Comments by _J_

Comment #102721 by _J_ on December 23, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Wow, a meta-flea. This one perches on McGrath's title, leaning over to sink its little teeth into Dawkins.

Can we expect any future author to step up the challenge of surpassing this new feat of unoriginality...?

152. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102717 by _J_ on December 23, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Fighting Falcon,

I'm also weary of this 'Hitler/Stalin/Mao/My Evil Dictatorial Uncle Nev was an atheist, so God Exists' nonsense.

I don't know what Hitler believed (I don't really know if Hitler knew what Hitler believed) but even if he was an atheist, it's still a shit argument. Surely the logic of all of eeeevil religion-displacing dictators is clear enough, and actually highlights something quite uncomplimentary about organised religion.

All these bad guys, whatever their personal beliefs, aimed to construct a devout national ideology with themselves as the object of respect and worship. All of them noticed that it was going to be difficult to do this while there were other organisations already in place doing exactly the same thing, in the name of some god or other. So, all of them booted out the churches and stole their tactics in order to establish quasi-religious political ideologies.

The nicest thing that a defensive religious person can get out of this simple observation is 'My religion isn't as bad as an even worse dictator who might displace it'. Perhaps they could argue that the church could have some value in a 'canary down a mine' way, alerting us to think carefully about anyone who vigorously tries to demolish existing religions, to make sure they're not steering us into an 'out of the frying pan...' situation.

But, overall, to recognise that religions operate in ways so similar to dictators that all our big bad dictator boogeymen have regarded them as troublesome competition to be destroyed and emulated, is not to find anything nice about religions. The whole matter demonstrates that religions do not embody the ideals of honesty, fairness and equality that we value in our modern democracies.

153. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102706 by _J_ on December 23, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Bonzai

Actually I don't get the idea the OT God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Is it the bit when his tribe, fighting alongside Jahweh himself, is defeated by its enemies 'because they have chariots' that gave this away?

154. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102704 by _J_ on December 23, 2007 at 12:30 pm

"God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety"
Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan

I went to see a stage production of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, recently. Excellent show, but there were moments when the Christian subtext grated with me. In particular, the (very impressive) Aslan, on his stone table, intoning (along with assorted forest creatures) 'All who love Aslan, come to the table'. For, you see, Aslan is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of Narnianity with all its variety - as long as they swear their undying love and servility to The Leader.

That's where god is exclusive, Mr Archbishop. Somewhere in your extensive and intellectually challenging theological training, you must have noticed this.

155. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102697 by _J_ on December 23, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Steve Zara (nice to know your name, by the way. And thanks for the long black coat I bought from one of your excellent shops a few years ago, too.)

I'll step in on your side. There's plenty to criticise about Blair, but there's plenty to be grateful for, too. Being largely incompetent as a politcal commentator, I'm not going any further. But I find the automatic hyper-criticism of any government after it's been in power for a few years irritating.

On the subject of the thread proper, I agree with CJ22. I don't particularly mind Blair being a Catholic in itself (though I think it's silly and quite probably due to the influence of his wife, Cruella). But I do think he oughtn't to have spent his primacy skirting the subject. Maybe he regards faith as a private thing and diligently avoids allowing it to affect his political decisions, as far as possible. Fine, but he should have told us that. A private faith is not necessarily private in its consequences, and an elected official in whose decision-making ability a nation places its trust should be obliged to inform that nation of any significant beliefs s/he holds that may influece those decisions.

If Tony were to say 'I didn't like to talk about it while I was in office, because if you talk about white supremacy these days people think you're a nutter, but now that I'm done, I'm joining my local racist club', I doubt people would be comfortable about him keeping his beliefs quiet for all these years.

156. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102097 by _J_ on December 21, 2007 at 2:41 pm

And the same to you, SharonMcT! I hope you, your sanity, your lungs and (to a lesser extent) your liver come through the whole joyous experience unblemished!

Cheers!

[clink!]

[[actually, more 'bboing']]

That was me sociably hitting my monitor with a half full beer can. Honestly, it's more charming than it sounds.

(By the way: I reckon that scary looking fellow with the big dark hat has got his eye on you. Nudge, wink, etc.)

((Edit - oh, you've already noticed. Think you're onto something about Dr Benway, though. 'Slid, Dicanu's right: sexiness abounds at this site! Hooray: my addiction was/is perhaps not so unhealthily intellectual after all!))

157. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102088 by _J_ on December 21, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Dr B,

You know, looking at your cat again, it began to remind me of Robert Maynard's Richard Dawkins avatar Mk I - the old 'Science - It works, bitches' version. Perhaps your cat is not so much simple as quietly sceptical of feline cultural norms.

Anyway, he looks cute and seems to have lovely fur and a very attentive carer (and photographer). Hope the appetite perks up.

158. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102083 by _J_ on December 21, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Oh, hello SharonMcT! How lovely to see you again! It's just like the days of old, when we all went a-questing to Dianelos' dark tower of...whatever it was...

Congratulations on kicking the smoking, by the way! When I was younger and cockier, I used to wonder what all the fuss was about and be quite sure I'd be able to beat a smoking addiction on pure common sense and will power. Nowadays I'm similarly confident that I couldn't at all. If I start, I'll be sucking the death sticks for life (or the opposite). So, scarf(in lieu of a hat)'s off to you!

159. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102069 by _J_ on December 21, 2007 at 2:03 pm

By the way: Dr Benway,

I don't know when Alan Turing became a big, cross-looking moggy, but nice cat pic, anyway. Reminds me fondly of your old 'bird's arse' days.

I've never apologised for casually mistaking you for a bloke for several months. I'm well aware that it doesn't matter in the slightest, but realising my error did remind me (again) of how easy it is to slip into lazy assumptions. (And, of course, of what a sexist shite I am.)

So: sorry, there! And Merry 'smas.

160. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102065 by _J_ on December 21, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Is the dsouzaphile the one you wrap round you?

(Sorry, dsouzaphile - not a malicious ad hom. Used to play in brass bands.)

I know what the core claims of Christianity are. They are, firstly, variable, since the varying denominations of Christianity tend, in negative proportion to their liberality, to dismiss one another as non-Christian. (Hence, the evangelical Anglican may regard Catholicism as so much non-biblical idol-worshiping nonsense, etc.)

But the core, core, core claims of Christianity are common not only to all of its various subdivisions/flavours/sects, but to most god-worshiping reliigons - certainly to the big Abrahamic three. They are:

1 - Your existence continues after your apparent death, and goes on forever.

2 - You, me and everything were created by a sentient creator.

3 - The creator exercises power not only over the observable world, but over the eternal one, too.

4 - The creator has some sort of plan.

5 - We humans have, by some (religion-specific) means been made privy to such aspects of this plan as are necessary for us to know, in order for us to play our part in it.

6 - It is by adhering to this plan that we can please the creator, live the best sort of life we can and make a successful transition into the eternal life that follows this one.

These points, when mulled over a bit, generate some important consequent reflections. For example: an eternal life is infinitely longer than our mortal one, so it is infinitely more important that we sort out a good seat in the afterlife than that we do, or experience, anything in particular in the mortal life. The specifics of the religion will probably specify certain things that we are to do in the mortal life, but their deepest value is in their relevance to the hereafter.

Another example: that eternal hereafter is by definition distinct from the here, ie the observable: it is unobservable, untestable, unscientific, (you might not like this word, but I think it's correct) supernatural. This realm is regarded as the realm of the creator: he/she/it dwells in the supernatural, making itself observable (testable, scientific, natural) by choice. Something that does so only in accordance with its unobservable (etc, etc, etc) whims is not measurable, not provable, etc.

Christianity, like the other faiths, is untestable and anti-scientific to its core.

I feel I could have put all that a lot better and a lot more persuasively, but these days I have a deep fear of dawkins.net addiction and need to get out before I wind up digging under the bed for the 'wireless network receiver to IV drip' adaptor. And I dare say you have the intelligence to do my padding out for me.

161. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #102054 by _J_ on December 21, 2007 at 1:28 pm

I don't get this. Seriously, can someone explain it to me?

If you got any intelligent, culturally aware politician, journalist or comedian and presented them with a transcript of this item as a script proposal, without identifying its source or purpose, they would assume that it was satirical attack on Christian radio.

Short of tattooing 'Mock me, I'm a cretin' on their faces, I don't see how these gentlemen could undermine themselves more.

162. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102043 by _J_ on December 21, 2007 at 1:07 pm

annabanana

[...]has anyone ever read the Russian Lit. book, The Master and Margarita[...]

Oooh, thanks for reminding me! I've been meaning to read that since seeing a play about Bulgakov years ago. I wonder if it's too late to write a Christmas list?

163. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99413 by _J_ on December 16, 2007 at 3:23 pm

The only way it would get built and make money in Wigan is if it were themed FOR binge-drinking youngsters ...

Well, 'Wine Fingers Jesus' is the patron saint of the skint boozaholic...

164. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99412 by _J_ on December 16, 2007 at 3:21 pm

NorthernBright and Paul Dunlop,

Live performance entertainments and other participatory leisure activities should also be good. Waterskiing with Jesus, stage hypnotism with Jesus, Jesus' Live Action Temple Ruckus, Pin The Carpenter On The Cross, cattle herding with Jesus, chatting to hookers with Jesus, and, possibly, elementary economics with Jesus ('Give to Caesar...')

But nothing is going to match the divine joy of getting through the entrance to be warmly greeted by, and to have one's photo taken with, a Messiah with a massive, massive head. (He could even sign your autograph book with His Divine Blood.)

I'm warming to this theme park idea. How do I donate again?

(Oooh, and can we spin off an Islamic equivalent? Allahnd? I want to stake my claim on running the gift shop. I'm putting in a big order for teddy bears...)

165. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99375 by _J_ on December 16, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Former faith heads, raise your hands!!

Me, too.

The formerly religious who have reasoned themselves into apostasy are legion around here.

166. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99369 by _J_ on December 16, 2007 at 1:05 pm

steve99

It's as if someone read a load of science fiction and said 'Yes! We are the eternal spirits of aliens and psychiatry is evil and I do need to give a lot of money to my new alien-spirited friends!'

(By the way, I really enjoyed all of the His Dark Materials books a few years ago, and still think they are excellent, in spite of Pullman's occasional preachiness. But NorthernBright is a much better book reviewer than I am.)

167. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99366 by _J_ on December 16, 2007 at 12:57 pm

So evangelistic creationism really is a Mickey Mouse operation.

If, by some miracle, this shining bastion of numptyness is built in Lancashire, then it'll be in my neck of the woods. I'll be sure to partake in some aggressive queue jumping and merciless mocking of the animatronics. In fact, I'll adopt and adapt the astonishing comment I heard made by a young lady from Utah last summer as she looked at an exhibit of pre-human primate fossils at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania: 'Nice story - shame it's not true'.

BigC:

it would be a whole lot cheaper for them to publish this groundbreaking research [...] rather than building a theme park to illustrate their theory.

Everyone knows that theme parks are the logical last step of any well-handled argument. Galileo was working on an early Tower of Terror-style elevator drop to demonstrate his thoughts about gravity when he died; Newton's last days were spent in an effort to buy a large orchard for similar purposes; Stephen Hawking was apparently interested in turning the entire of Birmingham into a theme park exemplifying his thoughts about black holes (but was defeated by ethical objections to a scheme that would essentially amount to no more than charging for entry). Check for an up-to-date description of the scientific process. It's there in black and white, right after 'Validation by scientific community': 'Construction of theme park'. Common sense. If you really want to say something, say it with rollercoasters.

I think this comment from the article explains a lot:

[...] church leaders living in Australia, America and Canada have openly proclaimed that God has left the church in England

If only the lazy swine had taken it with Him.

168. Jumbo shrimp, creationist astronomy

Comment #99048 by _J_ on December 15, 2007 at 10:41 am

I was skimming thru a 'Bible Mysteries Explained' booklet recently

I wrote my own yesterday, so I'd have something to give back to my friendly neighbourhood Jehovah's Witnesses over the festive season. I'd thought I'd be able to knock it off in thirty seconds, but I tell you what: it's a challenge to the old design skills to find an engaging way to fill an entire A4 folded booklet with 'It's All Bollocks'.

169. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99045 by _J_ on December 15, 2007 at 10:31 am

I thought Johann Hari covered this very well last year.

Christmas is an entirely worthwhile thing, just not for the reasons that your average church will fervently remind you of.

Just caught the end of a discussion on Radio 4 between a rather breathless lady from The Scotsman and another lady from the NSS, on the presentation of religion in school around Christmas. There was enough to agree with in the words from the The Scotsman woman (the toleration of many faiths, the silliness of hiding Christmas' Christian origins for fear of causing offence), but she also proved to be yet another first-class example of the self-contradictions to which well-meaning religious people are prone. 'Yes, different religions should be respected and taught to children, of course, but Christianity must be presented not as myth, but as a truth that some people don't want to believe' - that sort of thing. I must have said things like this myself in the past, and felt comfortable that it made sense. It's amazing, really.

170. Creation vs. Reality

Comment #98982 by _J_ on December 15, 2007 at 5:14 am

Wow. They've made a really, really slick, professional-looking video, there. Lots of great little visual and verbal gags, and no rough edges to speak of. I thought that was great.

I can see how, if you come to this straight from a diet of non-stop religion/science arguments, and have become habituated to weathering a barrage of 'science is just like religion', 'you atheists have just as much faith as us believers', 'Dawkins is a Prophet of Science' attacks, then you could find an irritating attitude in this video. But (whilst a religious apologist could attempt to make such use of this video), there really is no particular reason to view it in that way. Finding oneself instinctively criticising it should perhaps serve as a reminder to go outside, get some fresh air and think about something else for a while, before you become some kind of angry atheism-spouting automaton who sees religion in the tea leaves, religion in the bus timetables, religion in the sofa cushions.

RainDear's got this nailed. It's a great looking, great sounding, imaginative and well executed little video that both amuses and makes an interesting demonstration of how form affects content. Which, if we're determined to find some relevance for it on this site, is a worthwhile reminder for those of us who are sometimes tempted to join with the former New Scientist editor in telling anyone who doesn't automatically find science interesting to fuck off.

171. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #98461 by _J_ on December 13, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Donohue concluded: "Let this be a lesson to militant atheists like Pullman: keep your hollow beliefs to yourself. And ease up on demonizing Catholicism-no other religion has done more to promote human rights, science and goodwill."

I've always wondered what the words 'sanctimonious, infantile, hypocritical, smug, self-important, gobshite fuckwit' were for. You learn something new every day.

I like my 'hollow beliefs'. All these people in silly hats trying to fill them with their own favourite psychological appendages strikes me as a kind of rape.

172. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #96989 by _J_ on December 11, 2007 at 8:06 am

What really makes me cross (okay, not quite as cross as realising that people are even today being misguided into disease and death by religion) is that Melanie Phillips gets given a national platform and a wedge of money for tapping out her brainless tripe, whilst I'll be answering phones again tomorrow.

Nice, though, to see that the Daily Mail is championing its counter-evolutionary agenda in deed as well as in word. Unlike all other known life, it apparently operates strictly in accordance with the principle of Survival of the Shittest.

173. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #92374 by _J_ on November 30, 2007 at 11:18 am

steve99, 2

...authors feel they can at least attempt to get book sales by mentioning his name on the front cover.

At last, my opportunity to break into the glamorous world of authorship! My debut book, Why I Think RICHARD DAWKINS is Really Lovely will (surely) be out early in the new year.

174. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91510 by _J_ on November 28, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Frankus1122

Whilst the 'question your faith in order to strengthen it' gambit is very tempting, and may be effective in winning people over to at least watching the movie, be wary of inadvertently helping to bolster the Christian Doubt Policy - whereby doubts are embraced so that they can be illegitimately filed away under 'Things We Assume That God Has An Answer For', thereby giving the believer the sense of having been tested and proven faithful, plus allowing them to feel unjustifiably humble. Ie - The Golden Compass isn't going to challenge anyone's faith, so beware giving them the opportunity of turning watching it into into notch on a faith-o-phile's bedpost.

In addition to the good suggestions of many others, here are some more options:

You could point out that The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe got a free pass at spreading its particular take on Christian ideology a couple of years ago, and that, in a free, intelligent society, it makes sense to listen to more than one side of a debate.

You could observe Pullman's admitted literary debts to Milton (who expressly set out to 'justify the ways of God to men') and William 'mad raving religiite' Blake. (On the latter point, you could get hold of the famous Blake picture that inspired the use of the phrase 'the Golden Compass'.)

You could lose your temper, roll your eyes and say: 'Limbo, Galileo, contraception, common sense - what're the Catholics going to ban next?'

I was probably right not to go into teaching.

175. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90741 by _J_ on November 26, 2007 at 8:38 am

I think this is a great idea. And I'm not even American.

I hope it's less boring than the Methodist Sunday School I went to. It sounds less boring. In fact, it sounds pretty cool. Do they take people in their twenties?

At least there shouldn't be any danger of the kids here having to put up with the unexplained absurdities of 'normal' Sunday School. I remember being told that 'God could do anything' when I was but a wee toddler. I spent ages asking increasingly ridiculous questions about smashing planets into each other. I think the teachers gave up on me in the end. Really, filling naive children's heads with nonsense like that in a place called a 'school' shouldn't be acceptable. How nice it'd be to go to a Sunday School where all of the amazing claims were factual.

For people who are suggesting that needn't be held on a Sunday - technically, sure, but that's missing the point, isn't it? The article makes it clear that one of the chief motivations for this is to give kids something 'normal' to do whilst all their friends-of-theistic-parents learn how to grovel at god. They're not doing that on Thursday nights.

As a last suggestion: for kids who can't make it to these, Sunday mornings should be filled with Star Trek repeats. It's more or less the same thing.

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

Comment #90513 by _J_ on November 25, 2007 at 11:53 am

I happen to have religious conviction.

That's a telling line.

People happen to have ginger hair or no sense of smell. But you don't happen to be a politician, or a pro-life lobbyist, or charity worker. Convictions - political, existential, religious - don't arbitrarily inflict themselves on docile human beings. You play a fairly major role in forming your beliefs.

This mode of thought might make it easier for Blair to do his new job fostering peace in the Middle East, though. Since we're all just innocent carriers of whatever convictions befall us, he'll be able to accept people who 'happen to think all Jews should be killed', or who 'happen regard America as The Great Satan' or who 'happen to have shot quite a lot of people' without a crack in his trademark smile.

I think it's time people in all walks of life took some responsibility for their convictions. 'I'm a Catholic' is a perfectly decent thing to admit, but you shouldn't be able to shirk the question 'Why?'.

177. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90157 by _J_ on November 23, 2007 at 8:09 am

epeeist

Well, it was only 'just for fun'.

Although, in a way, that could make the anonymous Bill quote particularly apt. How often do we find ourselves subject to creative attempts to reinterpret sense and consistency into the bible, against what very much appears to be the grain? Perhaps god had a special private meaning for every word in the bible, according to which it all makes glorious, divine sense. Maybe the challenge is that we're supposed to try and work this out. Or some such nonsense. (I'm sure I remember going over all this sort of thing with Dianelos, by way of Wittgenstein and Humpty Dumpty.)

EDIT - irate_atheist: Very true, very true.

178. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90147 by _J_ on November 23, 2007 at 7:06 am

Hi, Quetz,

Anything in the bible is either literally intended by god, something entirely made up by a human, or somewhere in between (eg vaguely inspired by god and accurate in some metaphorical way).

To the extent that biblical statements are of divine origin, they are susceptible to point 2 - and, if god wants us to think he's changed his mind, contradictory biblical statements are one way of doing this. To the extent that biblical statements are of human origin, they are susceptible to point 1 as well: people can just be wrong about god. And, in fact, all of these statements are susceptible to point 3: god's actually imperfect and we're even worse, so heaven knows what ends up in the bible, regardless of who was doing the inspiring.

Since all god's intentions are attributed after the fact by theists, there's never any trouble with saying 'What god wanted is exactly what happened'. It's all so wonderfully untestable.

On the Moses example: perhaps God was testing Moses (and was thus not omniscient, if there was a chance Moses might fail the test). Perhaps God, aware that actions speak louder than words, set up the whole thing as a way of demonstrating his mercy. Who can say? Too bloody mysterious for their own good, some beings.

And if God isn't really perfect, then what ELSE isn't he?

Well, 'existent', for one thing. But (laying my opinions to one side), whilst I certainly take your point, I find an imperfect creator a good deal easier to imagine than a perfect one. Perfection gets paradoxical. God needn't be quite as silly as all the things people apparently believe about him.

You're right that the question isn't tremendously important, but I still think it's a good idea to try to get theists to think about the implications of their God's powers.

I agree with you. I think it's the same with theodicy.

Finally, just for fun, back on the subject of whether we can take authority figures' official pronouncements as reliable accounts of their own natures and deeds, compare the quote you gave:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfil? (Numbers 23:19)

with this one:

I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. Anon.

179. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90116 by _J_ on November 23, 2007 at 4:12 am

Quetz - Since Ruht isn't playing with you, I'll give you something. Here're some possibilities:

1 God didn't really change his mind, it just looks that way to us.
Think of the history of god's interactions with humanity as if they were a long car journey. Sometimes, your car turns left, sometimes your car turns right, in order to follow the roads and navigate the landscape. To an observer watching your GPS position without a roadmap, your direction would seem to fluctuate arbitrarily and even, at times, to turn back on itself. But to the, it all makes sense and it's all progress towards the final goal. Furthermore, although the driver is responding to circumastances (the turns of the road) this doesn't imply 'changing his mind', as the driver could fully anticipate, in advance, the need to make these course alterations, by planning his journey on a map. In the same way, god's apparent changes of mind could be seen as not changes of his mind, but parts of a plan that includes sections like 'Right - once I've set that up, I'll need to stop doing that and start doing that... Just like a chef isn't 'changing his mind' when he stops frying the onions before they go brown.

2 God didn't really change his mind, but he wants us to think he did
A variation on point 1, and potentially coexistent with it. God's chosen methods for getting things to happen in the way he wants them to involve a bit of deliberate deception from time to time. Not only has he to let the occasional serpent into the Garden of Eden, and to torment the odd Job with the attentions of Satan, but sometimes he just needs to lie to us. Perhaps its because, like simple civilians who, for various good reasons, can't be given full knowledge of everything done on our behalf by our security services, the truth might actually be dangerous to us. Or perhaps, like Milton's Raphael struggling to explain a war in heaven to Adam and Eve in terms of earthly things, we simply can't fathom these kinds of truths, and 'God changed his mind' is the simplest approximation (even if it seems to contradict his perfection).

3 God isn't really perfect, but he's a lot more perfect than we are
Perfection is such an impossible notion that, even with both points 1 and 2 operating on god's behalf, it's still fatally problematic. It seems far more likely that god is not actually perfect or omnipotent, but merely a great deal more capable, reliable and potent than we are. Prone to hyperbole and simplifications, we've decided that he's perfect. Perhaps he finds this annoying. Or perhaps, as in point 2, it's the simplest way of conceiving of him, without his having to sit us down for a couple of aeons to explain things that we're never going to grasp.

I throw those things in partly for your entertainment and partly because, as with the 'Why does god let bad things happen?' argument, I suspect that this is one that any happy theist can sweep aside with the internal logic of their faith. It doesn't really matter, and answers of some sort can be found. I'd say that the faith falls down on other matters - like 'So where is the bugger, then?'

180. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90115 by _J_ on November 23, 2007 at 4:07 am

Ruht

To take one baby step towards mutual comprehension:

If something has a beginning, it obviously was created. Whether it was created by random chance [sic] natural selection evolution [...] either way it was created.

It's clear from this that you have been using 'created' differently from how most people here would. You seem to use it as 'began', whereas for us, 'created' usually implies a sentient creator. We'd usually avoid describing things that are the produce of non-deliberate forces as 'created', unless we clarified what we meant very promptly (eg 'created by evolutionary processes').

You still seem to be struggling with finity (real word?) and infinity, and various associated concepts of necessity and causality, though. And for this, I'd refer you back to the many explanatory posts that you've been offered, but have apparently ignored.

181. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90114 by _J_ on November 23, 2007 at 4:06 am

Ruht: The 'measurement' is in not being able to explain infinity. Therefore all of our 'measuring tools' are finite, thus proving we are operating with finite laws and physics, inside of a greater infinite.

steve99: No, that doesn't prove anything. This is just words strung together.

This is brilliant! Does anyone have the web skills to set up a Ruhtian Argument For Design Generator? All it needs to do is to generate approximately grammatical sentences containing a high freqency of the words 'infinite' and 'finite', and then to arbitrarily insert (at the start of sentences and in place of about half of the conjunctions) a selection of 'therefore's 'thus proving that's, 'self-evidently's and 'obviously's.

For extra hilarity, you could add a Ruhtian Responsive Counter-Argument Generator. This is actually exactly the same programme as described above, except that to activate it you have to run the Argument Generator first and offer some critique. The Counter-Argument Generator then disregards this and just generates another Argument from scratch.

Ruht, mate: somewhere between Dr Benway's 289 and irate_atheist's 300, we've got you pegged, even if you're unaware of it yourself.

182. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90045 by _J_ on November 22, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Bonzai - I don't diaagree with you, but:

Strong convictions, like religion or nationalism, are often needed to overcome our innate empathy.

...or they can remind us of it, when we are tempted to override it with greed, vengefulness, schadenfreude, bigotry or laziness.

Just to keep us balanced! ;)

183. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90040 by _J_ on November 22, 2007 at 1:25 pm

This is still a bit vague. Aquinas says that good isn't arbitrary because it isn't based on God's decision but it isn't independent of God either because it comes from His personality.His argument doesn't include God's existence as a fact, he just gives a possible answer to the dilemma.

So, Aquinas, rather than saying anything about the nature of morality, subordinates (or equates) it to another (assumed) phenomenon (ie The Nature Of God), which he also doesn't seek to explain. A conversation exposing this could go like this:

-What is good?
--I don't really know. Let's say it's whatever is inherent in the nature of God (should he exist).
-What is inherent in the nature of God?
--Good is. Weren't you paying attention?
-And what's good again?
--[footsteps, and a door closing]

Aquinas' argument perhaps 'doesn't include God's existence as a fact', but if God is taken out of it, then it is literally no argument at all. Since nothing is said of God other than positing him as another identity of 'goodness', Aquinas has effectively done nothing more than add to the population of terms that mean 'goodness' - and superficially confuse morality with theology a little bit further.

Funnily enough, his argument bears some resemblance to an even simpler one expressed by Ruht on the 'Theory/Law' thread just now, which went:

-What do you think god is able to do?
--I think god is able to do anything that god is capable of.

I doubt that Ruht is going to earn him/herself a place in the history of theology equivalent to St Thomas Aquinas', but perhaps he has more of a claim than I'd thought.

EDIT, on reading Tibor's response: Oops.

184. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90023 by _J_ on November 22, 2007 at 12:25 pm

[...] why would chamomile have such an adverse effect on a person?

Because it's horrible.

Next question.

185. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90021 by _J_ on November 22, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Tibor

but rather God impersonates goodness itself.

...or 'God is good and good is God, and you can't have one without the other' - which is the time-honoured device of emotional blackmail by which religious spokespeople have bound their flocks to their faith with ignorant fear of the alternatives for centuries.

About Aquinas's answer to the dilemma: I would have liked to see some arguments about why it is so self-evidently false.

I thought epeeist's comment skewered this neatly - though his typing fingers flash like his sword hand, so you may have missed it. Aquinas appears to be begging a question, rather than answering one. Aquinas simply moves the leap of faith from his answer to the terms in which he introduces it.

186. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90015 by _J_ on November 22, 2007 at 11:55 am

Perhaps not as pleasant for your chin, though. (Which, whilst we're discussing beliefs held purely for their introspective pleasantness, is a perfectly valid consideration.)

187. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90012 by _J_ on November 22, 2007 at 11:46 am

Ruht:

We are a finite living inside of an infinite. We operate with created laws and physics, inside of non-created infinite laws and physics that we are not capable of knowing while operating in the finite.

In a way, I quite like this stuff. You're coming very close to saying 'I don't know' - and when you say 'I don't know', you're saying something that non-theists, Darwinians and other scientists are very used to saying. 'I don't know' is the reason that scientists can happily spend their lives trying to find things out. 'I don't know' is precisely what we have to face up to when we spot the fatal weaknesses of the god hypothesis.

I don't like this, though:

I consider God to be able to do anything he is capable of doing.

That's just a sheer non-answer, Ruht, you must be able to see that. I mean, I can say that 'I consider God to be able to do anything he is capable of doing', but in my case, since I don't think he exists, 'anything he is capable of doing' is 'nothing'. In your case, it's 'rather a lot'! But you don't seem willing to be more specific...

Your 'I don't knows' appear, as with a very large number of theists, to be liberally wrapped around you like polystyrene chips and bubblewrap, preventing you from banging against the problematic confines of your faith. In fact, you have a terrifically confident belief in something you don't actually understand at all. You reckon it's infinite, but you haven't a clue what that could mean or how it could work. You reckon it created everything, but you show no understanding at all of any of the actual work that has been done on trying to fathom how life came into existence. You seem to reckon it to be omnipotent, but you're so vague on that idea that you're even avoiding saying it.

You're basically promoting something like Alister McGrath's vaporous non-entity of a faith, aren't you? Do not confuse inclarity with sophistication. And do be aware that the last thing you're going to do with so ill-defined a religion is persuade anyone to share it by reasoned argument.

All of this loops back to completely vindicate Bonzai's comment 267, right before your own 277. Quoting:

[...]"theories" of "why" are useless without answering "how".

Who knows, God is just too mysterious for our limited mind to comprehend. This is the escape clause which excuses,-no, actually enshrines,-- ignorance wholesale, it doesn't matter what is the topic at hand.

Religions don't measure their proposed answers by their observable, testable, measurable truth. They measure them purely introspectively - by how the ideas make you feel. Consequently, they are not in the business of discovering what is actually true about reality. They are only engaged in finding whatever story will give the greatest feeling of satisfaction to the teller and the audience. Anything that will quieten the nagging voice of uncertainty.

To hanker for such explanations is natural. To indulge in them is understandable. To proselytize and seek to displace scientific endeavour with them is disgraceful.

188. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89983 by _J_ on November 22, 2007 at 9:45 am

Ruht

Perfection is a troublesome issue and grows more impossible a concept the more you think about it. But fine: let's say that the theoretical construct of 'god' lists 'perfection' among its attributes, and that we, being imperfect (or less perfect) are unable to grasp it. This is the sort of thing you're allowed to assume when you believe in a god, as I remember. So lets leave that.

Here's a slightly different question. We, as human beings, have survived and developed to the state we're in by being able to assess information and work things out. We're curious, we're reasoning and we learn from experience. We can learn the difference between the roar of a waterfall and that of a predator; we can become adept at working out whether Jones next door is lying to us or whether he really is only visiting our wife every day while we're out at work/clubbing mammoths to check her dental health...

God, if it were to exist, either wants us to know that it exists, or doesn't. If it doesn't, then it will be able to hide itself very well (being 'perfect') and there'll be no danger of our ever finding out. If it does, then it will be able to give us such clear evidence of its existence that we will have no trouble at all recognising the truth of it.

There's one third scenario. God wants us to know it exists, but wants us to have to work for the knowledge. In this case, the harder we try to work it out, the clearer the evidence will become.

Now, here's your problem. When we apply the sort of thinking that stops us throwing spears at waterfalls, getting pounced on by lions and being cuckolded by Mr Jones - ie, when we strive to observe the evidence around us carefully; when we put our gut instincts in place and weigh them against analysis; when we seek corroboration for our findings and assist our efforts by paying attention to group experience - we are doing what we have come to call 'science'. Science is the name we have given to the collective set of practices that have proven, over the years, to work - to cure our diseases, invent our aeroplanes and turn our predators (and occasionally adulterers...) into fashionable coats.

Your problem is that the more science we apply to the question 'Is there a god?' the more we find an answer that looks like 'No'. When we had done very little science (when we were still frightened by the roar of waterfalls and sharing tea with Mr Jones), God looked like an excellent explanation of everything. But the more work we've done, the more rubbish the evidence has appeared to be. The kinds of evidence we have for the existence of god are exactly the kinds of evidence we would espect to find if there were no god at all, but rather just a whole lot of wishful thinking, ignorance, tradition and cultural inertia.

Imagine what sort of good evidence the kind of perfect god you are talking about could give us. It could leave us in no doubt as to its existence. And, since it presumably created us and gave us our ability to reason, analyse, communicate, test and predict, it would give us the sort of evidence that would respond well to these skills.

And yet, what we find in reality, is the exact opposite of this. We find an idea of god that becomes more convincing the more you ignore facts, ignore science, ignore reason. We find that god is something a person can convince themselves of if they indulge in their superstitions and their prejudices and choose to concentrate on arbitrary, uncorroborated ancient writings instead of the methods that have demonstrably been improving the lot of the human race for centuries.

So, two apparent options remain. God is either:

a) a bungler
or
b) non existent

Which do you reckon it is?

189. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89897 by _J_ on November 22, 2007 at 4:47 am

epeeist - Perhaps I am the one guilty of being too cryptic: the 'Comfort's Banana' reference was thoroughly appreciated and enjoyed.

Philip1978 - There is a danger that you will merely be mistaken for a frog...

Quetzalcoatl - A, B and C all have their charms. Whilst I have always admired your wily Central American ways, I must opt for DrBenwaydidit. (Even more so now, as penance for having not yet apologised for spending months baselessly assuming that she was a he.)

190. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89888 by _J_ on November 22, 2007 at 3:55 am

epeeist

To bring it back to topic (sort of), this is why the banana is an obvious indicator of god. No other fruit provides all you need for a good day's fencing ;-)

To develop which theme, and thereby add further proof to the already towereing mountain in favour of god: forget the banana, take a fundamentalist theist. You can have a whole fruitcake.

Shame Ruht went away. Was just fashioning another response. Though steve99 pretty much covered it already. And Ruht seems to have been a very selective reader.

191. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89762 by _J_ on November 21, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Didn't you read my first post? If you can't create or recreate evolution in the lab, then you can never prove your theory. If you can create or recreate evolution in the lab, then you just proved that life can be created by an Intelligent Designer.

Didn't you read steve99's response?

Happily, evolution both can and can't be recreated in the lab. Elements of it can be recreated. Others can be observed in the field. Required to knit the pieces together is a modicum of common sense. Fortunately, this is something that we have evolved. (Generally, as a species, that is - obviously, I'm not speaking for everyone.)

Anyway, the silliness of your 'If you can create or recreate evolution in the lab, then you just proved that life can be created by an Intelligent Designer' pearl has been amply pointed out already. If evolution can be created by a ginger haired lady, then a ginger haired lady could be the designer. If evolution could be triggered by the dying vestiges of an old universe, time-looped to the beginning of our own through processes we will be unable to observe till ours is on its death-bed, than that's also a way in which life could have begun. To show that something can be produced by a designer is not therefore to show that it needs to have been.

1. Some beaches are artificially created by humans.
2. So, beaches can be artificially created by humans.
3. Therefore, all beaches were artificially created by humans.

1. Some animals are cats.
2. So, animals can be cats.
3. Therefore, all animals are cats.

Can you see the problem, yet?

Sure, A God could, if it existed, have made everything. That's generally what the idea of god is for, after all - to 'explain' the existence or occurrence of things that we otherwise haven't got the foggiest clue about (but feel really uncomfortable about not understanding). Logically, where the concept of 'God' equals the concept of 'Creator', it must be conceptually up to the task of Creating. That's its raison d'etre.

But to say so is to say nothing of whether it's actually true or not. This is the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument. It's an arse-over-tit argument, that starts with 'God/The FSM made it' and then looks for any evidence that might fit, whilst vehemently seeking to discredit anything that doesn't.

Evolution, on the other hand, took bloody ages for anyone to actually formulate as an idea (in spite of it being, in retrospect, glaringly obvious), partly because of god's conceptual monopoly and partly because it was drawn, painstakingly, from close observation of what's actually out there. It's science (in the way that ID isn't) because it it doesn't start with a pet idea and then try to prove it. It starts with observation, makes a tentative guess about where the observed data are pointing, then seeks more data to check whether it's along the right lines. 150 years scientists have been fighting about evolution (and, as has already been observed, science reserves its highest awards for those who convincingly overthrow accepted wisdom) and still it looks right. It looks stronger than ever. In fact, it's statistically a sound bet that you someone close to you, owes either their life (or at least their health) to it.

Another useful angle on the 'Is there a designer behind all this?' question is to look at what 'all this' is and try to figure out if a designer can sensibly be supposed to have made things as they are. One quite persuasive thing we've discovered (through actually looking at stuff, rather than trying to guess what it might look like by staring at our bibles) is that, were a reasonably competent designer (with, say, human-level intelligence) to have created life, he'd have done a damn sight better in many areas than whatever process created us has done. Look up vestigial organs, the recurrent laryngeal nerve and the arrangement of the retina and optic nerve in the mammalian camera eye for starters. What kind of drunken, split-personality designer would carefully wire up the brain and then forget that he'd got rear half of the eye in backwards? On the other hand, this arrangement makes perfect sense within the framework of evolution.

It's happening again...must stop. Good look, Ruht. Hope the day breaks for you soon.

192. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89742 by _J_ on November 21, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Steve99 just took our fun away Walk. Let's get him!

'Fun.' 'Fun.'

Hats off to you guys who are still going strong at this. Maybe it's lack of practice, maybe it's being stuck between wanting to dive in and straining to avoid the way it sucks up time, but now I read these kind of paradoxical arguments for theistic plausibility, smugly making a virtue of their own deliberately cultivated ignorance as they contort illogical thrones for imperceptible gods and masquerading the whole mess as reason and...frankly, all I want to do is shout 'FUCKWIT'. Which is rude. Sigh. My patience, I've lost all my patience.

Well done to those of you who still have some.

Ruht: ...no, I mustn't get sucked in. You sound big enough to understand what Steve99's just said, or to absorb a little bit of information (easy to find on the internet) about logic and critical thinking and to apply it to the Swiss cheese of your comments to date. Go on, mate. Give it a go.

I like the theists who say:

'You know what? I know it doesn't make sense, I see what you mean about evolution and I know it's just a personal thing of my own, but I just can't stop feeling there's a god. Can't shake it. So, I won't try to make you share it, I won't try to apply my personal choice of religious rules to anyone who hasn't chosen to share them, and I won't behave in any ways that contradict our shared, non-religious, moral and legal codes. But I like life better when I can chat to my god, so, just for my own peace of mind, I'm going to keep her.'

That's the kind of theism that makes me smile happily and relax, knowing that I'm not going to have to spend apparently forever in an endless tail-chasing exercise trying to get someone to recognise a simple rational argument, purely because they are desperate to imagine some sort of anchor of factual objective legitimacy for their religious yearnings. It's not necessary. You don't need an anchor. It's perfectly possible to indulge in irrationality in your own private space, as long as that's where you keep it. It may even be healthy, for all I know.

So yearn away. Yearning's human. (Just like 'god'.)

193. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #89619 by _J_ on November 21, 2007 at 9:16 am

Quetzalcoatl

What perks does being an heir of Nietzsche offer?

Presumably you at least have the standard-issue hereditary gigantic walrus 'tasche?

194. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #89615 by _J_ on November 21, 2007 at 9:03 am

epeeist

Quite so!

Rereading, I thought I'd made a cut&paste error with 'meaningless', but it turns out that that's what was in the original. Perhaps David is being ironic.

As for being an heir of Nietzsche, I for one haven't seen a penny.

195. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #89590 by _J_ on November 21, 2007 at 7:22 am

Dear all,

Sorry: though topical, this is way off topic. (Never know what to do with stuff like this.)

Today's Radio 4 Afternoon Play, 'Stardust: A Love Story' by Gwyneth Lewis, was a charming and unique blend of introductory physics lecture and everyday romance. Some may find it a little mawkish, but it really made me smile. It should soon become available to Listen Again to for seven days, probably on this page.

(If I knew how to make this play available long term in a friendly format, I would. Though doubtless the BBC would send its people after me.)

I think that part of what has made me want to share this is reading David Robertson's lead article in his church's magazine (here) in which, reflecting on his legendary adventures in extra-faith relations, he describes atheism as 'a black hole which leads to the pit of despair and meaningless'. Which upsets me. Things like 'Stardust: A Love Story' - ambitious, genre-bending, arts/science-uniting, poetic and factual and life-affirming - seem to me to be deeply important for showing just how false Robertson's unfortunate misconception is.

Cheers.

196. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76916 by _J_ on October 7, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Mark Taunton

I've not really addressed you directly so far, as all I've done on this thread is snipe occasionally from the margins. I've not been taking it too seriously, as I'm sure has been obvious, but I suppose my attitude to the whole practice of fine-toothed-combing the bible has been made quite clear.

However:

I am very clear, following the plain statements about this in the Bible, that it is all too easy to lose sight of the truth and wander away, giving up on the hope of eternal life. I hope and pray that I never do, but I know that I could.

This reminds me of something.

When I was a new Christian, a speaker at my church told the story of his conversion. A friend had spent years trying to talk him into the faith. Finally, all on his own, without telling his friend, he began attending church. After a while, he accepted Jesus. In excitement, he phoned his friend with the news. He expected jubilation. He received downbeat realism. 'That's great,' said the friend. 'Now let's see if you're still a Christian in a year's time'.

The message was intended to impress upon us the challenge of faith. We were not to take our faith for granted, but should ever continue to strengthen it through prayer, church attendance, bible study and (why not?) more prayer. This is crucial to the Christian Policy on Doubt and Humility (which I avoid re-describing out of mercy for anyone who's sick of hearing it from me, but which I can happily copy-and-paste in here, if you like). But, in fact, the story made me think about what we mean when we describe something as 'difficult'.

There are different kinds of 'difficult'. I remember being shown, at school when I was eight, a block of wood with its face carved with a regular grid of straight grooves. 'How many squares, Jonathan?'. I can't remember what I guessed. Maybe fifty. 'One hundred', said my teacher. I couldn't believe it. A hundred was a huge number. I had to count them out to be sure. There were a hundred.

That's one kind of 'difficult'. It's expansive, covering everything from visualising a hundred accurately as a child, to understanding cutting-edge developments in practically any field of research, to hard-to-learn skills, like (topically) kicking a penalty from halfway down the field in rugby union, or juggling whilst riding a unicycle on a tightrope, or just playing a guitar (bloody hard when you first begin).

But there's a different kind of 'difficult'.

I used to believe in alien abductions. In the mid-nineties, I developed a conviction that, in the year 2000, the government would reveal that aliens had indeed been visiting the earth for years. I thought Roswell probably had something in it. I wasn't a hard-core, definite believer, but on a cocktail of enthusiasm, imagination and ignorance of counter arguments, I believed. That belief died. Years passed, I read some of those counter arguments, and I realised that it was almost certainly just an enjoyable fantasy. My feelings on the subject were readjusted by exposure to the facts. It would have been difficult for me to maintain those beliefs in the cold light of reason.

I'm not sure whether I ever really believed in Father Christmas. But it would be very, very hard for me to maintain a belief in him now, as an adult, knowing perfectly well how the Christmas presents get to be where they end up. I suppose I could pointedly go to bed early every Christmas Eve and make loud remarks about how I was looking forward to everyone opening their presents in the morning, leaving the ones that I had bought and wrapped somewhere obvious, relying on the goodwill of those I live with and doing my damnedest to sidestep the cognitive dissonance. I daresay some people might be able to maintain some degree of belief that way. Especially if they were truly convinced that the joy of Christmas rested on the existence of the bearded magic man (Santa, not Jesus – although either will do).

If I had been certain that the wooden block showed only fifty squares, but my teacher let me count the full 100, it would have been hard for me to maintain the belief that there were only fifty. Very hard.

Some things are hard because they require us to absorb unfamiliar information, to retrain or override our instincts, or to develop new habits and reflexes.

Other things are hard because they contradict reality, but we are nevertheless trying to persist in doing them against the grain, so to speak.

Often our motivations for this are good. The most serious error is frequently not our own. We desire a genuinely good outcome (living morally, helping others, being selfless – whatever) and are convinced by others that the way to achieve this lies in a particular belief and set of associated behaviours. Our goals become entangled with our methods.

When others point out the error in our methods, it's massively difficult not to take this as an attack on our goals. And, those goals being good, we mistakenly defend our methods. This is, obviously, a mistake. But an understandable one.

It is difficult to persist in an erroneous belief system that frequently sends up flashing sparks of tension with the reality that it constantly grinds against. But we find it similarly hard to abandon it when we are pursuing it through a confusion between it (a bad method) and our goals (which may be unimpeachable).

Some kinds of difficulty are to be challenged and conquered. Others are indicators that we are making a profound error.

I discovered religion to be the latter. I am still, years later, in the process of quashing the niggling barbs that striate those who recognise and reject a mistaken faith. I probably will be forever. The urge to believe in something…other seems to be a common feature throughout many humans, to a greater or lesser extent. This does not confer correctness upon it. So I will live with the barbs, which prick less by the year.

And I am happier for it. I have the confidence of knowing I'm doing my best, and not palming off the objections from a significant part of my brain. I may feel a good deal less worthy and authority-sanctioned than before, but I think I have a clear-eyed appreciation of my faults (and, maybe, strengths). And, when challenged, I can point to my sources. I haven't yet been shown to be wrong about gods, though my opinion has been shaped and guided. Should I be, I will change me mind.

I am very happy with this.

I am very clear, following the plain statements about this in the Bible, that it is all too easy to lose sight of the truth and wander away, giving up on the hope of eternal life. I hope and pray that I never do, but I know that I could.

What kind of difficulty are you describing here, Mark? On what grounds do you attribute that word 'truth'? How do you determine it – and how to you assess the authorities you use to do so? What, really, do you think the difficulties that lead so many to 'wander away' consist of?

I will tell you this. Many of us do not 'wander' away. We move slowly, reluctantly, but deliberately towards the door, painstakingly analysing and reflecting upon our every step, looking for reasons to linger, but finding reasons to continue – which we do, with increasing pace and confidence. We open the door, cast a compassionate look back over the dark chamber in which we have dwelt, and then step outside, breathing deeply for the first time in a world that makes so much more sense.

Types of difficulty. I know where I stand.

197. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76881 by _J_ on October 7, 2007 at 2:58 pm

stevencarrwork

Excellent bit of textual comparison! I really enjoyed reading that.

Speculating from the hip (I am not a cultural anthropologist or historian of mythology) another readily available non-theistic interpretation would be in terms of not direct intertextual inspiration, but common archetypes.

For a low technology, low science culture, the sea is a perfect symbol for uncertainty and danger, and therefore an ideal setting for one's choice of gods – all who set sail submit themselves to forces beyond their control.

The 'prophecy come true' element serves several functions: it confers a kind of bogus authority to the tale as a whole; it puts in some dramatic tension from the outset; it emphasises the heroes' bravery or determination in risking falling foul of the prophecy.

The 'why believe in the gods?' point you include functions as a test of character for both Paul and Odysseus: both are challenged to stick to their guns (Paul by his vacillating crew, Odysseus directly by the gods) and both prove strong-willed.

Foreign lands present the obvious arena for a test of 'the hero' – the protagonist of your faux-historical narrative – a set of sceptics and antagonists for him (or her, but inevitably him) to conquer or persuade.

Just stuff like that, really. Any fairly primitive society generating decent stories is likely to fall back on these sorts of elements.

Once more, god proves a function of narrative, rather than the agent of it.

198. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76878 by _J_ on October 7, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Corky

Hell, I'll settle for the proof that an angel exists or a cockatrice.

Mark, I know you are familiar with that critter, a fiery flying serpent? The result of the mating between a cock and a serpent? Well, where are they?

It's Jeremy Kyle! He's like RoboCockatrice: half snake, half (or more) cock, all twat.

(Sorry, very vulgar, I know. Some people really do seem to line up and beg for it, though.)

199. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76754 by _J_ on October 7, 2007 at 4:17 am

Goldy

Hey, no problem, really. I watched the game anyway. It's brilliant. Have fun taunting your NZ friends. Perhaps you need your own haka?

down_under

[...] why he does not worship Nostradeamus or Jules Verne

Because all Nostradameans and Verneists, just like Christians, Muslims, Hindus and the rest, are simply rebelling against the one true god, Shakespeare. They know this in their hearts and can never fully expunge the guilt that comes from neglecting the Works of Shakespeare and lying to themselves about the 'superiority' of some other rambling crusty old tome - tomes that, in truth, are only valuable as an inspiration for Shakespeare or as a demonstration of the inferior talents of other writers and thinkers-about-humanity.

It is perfectly obvious, both from universal human intuition and historical evidence, that the perfect Will created the Globe and all things in it, that He has Himself planned the events therein enacted, and that He has provided for all an unequalled statement of His Knowledge of humanity.

And Shakespeare never so much as touched an Inca. But we may understand His compassion for people of all cultures and religions by His Works, for is it not written (The Merchant of Venice, III.i):

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?

(Upon rereading this, I am once again amazed to think of the number of times theists have suggested that atheists cannot have an basis for morality without God. Although, of course, we do have Shakespeare.)

200. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76676 by _J_ on October 6, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Goldy, you are going to hell.

I recorded that game, and now I need not watch it.

So, we're playing France next week?

(Tell you what, Australasia has had a day of startling European upsets, alright.)