my dear fellow, that anyone who has tasted the glory of God, who has entered the presence of God, who has had their life completely turned around by the grace of God, is going to be convinced even to the slightest degree by so-called evidence of God's non-existence, or of the so-called negative effects of "faith" on an individual's or community's life. It would be like trying to convince one of the shepherds who visited stable on the day after Christ's birth that he had seen nothing special, just another baby in a not particularly clean cattle-manger.

Sooner or later the "structure" of the Christian church may no longer be there in the public square. But, as the apostle Paul pointed out, "God does NOT dwell in buildings made with hands". He does not inhabit man-made structures, though he might be present in them. As Hitchens realizes (and desires), there will always be people with eyes and hearts afire with God's glory and God's love. In the meantime, and until the very end, there will be huddles of people like our four friends, politely or not so politely berating those who claim to believe in God for allowing themselves to be deluded.

Needless to say, their is a kind of religion that is delusional, and even destructive. That was the kind of religion that Jesus lashed out against in the gospels: blind leaders of the blind. It is all to possible to enter and even to be within the building fo some time and remain utterly blind to the glory of God - to everything that the building actually exists to proclaim!

As we come up to Christmas, I would just like to wish you and all the others a very happy Christmas (not Mithras-mas, or Consumer-mas Carol-mas) – but rather the kind of Christmas the shepherds had after they had seen the God-incarnate lying, rather untidily perhaps, in that draughty, very uninviting looking stable.

106. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96410 by ADH on December 10, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Steve, I have appreciated the interaction with you and some of the others. By the way, I know the Mithras story.

107. The Pagan Christ

Comment #96373 by ADH on December 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm

USA_Limey, I spent a good bit of yesterday posting. I haven't run away, but I need a break from posting for a few days - smile contemprising!

I can see that Albondigas is more than able to keep you on your toes!

Best wishes, and happy Christmas.

108. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95960 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Thank you for the tips Corylus.

That probably does it until Christmas, many of you will be glad to know.

So a happy Christmas to all of you!

109. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95955 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 2:32 pm

"Hitler and Stalin's death toll doesn't go on atheisms tab, it goes on religions tab, as does the actions of every totalitarian lunatic who convinces a credulous populace to hand over the reigns of power."

It depends on how broad your definition of religion is. The greatest enemy of religion in 1st century Palestine was Christ himself. But it's a bit o a stretch to blame Stalin's and Hitler's atrocities on the Christian milieu and/or background. It was the religion that they constructed around themselves that brought such disaster on their contemporaries, not that of the Churches that they had once been associated with! The same could be said of Mao. It was not his atheism per se that brought about his massacres and purges, but his self-deification: the religion of Maoism that he invented. He was obeying exactly the same instincts within himself as the other two, which goes to show that such a tendency does not require a prior religious "reservoir" in order to operate. It has to do with the fact that people are very prone to deify power (including political power) or to allow it to deify itself, and fall in line. They have done that with atheist statesmen just as they have done it with unscrupulous religious leaders. But look at what Jesus' response was to power. He allowed himself to be apparently defeated by it rather than seek it and make use of it. He actually calls his followers to do the same. Sadly they have not always done so!

110. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95949 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 2:19 pm

"Well, if you consider people to be simply a material to be manipulated for whatever ends those in authority wish."

I don't consider them so. But sadly history and the modern media show that they are all too prone to allow themselves to be treated as such.

111. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95947 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 2:14 pm

"RD was cool, relaxed and answered very well. He showed tolerance, acceptance and mature judgement."

I agree 100%! He's a master of coolness, poise and good manners.

112. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95937 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:52 pm

"He used Christianity."

"Which helps illustrate the dangers of faith."


Just as the World War 2 illustrates the dangers of steel!

113. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95920 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:26 pm

"Frankly it's a great disappointment. Well, perhaps you have deluded yourself in your obvious ignorance of the overwhelming certainty of the principle (if not the detail), that this is the case. That is the kindest characterisation I can find for your position."

Why a disappointment? Because you thought I was edging towards skepticism? Sorry to disappoint. I have no problem with Evolution by the way. But positting a materialistic origin for the universe and for life is also clearly unsubstatiated. In that sense it is a "faith": "matter-cum-energy" of the gaps. I'm afraid I will continue to disappoint you if you thought my theism was beginning to waver.

114. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95914 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:09 pm

2"The National Government regards the two Christian confessions as factors essential to the soul of the German people. It will respect the contracts they have made with the various regions. It declares its determination to leave their rights intact. In the schools, the government will protect the rightful influence of the Christian bodies. We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people. We hope to develop friendly relations with the Holy See"

Hitler repudiated Christianity and he is on record as despising Christ for his weakness. Nevertheless he was an astute politician. He wanted to get the Church on his side and kow toed to them left right and centre. He used Christianity.

The Confessing Lutheran church fell foul of the regime (unlike the Protestant establishment it has to be said). Dietrich Bonhöffer and several other key Christians dared to stand up to him. Sadly the rest of German Christianity allowed itself to be persuaded by his religiouis rhetoric.

115. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95894 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 12:28 pm

"What about the effect of Jesus Christ's concept of the eternal fire and other forms of emotional blackmailing have had on the millions of people who trust and believe in him?"

A liberating effect I would say, if the warnings happen to be true.

116. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95884 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 12:11 pm

I have just listened. Dawkin's was cool calm and collected as always. Unfortunately that might give some people the impresion that he was right.

He's concerned about the grip that religion has on so many people's minds, very rightly where some religions are concerned. All those people banging the shafts of hammers on the ground and calling down thunder and lightning on the unsuspecting in the name of the Great Odin ought to be stopped in their tracks. They are not doing anybody any good at all.

I'm concerned about the grip that a certain kind of "Christianity", with its "God can make you prosperous - just put a tenner in the plate and watch it multiply in your bank balance", has on the minds of some. But this is rather the grip that greed and materialism have on their minds. They are just using religion (or being used by their equally greed-driven manipulators) to gild the walls of the prison-cells of their own egos - just as many others use atheism for the same purpos. I'm very concerned about the grip that Jesus Christ and his words and example DOES NOT have on the minds of many so called Christians.

117. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95880 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 11:59 am

"That means that the morality that the resulting behaviour is consistent with already existed before the first members of our species found themselves grappling with these issues.

Why does this follow?"

It follows, Brian, because in order for choices to be consistent with something that "something" is prior to the choices that they end up making.

118. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95861 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 11:12 am

Quill, why do you equate "Darwinism" with "evolution". It seems to me that while there is evidence for evolution, it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.

119. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95857 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 11:04 am

Thank you for your lengthy and detailed explantion Northern Bright. You have given me some things to think about. But just one other question. You say that our brain enables us to behave in ways that are consistent with morality. True. That means that the morality that the resulting behaviour is consistent with already existed before the first members of our species found themselves grappling with these issues. So this "morality" is not itself part of the biological, evolutionary process. Where did it come from? Not from "culture", surely, as in the case of our first human ancestors "culture" had not begun to be constructed and to provide individuals with a frame of reference. In any case, locating "morality" in culture is extremely problematic. It would mean that we would have no right to denounce as wrong the behaviour that any given group of people have come to accept as right. But every time people on this thread denounce the evils inflicted by religion that is exactly what they are doing.

120. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95850 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 10:50 am

I accept (from what I have read) that it's difficult to conceive of someone working as an evolutionary biologist and not believing in evolution (though I think that, to be fair, we should hear the other side of the story). What I wonder is whether a scientist (and there are doubters - not all of them Christian) who is not committed to the evolutionary paradigm as it stands (Darwinian natural selection) but who is not a young earth creationist would be in danger of losing their job in a scientific field on that basis. What about theistic evolutionists or ID proponents with credentials equivalent to those of Michael Behe? Dawkins has insisted that evolution implies atheism, but not all evolutionists agree. I feel that this case might be the beginning of a slippery slope.

I take the point made by one of you that you would not be expected to get a job as a Baptist minister if you said you were an atheist. But the analogy is fraught. It sort of confirms the impression that faith and science are at war with each other. It gives the impression that you can have a job in science if you don't believe in God, and in Religion if you do. Ok I know that's what many of you think! But it is a misrepresentation of both science and faith.

121. The art of the soluble

Comment #95825 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 9:39 am

ignored_ethos2, I checked out the Amazon link. Not having read the book I can't really comment, but I found some of the comments on some of the most laudatory reviews very interesting. To say that he has laid these arguments to rest strikes me as something of an exaggeration :-)

122. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95794 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 8:13 am

OK Northern Bright, Dawkins argues that we have evolved to the point where we can act not only by instinct. And yet in "River out of Eden" he claims that "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music". Please forgive me if I have misunderstood what he is saying, but a straightforward reading would lead one to believe that we are "puppets on a string" (to quote Sandy Shaw), and that it is DNA that is pulling the strings. Now this suggests that there is little if any possibility of transcending the genetic determinism that makes us act as we do. Or is he saying that, by some curious twist of fate, we have been genetically endowed with the ability to transcend our genetic endowment? Is this logically coherent? Is he not actually trying to have his cake and eat it? And what is it that Dawkins is invoking when he claims that we can transcend our DNA? What is there but DNA? If he is saying that we have the power of choice to act in defiance of our DNA (I agree with him there by the way) he is arguing for free will (which I also agree with). So in the event of being confronted with a choice to obey or not to obey the inclination of our DNA, not to obey our instincual drive, there must be a standard that we can appeal to which is not itself instinctual. Or is it a matter of being pulled one way by our "let's act on behalf of the tribe" instinct and the other way by pure unmitigated self-interest instinct? In which case there must be an independent arbiter in our minds which enables us to choose in favour of the tribe, or in another circumstance against our tribe and in accordance with a higher principle of justice. This is something that those who argue that justice and morality are functions of natural selection have not addressed satisfactorily.

123. The art of the soluble

Comment #95773 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 7:27 am

I must say I confess to being a bit baffled at how all of you can so conidently review (aka write off) the review of a book without haing read the book that is being reviewed! If I were to slam one of your glowing reviews of TGD without having read TGD myself you would verbally lynch me, and with good reason!

Yes Dr. B ******* fine tuning again. Has it occurred to you that the reason might be because the fine tuning argument has not been laid to rest - and until it does, ******* fine tuning is ging to keep rearing its head. You can't keep a good man (argument) down!

124. The art of the soluble

Comment #95695 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:37 am

Excellent review, excellent book. I wonder when Lennox and Dawkins will cross swords again on British soil. Keep me posted if you get wind of anything.

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

Comment #95691 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:20 am

Goldy, why are you asking me why I am here? I don't understand the relevance of the question to what we are talking about. If you'd rather I wasn't here, no problem - I won't be.

I guess the reason is "to stir things up a bit". It is easy for atheists (or theists) to get away with sloppy thinking when there is no one around to challenge their assumptions. Some of your atheist co-militants have made the same point.

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

Comment #95680 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 12:43 am

Goldy, if Hitchens didn't initiate the war it was only because he didn't have the power to. To judge by his rhetoric, he would have, given half a chance. If he wouldn't have done it, had he had the power to, then he's a hypocrite.

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

Comment #95673 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 12:32 am

"And of recent, George Bush, Tony Blair, Osama Bin Laden, etc, etc who feel compelled to drag us to fights over gods and their supposed wills".

Goldy I need to remind you that before the war started Bush received an open letter signed by several hundred Christian leaders urging him NOT to go to war. Besides, there are several prominent atheists who were just as strident in their pro-war language as Bush was - Christopher Hitchens for example. I don't think yo can argue that had an atheist been in th White House on 9-11 there would have been no military response.

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

Comment #95671 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 12:26 am

Jonjermey, I checked your site. I'm afraid you are scraping the barrel in your search for atrocities inspired by Christianity. I think that in all fairness you need to distinguish between faiths. As regards your specific references to Christian "outrages", you can hardly say that the behaviour of paedophiles is because of their "faith". Paedophiles who use their "religious" authority to gain access to their prey are right out of line with the teaching of the Bible. In fact Jesus reserved his most scathing condemnation for the hypocrites who abused their religious power to their own advantage. So called "Christian" paedophiles are not to be condemned because they are too "Christian" but because they are not Christian enough. If they really wanted to obey God and follow Christ they would certainly not act in that way. And the same goes for other so-called Christian outrages. It's what happens when Christians lose sight of what Jesus of Nazereth taught, when they allow it to get out of ocus, not when they obey Jesus.

But you haven't aswered my question. Why devote a website to - why build a way of thinking upon - a negative proposition: the NON-existence of God? Surely the negative prefix A-theist (and to a greater extent Hitchens' ANTI- theist) is a very negative foundation upon which to construct a worldview, or at least a negative way of defining an intellectual framework within which one is doing one's thinking.

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

Comment #95657 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Since reading TGD, and as I surf this message board, I can't help being reminded of the little poem:

As I was walking up the stairs
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish that man would go away!

Dawkins rightly points out that theists who believe in the Christian God are atheists with regard to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Thor, and Zeus. Nevertheless, no theist has ever written any book on the subject. If God does not exist what is all the fuss about? Why devote a whole website to exploring the non-existence of God? Why define yourselves indeed (A-theists) in terms of the NON-existence of something? Surely that is a very negative point of departure!

130. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95541 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 2:55 pm

"All atheism does with respect to, say, abortion is to strip away the argument that it's wrong because humans are special. Are you suggesting that there aren't any other reasons to oppose it? Or, indeed, that there are no Christians who support it?"

I'm quite sure there are other reasons to oppose it, but you will have to agree that the "specialness" of the human fetus is a pretty good one (supposing that it is true of course - which I believe it to be).

There are Christians who maintain that the embryo does not become a person until endowed with a brain, so yes, there are Christians who accept abortion.

"leads to rational positions with regard to "The war on terror", "stem cell research" and the level of trust to assign tele-evangelists."

Brian, have you heard Hitchens on the war on terror? Which is the rational view: his or that of those of us who oppose the war in Iraq?

Yes, the level of trust in tele-__________ (fill in the blank with whichever "ist" happens to take your fancy. I could think of a few others!)

131. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95523 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 2:07 pm

NorthernBright, I guess that you have touched on the main one. But this issue in itself is just one aspect of the definition of humanness. This implies a common position on abortion (for theists the fetus is already a human being with all that that implies in terms of being already an object of God's love), bioethics (I suspect that there is a common position on embryonic stem cell research). Although my own position on these issues can be deduced from what I have just said, I have no interest in starting up a debate on either of them here. I just wanted to point out, in response to your question, that a position on the existence of God will necessarily imply other positions.

132. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95514 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Brian, I am devastated by the death of pet dogs and cats too. I am devastated by the kind of cruelty that is inflicted on animals, especially considering that animals do not behave cruelly either towards each other or towards other species. So I don't see why it wasn't until you became an atheist that you began to see animals in this light.

I know that you have been expressing different views. But I wanted to pin down the concept of "speciesism", as it was mentioned by Dawkins in his talk, and as it seems to be fairly common currency amongst atheists. I actually beg to differ about you not having common positions except with regard to the non-existence of God. It seems to me that common positions are emerging over a range of issues. It would seem that when you remove the special creation of human beings, which all Christian theists at least hold, then there is nothing ontologically unique about humans - so its actually a level playing field as far as the different species are concerned. Granted some of you have persuasively argued that there are distinctions - the higher primates, animals like horses dogs and cats which seem to have some kind of "soulish" interaction with human beings. I accept that, but what are the limits, is there a consensus with regard to what is legitimate. I am not saying that from a theist's point of view anything goes, and that animals can be treated in whatever way we like to treat them.

But I take your point that there is diversity of opinion, just as there is among theists. Sorry if my question seemed out of place.

133. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95489 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Contemrising, if you wish I'll temporarily become an atheist in the interests of uniformity.

134. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95487 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Can someone tell me whether the atheist position on "speciesism" rules out slaughtering animals for food? If not why not? Dawkins did seem to suggest that it did in his talk. If not, is it the suffering of (other) animals rather than their death that is wrong? What does the "speciesism" question allow humans to do with regard to their use of animals, and what does it render immoral? What about the use of animals in laboratories to come up with drugs for human rather than (other) animal ailments?

135. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95389 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 8:49 am

Forgive me if I have misrepresented Singer. So it seems that what distinguishes humans from other sentient beings is self-awareness. OK, I need ti read a few more things written by Singer. I've just read some articles, in on of which he states that a new-born babby is actually of less value (until they acquire consciousness) than a sentient and conscious animal. But is the distinguishing trait "consciousness", as I understood from the article, or "self-consciousness", which is the faculty that allows the human to value his or her life and therefore be aware of what they are losing? I'm just trying to get my head around this one.

If it is "self" awareness, then that is a big difference indeed. Have any animals (the higher primates for example) bee shown to be self aware? How do they react when they look at themselves in a mirror? Dogs and cats show no sign of such awareness.

136. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95354 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 5:55 am

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

"DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

Both quotes taken from "River out of Eden".

Diacanu, you show too much faith in human nature. When the chips are down we are all capable of being scumbags - I include myself. Self-interest is a very powerful driving force, as any student of "the Selfish Gene" will be aware. Who is to know what anyone would decide? But we can know what we SHOULD decide. This imperative however cannot be derived from natural selection.

137. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95351 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 5:20 am

Steve, I suggest that your own moral decency (of which I do not have the slightest doubt) has a lot more to do with the moral foundations put in place in the UK as a result of a Christian world view. I know that you will object to this suggestion, but it is what I believe to be the case. Obviously there is a moral concensus on many issues, as a result of which morally decent Christians and morally decent non Christians end up taking the same decisions. When Christians talk about guidance they are not talking about the moral intuitions that we have in common. If that scenario were to change radically (one thinks of bio-ethics, whether any kinds of research or the development of any kind of biotechnology is off-limits, abortion on demand).

I recently watched and found more than a little chilling the film Matchpoint. It opens with the words: "The man who said it is better to be lucky than good saw deeply into life". The main character went on to show how this was the philosophy that he lived by. He was confronted with a choice: what was the "right thing" (as he kept saying he would do)? In the end, true to his underlying philosophy, he committed a cold-blooded double (triple?) murder in the hope that he would succeed in making it seem that someone else had done it for other motives. Lucky bugger that he was, he got away with it, and no one was any the wiser. He was able to maintain the life-style that he had had the good fortune to marry into. But at one point his wictims appeared to him (in almost Macbethean fashion). "You will be caught Chris, yo realise that, don't you?" He replied: "I hope I am. It will show that there is such a thing as justice in the world." Was this just his luck based philosophy being caught off guard (He had previously virtually quoted Dawkins in articulating this philosophy: "Scientists have shown that we are here by blind chance: no meaning no purpose"), or was it his conscience rising up in rebellion (during the night hours rather than during his waking hours) agaisnt this philosophy?

What I mean by this reference to the film is that the philosophy articulated by Chris Wilton is alive and well, and is trumping "common human decency" left right and centre. This is why having our values anchored in a "higher law" is so crucially, undamentally important. That is where "guidance" comes in. If we were ever to find ourselves in a dog-eat-dog scenario where appeals to "common decency" were being blown away in the wind, then some moral orientation (I would say from the One who gave us our conscience in the first place) would be necessary. I could go one giving other examples from fiction and real life. But that will do for the time being.

138. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95345 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 4:08 am

"You clearly couldn't care less. I have no respect for you."

Then neither do you have any respect for meat-eaters who are also atheists, or at least those atheists who eat meat with an easy conscience.

139. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95344 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 4:01 am

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

As we theists keep saying, it is not only empirical evidence that makes a belief plausible.

I'll come back to your other questions later. I'm in the middle of some work right now.

140. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95340 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 3:39 am

Maybe Steve, but I was asked to define what life means for me now, not what it would mean for me if I wasn't a believer. I can't answer the question from a position of non belief because I am not an unbeliever. I'm not saying that you can't find meaning in life unless you are a believer, or that you can't lead decent lives. As I said on another thread I'm not here to convert anyone, just to answer your questions about what I believe and why. For that reason I am not going to try to dig out evidence that I feel would convince you. It probably wouldn't, because it hasn't when I have tried. Nor does your absence of evidence, from your point of view, do anything to undermine the plausibility and reasonableness of my faith. (the words plausibility and reasonableness are important, so don't come back at me with Thors, Fling Spaghetti Monsters, orbitting teapots or pink unicorns!)

141. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95336 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 3:15 am

Sorry Downunder, how can you expect me as a Christian to leave God out of it when I am asked what life is? It's like asking Dawkins to define human nature without referring to DNA!

I am not a Catholic so I cannot relate to your experience with the Hail Mary Mother of God, but I can understand where you're coming from. Jesuits specialised in a kind of "rhythmic indoctrination", the catechistic repetition of religious mantras which bypass the mind and install themselves in the subconscious. But I really believe that the Reformation recovered the prominence of the written word, with the reader engaging with the "Word of God" at the level of their understanding. It is significant that the Catholic Magesterium did their utmost to stamp out the translation of Scripture into the vernacular, and if the Mass could be kept in Latin, thereby making it difficult for most worshippers to have the faintest idea what they were being indoctrinated into, all the better. But many scholars, driven by a desire to enable people to understand what Scripture said, and to be exposed to it directly, worked day and night to disseminate it in the language of the people. In Protestant countries this gave a huge impetus to literacy, and indeed to science and philosophy.

That is the tradition that I now identify with, and it is out of that tradition, and out of my own convictions whi chhave, I admit of course, been shaped by it, that I must try to answer your questions about the meaning of life. For me life is all about discovering and enjoying nature and art, celebrating them with other people, under the guidance of the Creator; it is about enjoying my work and doing it to the best of my ability with the aim of bettering the lives of the people I work for and with, (again under the guidance of the One who gave humankind the mandate to "cultivate" the garden). there are many other answers I cold give to your question "what is life?", but all my answers would probably imply God at some point, which you seem to find unsatisfactory, so there's hardly much point in my going on.

142. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95321 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 2:08 am

"Aaah, but ADH, you appear to be assuming all athiests are unthinking examples of automatic inhumanity. We aren't. Neither are we very rational. We are all....human :-)"

In that case, God save us from rationalists! The hypothetical (potential??) root of much evil.

143. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95312 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 1:23 am

So Dawins has an uneasy conscience about eating meat. Maybe my spoof in an earlier post, on another thread, about the slaughter of turkeys at thanksgiving and Christmas making the holocaust pale into significance was not as much of a straw-man as some people said it was. Dawkins' and Singer's arguments require one to believe that there is, ontologically and morally, no difference between taking the life of a fellow sentient creature and taking the life of another human being. Therefore canabalism, and killing a human being to satisfy whatever physical, territorial, surval or supremacy need, is actually no more abhorrent than sitting down to a turkey dinner. At the most, it is wrong because protectiveness towards and empathy with members of our own species is somehow wired into us, and therefore it seems unfitting to fly in the face of that. But there are no moral categories left whereby we can condemn such behaviour, any more than there are any moral categories whereby we can condemn wild animals for killing members of their own species in defense of their territory, or over who gets the female they both want!

144. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95304 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 12:28 am

"re post81; you raise a pertinent point. ADH's "bear with me" has me still holding my breath since his post 74 on the "Interview with HitchenI've just tried to post a long answer to this on the other thread, but my post did not get uploaded! I haven't got time to write it again right now. I'll post it later. Sorry to keep you holding your breath! But as you and the others will agree, when you are asked "Can you tell me what life is without referring to the Bible?" it's not easy to give a short answer.

I could say, if you want a short answer: "love God, love people, love life."

145. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95233 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 4:28 pm

"You didn't mention the scientific arguments against the resurrection, so I'm assuming you accept that science says it couldn't have happened, but god did it any way."

That's right. Obviously the main scientific argument is that "dead people stay dead". I'm not arguing against that principle. Everyone knew then as they know now that "dead people stay dead". The evidence that I would point you to has to do with the failure of the many enemies of the, at that point embryonic, Christian faith to poduce a body from the tomb where everyone knew Jesus had been buried, the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his disciples and the enormous change that came over the disciples, who were not expecting a resurrection to happen and who were initially sceptical. I haven't got time to go into the minutiae right now. But I will tomorrow if you think there's any point.

146. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95207 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Smithyboy, I imagine you are familiar with the arguments presented in NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God", and the debates between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman (among others). Can you really maintain, in the light of those arguments that the historical case and the philosophical case is as bad as you say?

By the way, I respect your scholarship. If you have a PhD then you have obviously looked into this in some depth. Nevertheless, there are loads of people out there with PhDs who have arrived at very different conclusions.

147. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95200 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Sorry Steve, maybe I just haven't really understood your question then. I'll have to come back to you about it tomorrow. Bear with me.

As I said before he was acclaimed as God because people had no choice but to acclaim him - much to the consternation of the senate who were deeply disturbed by his self-agrandisising tendencies and still committed to the Republic which Caesar had seemingly lost sight of. It was a political strategy, from his point of view, to secure the loyalty of his subjects and therefore the cohesion and stability of the empire. Nothing could be more unlike the terms in which Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and was later worshipped as God's Son.

148. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95193 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Obviously the resurrection on its own without all that led up to it would mean nothing. The resurrection might bemeaningless in isolation but as a vindication of what Christ did and said, of the claims he made, it means a great deal. As regards Thor, if it could be shown that he existed - if the proof for his existence were even half as substantial as the proof for Jesus' existence is, and it could be shown that he died and was buried in a very specific traceable location and if the eveidence for a resurrection event were half as compelling as is the case for Jesus, then it would be worth looking into. But none of this is the case of course. Thor is comparable to any of the members of the Greek pantheon. But no claims for their historicity have ever been seriously advanced. They were idealisations of human prowess. What is interesting about Jesus however is that he is very far from being an idealisation of human prowess. There was no schema available into which such a "hero", supposing he was invented, could have been slotted. Neither the Jews nor the Romans knew what to make of him. He did not match any of their expectations.

149. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95182 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Sara,

Can I suggest that you address a question to William Lane Craig on the website www.reasonablefaith.org ?

150. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95176 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 2:03 pm

"If it where ever shown that that there was almost no evidence of the historical Jesus, would you still believe he was a deity?"

Do you mean if a body that could be shown to have been his showed up? No I would not believe he was God if that happened. That hould be decisive proof that e wasn't. But I'm not holding my breath! I suggest you don't either!

As I have explained before the evidence is the internal coherence of his words, the congruence betwen his words and actions, his miracles (which were not magic by the way, but anticipations of what the kingdom of God would look like: nature itself being put right), the fulfilment in Him of prophecies that pointed to the coming Messiah and, to crown it all, so to speak, his resurrection.

Believers in the early church worshipped Him because they believed him to be God. They did not believe he was God because other people were worshipping him.