201. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68526 by Lauregon on September 7, 2007 at 12:29 pm

God as a rule does not interfere with the natural order; after all if God did as a rule interfere with the natural order then we would be living in some kind of magical Mickey Mouse kind of world and clearly the world we live in is nothing like that. But God does in some rare occasions, and particularly in the midst of great calamity, directly interfere, for example to save that one child. - Dianelos

Mechanisms explain the movement of the planets and the falling of apples and the complexity of the species and the fact that we can't walk through walls. There is no reason to suspect that there are exceptions to this rule, so I think it's by now unreasonable to believe that God interferes (or at least systematically interferes) with the mechanisms that structure our objective experiences. My own view is that for all practical purposes God never interferes, so I understand God as non-interventionist. -Dianelos

Funny how this all works...

202. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68524 by Lauregon on September 7, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Maybe you missed my earnest request to leave MY beliefs aside while we got clear about atheism and morality. Forget God. The question, AGAIN, is how you can get at morality. - PaulEmecz

Paul, I asked you many pages back where YOU think morality comes from. If you were to answer that, maybe we could see what impels you to keep refusing to accept what we're saying. Along with others, I've told you where I think morality comes from. I've also pointed out that, by definition, the word "morality" is derived from the Latin word "moralis," which means "custom." I take "custom" as referring to human provenance. To you, so it seems, "morality" has some other origin. Please tell us, and soon, please, where YOU think morality originates. If not from "God," then from where?

People won't answer the question, instead making a dig at theism. - PaulEmecz

We have answered the question. You refuse to accept our answers, apparently because you have a definition and concept of "morality" that differs from ours---one that involves absoluteness.

203. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68238 by Lauregon on September 6, 2007 at 1:20 pm

< blockquote>Both these fallacies are really failures of education. Especially the idea that all theism entails biblical literalism, or that all theism contradicts science, are trivially wrong beliefs. - Dianelos

Illustrating the social influence and political power of orthodox "faith," demonstrating why faith in "faith" and the divine unseen is pernicious.

After all theist philosophers have been discussing the existence of God with absolutely no dependence on the Bible since ancient times - Dianelos

Also without anyone ever having actually seen "God," or heard "God" speak, in an ancient time when belief in gods was rampant, when natural disasters and unpleasant personal events were attributed to divine beings living in the sky who possessed human characteristics and behaviors, however magnified to divine proportions.

And some great scientists, including some Nobel price winning physicists, are theists, thus evidencing that not all theism is incompatible with science. - Dianelos

This is a shifty claim since some of these physicists start from the absolutust premise that the God of the Bible exists and they're determined to prove their inerrantist beliefs, while other physicists speak of "God" as a cosmic abstraction which could be spoken of as LIFE itself as Downunder describes, but believers latch onto such use of the term "God" and appropriate the name of the non-theist physicist as belonging to their orthodox theist tribe. THEISM, by definition, strongly implies a personal God who comes from beyond and intervenes in human lives according to its divine superior knowledge and will. That being the case, it's no wonder that a person claiming to be a theist is understood by most people as a person who believes in such a deity. It's been illustrated here time and again that when deists who claim to stand apart from orthodoxy speak of "God," their "God" is as slippery as a bar of soap in the shower. This "God" becomes whatever the theist wants it to be in the moment. It both has characteristics of the "God" of orthodox belief, and also, they say, lacks characteristics of the "God" of orthodox belief. This "God" is like mercury; it's a bunch of small globs in the palm of the hand, and it's one large shimmering glob in the palm of the hand. This "God" can't be clearly defined because it's entirely subjective to the theist putting forth his or her faith in it, and there's something to be gained by not defining a "God" who is too different from the Biblical "God." If theists want to disassociate from orthodox belief and creedal faith, they could largely avoid being lumped together with the mass of orthodox believers if they were to use a different name for the deity they're defending, but they don't. Why don't they? My guess is they want the protection of numbers, the protection and support of orthodox theists, no matter that they also want to disassociate themselves from the very "literal" believers whose company they want to take refuge in. They could also choose to abandon the term "theist" and find another term to describe their religious faith, but they don't, almost certainly because they really are wedded to the "God" of orthodoxy but in a upgraded version.

I'd like to know why theists who argue from physics can't be content with a cosmic, non-personal abstraction as Einstein spoke of. What is it they want from the "God" of the Bible that they can't let go of? If it's comfort and peace, after all, then they really aren't all that different from those literalist believers whose company they try to disassociate themselves from.



Here endeth the rant. :)

204. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68022 by Lauregon on September 5, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Take my word for it: one can be a theist and at the same time have no problem at all with the project of science. - Dianelos

;)I think you'll have to carefully and convincingly, without any dodginess or slipperiness whatsoever, define your terms in order to have people here be the tiniest bit willing to take your word for it. Popes have claimed infallibility in religious matters in years past, and see what that's got them! ;)


I know a theist who, in order to accept evolution yet still be able to see himself as a scientifically savvy, politically liberal, evangelical Christian, approaches it like this: first there was evolution, and then there was a natural catastrophe of some sort that wiped out all proto-human beings and creatures, and I suppose, plant-life, and THEN about 6,000 years ago, "God" created Adam and Eve in "His" image and likeness, and all living creatures---all in the same form they exist today---and then the Yaweh/Jehovah saga continued as reported in the Bible, and Jesus WILL come again, maybe this year, maybe not. However, for all his deep faith in this "science," this theist believes creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools, and that evolution should. Go figure.

And as I've said before, concerning the idea that "consciousness creates reality," as long as humans are in this universe in the forms we presently are in, it's probably a far better idea for humanity to deal with the common material reality we live within, rather than than without (however subjective sane human interpretation of this material reality may be). Theist George W Bush has shown and continues to show the world what creating your own reality looks like. Bush and his theist cult-followers (some 30% of the US population, by the way) believe that President Bush is led and counselled by God, and that whatever Bush says or thinks, must therefore represent "God's" truth. This cultic madness is exactly why belief in supernatural beings is undesirable and should be discouraged in the 21st century. We have more than enough to deal with in this apparently material reality without having to deal with being pressured by avocational theist-scientists (or anyone, for that matter) into having blind "faith" in yet another version of the unseen theist "God."

If the day comes that "God" appears and manifests in a form that no human can avoid recognizing, well, then maybe theism would make sense, but not now, not today.

205. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67968 by Lauregon on September 5, 2007 at 12:27 pm

In short all of the qualitative part of our condition is directly contingent on God and represents our dynamic and interactive relationship to God. And I think it's indisputable that the qualitative part of our experience is far more valuable and relevant to us than the objective part of our experience.

It is in this sense then that I claim that God is both non-interventionist and non-absent. Dianelos

It sounds to me that you're talking about "God" as the sum of all that is, perhaps a Ground of Being, or something like the Hindu concept of Brahman, but you've said before that's not how you see "God."

Our experience of beauty is a direct experience of God (my own religious experiences feel exactly like my experience of music - Dianelos

I've had many experiences of a sort of raptured, filled-to-overflowingness when viewing certain art works. I attribute them to chemicals in my brain; another way of saying that, taking the position that All That Is is "God," would be to say that my response to the art was "a direct experience of God," but that "God" would be "God" in a deist sense rather than in the theist sense, but I don't think that's what you've been talking about all this time. Am I wrong in my perceptions?

On the contrary it seems to me that direct experiences are the only knowledge that is absolutely certain and cannot possibly be a fantasy. Experience is all the data we have (and I mean experience as it is, namely comprising both the objective and the subjective aspects of it - both the object of our experience and how it is to experience it.) Where we can err is in what we infer from that data. So, for example, I claim that it is an error to infer from the data we have (the objective data in this case) that the physical universe is real. - Dianelos

And yet, the physical equipment with which we perceive things around us, and the things we perceive with that equipment, comprise, for all practical intents and purposes, the reality in which we exist, and that equipment and the things we perceive are perceived by humans as material, whether, scientifically speaking, that's true or not. THIS is where we are NOW, and THIS is the reality humans are currently bound to and equipped to perceive. Similarly to the way it would be pointless to deliver electronic equipment to people who had no infrastructure for it, it's fairly pointless to insist NOW that the world we live in and perceive with our senses is an illusion (although it certainly can be politically useful to get masses of people to think so, as religious history has shown). HERE is what we HAVE; it's where we live NOW. Of course, people can imagine all sorts of things, such as fairies, but that doesn't make them real.

BTW, I asked before, but got no answer, WHY can't theists be satisfied with deism? What does theism offer that makes deism unacceptable to religious believers?

206. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67782 by Lauregon on September 4, 2007 at 6:42 pm

In fact, if you remember, I have been a staunch defender of reason. I think reason allows us to go beyond science. I think it needs to. I think reason is the tool with which we can pick science itself up, dust it off, and look at it. I do reserve the term moral for statements about what ought to be done, not merely descriptions of what is or isn't done. - PaulEmecz

Your concept of reason and morality both appear to neccessitate an unnamed agent with the power to impart concepts of morality from outside this realm.

There's nothing wrong with the Golden Rule. However, the question is how you move from describing how people behave to saying how they SHOULD behave. - Paul

I don't recall saying anyone "should" do anything.

Some people follow the Golden Rule and they are happy. They live in stable societies. Some people think it's every person for themselves. They may or may not be happy. They may or may not live in the same societies as the Golden Rule people. Some people follow the Golden Rule and are terribly unhappy and live in awful societies. No amount of describing what people actually do will amount to any statement about what people SHOULD do. - PaulEmecz

You're the one who's obsessed with "SHOULD," not me. Yes, people behave differently, but what we're trying to say here (at least I am) is that I think people evolve to understanding that following the Golden Rule makes societies more suitable for optimum human life.

If by 'morality' you merely mean how people behave in society, I can concede that this doesn't need God. This would include the Golden Rule people as well as the fascists, those who are greedy, selfish or violent etc. - PaulEmecz

That's what you choose to see in what we've been saying. It's not what we've been saying.

If by morality you mean something more, if you want to say that it is right to follow the Golden Rule or that a society that follows it is a good society, then you need to show how you arrive at these value statements, and it's not by merely describing how people behave. - PaulEmecz

You're blinded by your definition of "morality" and your fixation on cosmic "SHOULDs." You assume that morality must be sourced somewhere beyond human societies in an absolute decider. You won't accept that morality is a human construct.

It's ironic that you say I 'persist in leaping to hypotheticals'. All you have ever come up with is hypotheticals: "If you want a stable society, then you should…""If you want to be happy, be fulfilled, have integrity, then…" - PaulEmecz

Your insertion of "fascists, the greedy, the selfish, and violent" into discussion of the Golden Rule is a tool you use to avoid seeing the value and function of the Golden Rule. Of course it's true that not all people follow the Golden Rule, but neither do all people follow the ten commandments which allegedly came from Yaweh/Jehovah. The point is that many of us here believe morality is created by humans, and by not a divine agent of "SHOULD."

The real question is, is it right to want to be happy – is happiness intrinsically good? Is it right to want society to be stable, for people to have their interests met etc? - PaulEmecz

Who do you suppose should decide that these human yearnings are "right"---apart from the people themselves? You seem to assume that unless these yearnings are imposed by something beyond humanity, they can't be "right."

You haven't given any satisfactory explanation of how you reach these value judgements. Why do you value the Golden Rule? - PaulEmecz

How many times must it be said? It appears that he Golden Rule is called the Golden Rule because it has practical social value to those follow it to the extent that following it considered more beneficial to the society than not following it BECAUSE humans have found it to be so.

The question is 'How can we say what is 'nice' and what is not?' I recognise two consistent answers - we can't; there is a designer outside this universe who has made a world allowing for intelligent life with a specific purpose. - PaulEmecz -

You seem to be absolutely convinced that there must be an agent of "SHOULD." Apparently, there's nothing else that can satisfy your need for a transcendent decider-of-all-things which is evidently why little we here say on the subject
of morality gets through to you. It's been explained and explained and explained, but we may as well have been speaking Martian for all the good it's done.

As for your question asking why you should follow any codes of conduct,it seems to me that if you have to ask, it's probably an excellent thing that you continue believing in an "SHOULD" enforcer, since apparently you secretly fear you're a closet sociopath on a divine leash. I know that may sound harsh, but really, your argumentation seems willfully perverse.

207. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67690 by Lauregon on September 4, 2007 at 11:18 am

Mind-over-matterism fails pretty badly. The Church of Christian Science had a nice run, but is closing down in two nearby towns. - Dr Benway

When visiting recently, I was surprised to see the Christiann Science Church in the town I used to live
had closed down---and had been replaced by another fundamentalist Christian sect congregation.

208. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67688 by Lauregon on September 4, 2007 at 11:07 am

Dianelos, did you not say some time back that you don't accept the idea of an impersonal Ultimate Reality in the mode of the Hindu concept of Brahman? Did I understand you correctly about that? If so, what you appear to be positing as "God" is so conspicuously and flagrantly rarified and "ivory-tower" that in practical terms it seems useful primarily as simply another way for uber elites to control the masses by means of their "superior knowledge" of the "personal God" who monitors and directs the lives of every human. It seems like just another super-tool of oppression, insisting that what people experience isn't really what they experience. You appear to be developing a vastly more diabolic form of the pie-in-the-sky orthodoxy that's preached, "suck it up here, peasants, your reward is in heaven." The greater mass of religious believers today can't even deal with modern Biblical scholarship. To what good purpose can your convoluted, tortured, quantum-based theories about "God" be put other than as yet another elitist means of imposing authority over human lives?

209. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67683 by Lauregon on September 4, 2007 at 10:41 am

What Donald wrote: "humans can individually, and collectively, have preferences. That is the origin of morality"

What Paul seems to have read: "any action by any individual leading to achievement of an instance of any preference, even an unusal one, gives rise to an action that is morally good".

No point in continuing if you are going to misinterpret like that. - Donald

Paul persistently refuses to accurately acknowledge the concept that a person treating others as he or she would choose to be treated may be or is the basis of human morality. He persists in leaping to hypotheticals about perverse actions performed gratuitously in order to avoid what's being said here.


Paul, about the "designer God:" what do you suppose would be the loving, caring divine purpose of the the water-borne schistosome parasite which burrows into the feet of humans, grows to amazing lengths, then exits, for example, from the eyeballs or nipples of their human hosts? What do you suppose could possibly be the loving divine reason for such a design?

210. In God we doubt

Comment #67493 by Lauregon on September 3, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Comment #67318 by Ian

As humans began to understand and unify phenomena in terms of impersonal forces and processes, many small gods gave way to one big one; that is how most people dealt with growing knowledge. - Ian

Is that an opinion that you can support with evidence? If the latter I'd like to see it. - Devolved

Google "the rise of monotheism."

211. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67485 by Lauregon on September 3, 2007 at 3:10 pm

In any atheist/theist debate, have you ever ONCE seen a theist who knew more about atheism than the atheist knew about theism? - PeterK

Not friggin' once, so far.

212. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67477 by Lauregon on September 3, 2007 at 2:47 pm

On the other hand according to my worldview it's not like God is an absent landlord either: God sustains the whole of our experiential life and directly affects the qualitative parts of it. - Dianelos

"God" can't be both not interventionist and at the same time "directly affecting" the qualitative parts of our life. From a deist perspective, a "God" might be said to indirectly affect, etc., in the manner of an absentee landlord (or parent), but "God" can't be both.

Further I object to you calling the reality of human beings "material". I think it's indisputable that the reality of human beings is experiential rather than material. Matter, material objects, and their properties are all things we find out about based on our experience. - Dianelos

Is that merely a semantic disagreement? It seems to me that our experience is derived from observation and perception of and interaction with the material world. In that sense, IMO, human reality is a material one. Experience based upon unverifiable subjective perception of the non-verifiable and non-material is, as I see it, fantasy.

I don't think that's a good definition, because according to it a fairy godmother should not be considered supernatural. - Dianelos

Who believes a fairy godmother should be considered supernatural? I certainly don't. I consider a fairy godmother to be sheer fantasy---or at most, a poetic way of speaking of wishful thinking or happy occurance.

213. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67428 by Lauregon on September 3, 2007 at 12:00 pm

As Humphrys writes: "I have fallen into the habit of asking almost everyone I meet if they believe in God. And here is an interesting thing: it was only the atheists who seemed absolutely certain." - Yasmin

Perhaps Humphreys should get out more and make the acquaintance of the parade of believers I've known throughout my life. Nary a serious doubter among 'em. At the very least, Pascal's Wager has won out over any pesky fleeting doubts. Besides, pot-luck suppers in the parish hall are where they meet their friends!

214. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67417 by Lauregon on September 3, 2007 at 11:22 am

Ms Salley's struck a salty tone
Toss the girl a meaty bone
Let her chew and gnaw on it
To calm her cranky Dawkins fit



(not a limerick but a clerihew)

215. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67411 by Lauregon on September 3, 2007 at 10:51 am

Haiku seems to make itself up if you're trying to occupy your mind whilst walking, as it kind of matches the rhythm of walking footsteps. - Wolf Mechanic

I'm forever counting on my fingers as I walk along occupying my mind, and I've found haiku an excellent way to never get back to sleep after waking up in the middle of the night. It's a sure dream-stopper for me. As for limericks, I'm fairly good at them on rare occasion---in my very humble opinion.

216. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67219 by Lauregon on September 2, 2007 at 5:45 pm

A book of atheist verse would be a wondrous thing indeed. Sadly I've never been much good at limericks, but I like haiku;

Old man in the sky?
Ha, no one *really* thinks that!
God is, um, physics. - Wolf Mechanics

Damn. I conjured the bright idea of writing atheist haiku last night BEFORE this thread began. Is it a matter of great minds thinking alike, or of me being a day late and a dollar short? Probably the latter, which is why I'm not rich or famous. Woe.


Later:


Rats, we're both too late:

http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/06/07/haiku-contest/#comments

217. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67217 by Lauregon on September 2, 2007 at 5:26 pm

"We don't know whether God exist or not"; they are rather positive that God doesn't exist, aren't they? - DianelosG

Seems to me what's being said is, "We see no evidence for there being a personal, intervening, judging, punishing, forgiving "God" as is imagined and believed in by theists."

218. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67213 by Lauregon on September 2, 2007 at 4:59 pm

I am not denying that atheists may have codes of conduct. They may think that they are behaving morally. That would be like a religious person claiming that there is such a thing as God's will because they were acting according to God's will. Just because an atheist says s/he is behaving morally, this doesn't mean that the atheistic world view allows for there to be moral principles that one ought to follow. - PaulEmecz

Okay, here again, you seem to be reserving the term "moral" for absolute rules that transcend human reason, which implies either a supernatural deity or some sort of eternally existing categories or ideals imposed by some creator. That's the only reason I see for you to keep insisting that atheists can't have morality. After all, atheism simply means an absence of belief in a supernatural deity. To insist as you have that you're not necessarily positing "God" as the originator of morality rings hollow. It surely appears that you are.

People for eons have made the assumption that morality requires "God," but maybe the time has come for people to understand "morality" as the work of reasoning humans rather than of supernatural provenance. It's a fact, incidentally, that the two dictionaries I consulted don't mention the word "God" or anything supernatural in the definitions for the term "moral." In fact, "moralis" is given as the origin of the word, derived from the Latin "moralis," which meant "custom," indicating that morals are human-made rules of conduct, and not cosmic edicts. Surely you already know this perfectly well. ;)


BTW, Paul, are you here as a means of refining a curriculum for classes you're teaching?

219. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67171 by Lauregon on September 2, 2007 at 11:54 am

I cannot see any argument for being an atheist who believes in morality.

My reasons for believing in God have been stated many times, and are not connected with morality. Maybe I haven't addressed the idea that there could be a creator and yet no morality. However, my question still stands, if I am wrong about God, how could there be morality? - PaulEmecz

Where do you think morality comes from, Paul? If not from "God" and not from humans, then from where? WHY do you think atheists can't believe in morality if there's no "God?"

220. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67168 by Lauregon on September 2, 2007 at 11:40 am

This is absolutely the most crucial point, on which the whole debate hangs. I totally reject the definition of morality that allows us to see morality as something we don't have any obligation to adhere to. There are rules in every society, but I believe there are some we SHOULD keep. This is what I really mean by morality, what I have been calling 'objective morality'. - PaulEmecz

I agree that there are rules we SHOULD keep. Rules against murder and unjustified theft, for example. However, the question here is, from where comes those rules---from humans, or from a supernatural deity?

Should we act morally? If so, where does this imperative come from? The mere existence of a rule is not a reason why we should keep it. What reason can there be?

Why should we act morally? - PaulEmecz

Because civilizations tend to work better when people treat one another as they themselves wish to be treated.

Paul, you still haven't answered my questions about how humans would know what they SHOULD do if the SHOULD derives from a supernatural deity rather than from human experience? By what means would humans come to know the SHOULD if not by experience?

Should we act morally? If so, where does this imperative come from? The mere existence of a rule is not a reason why we should keep it. What reason can there be? -PaulEmecz

As I've said all along, people treating others as they themselves would choose to be treated would serve to create better, less murderous and rapacious civilizations. Obviously, to me at least, this understanding is a gift of evolution. It can be lost, which should demonstrate that morality is learned from experience.

221. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67146 by Lauregon on September 2, 2007 at 7:37 am

Re: GC Davis, post #108:


As we know,
There are known unknowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also known unknowns
The ones we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the "God" led, prayer-service-addicted Bush Administration, Feb 12, 2002, at a Dept of Defense news briefing.

Arranged as poetry in Hart Seeley's, "Pieces of Intelligence," Simon & Schuster, 2003.

222. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67142 by Lauregon on September 2, 2007 at 6:50 am

His account of the Bible is equally undiscriminating. For a start, only religious nutcases take the Creation story literally; it is not a new or radical supposition that even the first readers of Genesis would have been aware of its symbolic nature – or rather, would have distinguished between the fact of fact and the fact of fiction - Salley

When creeds and articles of faith catch up with the ostensibly more enlightened views of Ms Salley, and when persons in the pews and their clergy stop claiming belief in the supernatural tenets of faith claiming facuality for symbology, Ms Salley's views will carry more credence.

I wonder what Ms Salley's view of John Spong's
non-theist, non-supernatural Christianity is, hmmm?

223. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67034 by Lauregon on September 1, 2007 at 12:25 pm

I'm not saying we should follow God's rules because he said so, out of fear or respect. I think we should follow them because they are right. My position is that God designed and created the universe, including the laws of physics, mathematics and logic. The universe could have been created differently, where 2+2=5, but it wasn't. Just as it is right to reason logically, I believe it is right to act morally. - PaulEmecz

I imagine at least most of the people here agree that we should act morally. The question is, who decides what's "right," "God," or human beings? As I asked earlier, if your answer is "God," how would you know what "God's" ideas of morality or "right" are? From where comes that information? If it's from human beings declaring to others what "God's" morality requires, how can you know they're not delivering their own ideas and representing them as having come from "God?"

Also, you seem to be fairly indifferent to the value and significance of the Golden Rule. Where do you think it came from and why do you seem to devalue it?

I'm not a Catholic. I would 'ignore' those bits of Catholicism that I disagreed with. - PaulEmecz

You've described yourself as a "lapsed Catholic." What chunks of Catholicism do you still agree with---and why?

224. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66841 by Lauregon on August 31, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Thinking further about this -

The "God" behind Teresa's experience of 40 years in anguish and unbelief, and John of the Cross' Dark Night of the Soul, plus all other reported experiences of abandonment by "God" leads me to think of a parent who births a child or children and quickly abandons it or them with a note saying something like, "Good-bye and good luck." I simply can't fathom what would be "good" about a human parent who would treat his or her offspring as the alleged Christian "God" seems to treat humans. All that seemingly endless and gratuitious testing of faith, and suck-it-up tough-love, and tell-me-you- love-and-worship-me behavior sounds suspiciously sociopathic. Grr.

225. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66808 by Lauregon on August 31, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Lane, I wonder if you supposed that none among us here had ever heard stories such as yours before. I strongly suspect there's not a single person on this forum who has not. I, for one, have, and I have my own story as well. Thirty some years ago I had a powerful experience I believed to be "God" lifting me from the depths of despair and setting me on a new path. Mine seemed to be, I discovered later, a classic Wm James bolt-from-the -blue, scales-from-the-eyes, Lazarus-come-forth type experience. A few years later, I had another startling experience when, unbidden, highly uncharacteristically, spontaneously, and embarassingly, I suddenly felt impelled to lay hands on the eyes of a woman parishioner in my church who had been diagnosed as having a tumor on the retina of her eye---and days later, the tumor, so the woman reported, was found by her surgeon to whom she had gone for treatment, had disappeared. In both instances I was shaken to the core, and I interpreted both at the time as interventions of "God," although in the second instance I was somewhat puzzled, since I had gone to a morning church service sort of buzzing from having earlier been reading some pagan material which I found exihilerating. Both experiences had the effect of making me feel "chosen" and singled out for something SPECIAL. Now, decades later, I no longer interpret my experiences in that way. My research into Christian doctrine and church history, as well as into prehistory, myth, psychology, and pagan beliefs finally led me to non-theism. I absolutely do not believe that the "God" Christians believe in is good or loving or just or...anything other than the assorted projections of human longings and yearnings to be relieved of the burden of being ordinary, mortal, finite humans, a sort of, "Alas, I was born into royalty but raised by commoners, and now have been recovered to my rightful status!" myth.

It appears you've found Christianity to be a path that makes you feel special, healed, and relieved of burdens you seemed unable to bear, and probably that's a good thing for you at this time in your life, but most of us here have not found theism to be a good thing at all, but instead, as something that's both simply and complexly not believable, and rather than pretend to something we thoroughly reject, we've left it behind---all seemingly miraculous stories notwithstanding. We just don't believe there's a "God" who invades this realm from another realm and tweaks and spins things on our personal behalf. We just don't, we can't pretend that we do, and we find the idea of a "God" who accepts hedged bets such as in Pascal's Wager to be a repugnant idea devoid of morality.

226. The importance of doubt

Comment #66615 by Lauregon on August 30, 2007 at 3:42 pm

(most Christians outside the American bible belt do not take the book of Genesis literally). - Cornwell

All of Christian theology and doctrine is based upon the Genesis account of a "fall" from "God's" grace in the Garden of Eden. I think it was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, of "The Woman's Bible," who said something to the effect: Take away the "fall" and there's no need for a savior or Christianity.

227. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66230 by Lauregon on August 29, 2007 at 11:50 am

Believers I know from online forums remain blissfully undeterred in hearing of Teresa'a loss of faith---the long dark night of the soul and all that. One explanation: "God" makes himself known to new believers, but withdraws as the believer becomes more seasoned in order to deepen his or her faith, thus Teresa's loss of faith is proof that "God" REALLY loved her.

IOW, both presence and absence alike are "proof" that "God" loves you.

228. Another view

Comment #66222 by Lauregon on August 29, 2007 at 11:23 am

Dawkins seems to be stuck in the last century. He's a very entertaining guy, but he suffers from existential insecurity: everything has to be proven before he'll believe it. - BFD

Imagine that. Wanna buy a case of snake oil, Doc?

229. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66104 by Lauregon on August 28, 2007 at 6:24 pm

The scientific method will not tell us the value of a human life, or whether it is right to have integrity in our actions. - PaulEmecz

Paul, are you assuming that only "God" can tell us those things? If not, what do you have in mind that can or will? If so, how would we know what "God" considers the value of a human life, or whether or not it's right to have integrity in our actions? If you assume it's through human agency, how could you know whether or not the human delivering the news wasn't delivering the results of his or her own reasoning and inviting others to believe he was channeling "God?"

230. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66087 by Lauregon on August 28, 2007 at 2:11 pm

You'd be better off basing your criticisms on what the theists on this thread say. - PaulEmecz

Why? Their beliefs are their own, and most if not all claim to not believe at least many of the same things most religionists do.

For example, there aren't lots of 'God's, in the same way as there aren't lots of 'physical realities'. There are different beliefs about God, and there are different beliefs about the universe. -PaulEmecz

In fact, you don't know that there aren't multiple "Gods" any more than you know there is one "God." It's ALL speculation and personal affinity (or conditioning). For example, George W Bush's "God" supports preemptive war against defenseless nations, whereas the "God" of most liberal Christians is a "God" of peace who abhors war. The fact is, neither actually knows a thing about the alleged supernatural deity monotheists call "God."

Now, you say that belief in God is conditioned. Does that make it wrong? You might condition your children in logic - doesn't make it wrong. I am currently getting my children to learn their times tables in an un-questioning parrot fashion. 7x8 is still 56, however you learn it. _ PaulEmecz

Conditioned belief in "God" doesn't make the belief right, and there's a considerable difference between "God" and numbers. The truth of the times tables can be physically demonstrated, unlike "truth" about "God."

231. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66000 by Lauregon on August 27, 2007 at 6:39 pm

One last word:

How many Catholics do you know who accept the teachings of the Catholic Church? The Church says you have to accept certain beliefs, but if you have rejected the authority of the Church... What you've got to realise is that you can call yourself a Catholic even if the Catholic Church would hesitate in calling you a Catholic. - PaulEmcz

You can call yourself Catholic, but are you Catholic? What does "Catholic" mean if you've rejected Church tenets? Yes, I know it supposedly means "universal," but as Dr Benway pointed out, dissent from Catholic teachings can get you excommunicated---or, in times past, could get you burned at the stake.

I was a layreader in the Episcopal church, but when I no longer accepted its creeds, I left in order to not have to lie week after week and pretend to be what I no longer was. My priest told me, "Well, the creed says 'We believe...' not 'I believe...'. We'll believe for you."

That didn't work for me.

232. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65995 by Lauregon on August 27, 2007 at 6:24 pm

I'm not going to defend what other theists say - it's often just simply wrong. -PaulEmescz

Therein hangs the tale, Paul. Who's to say it's "wrong?"

You also say that believing that that "God" is the best explanation for the whole of the reality we experience is a 'subjective perception'. Subjective in what sense? As has been mentioned, all perception is subjective in some sense. However, my belief that there is a designer for the universe is based on observations of the world, in much the same way as my belief in the Big Bang or evolution. I don't think it's accurate to call that a subjective belief. -PaulEmecz

But it IS a subjective belief, like it or not. Others may share your belief, but others don't---just as some read the Bible and believe it to be inerrant, and others don't.

Got to go fix supper for my husband who's recovering from open-heart surgery. See you later. ;)

233. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65989 by Lauregon on August 27, 2007 at 5:51 pm

What irks me most is the 'made-to-order' comment. Do I call Professor Dawkins' beliefs 'made-to-order'? How would that look... - PaulEmscz

My point addressed the complaint made by theist apologists that criticisms of theism by non-theists are false complaints, fashioned by non-theists mistaking the "God" the one complaining believes in with the "God" fundamentalists believe in. How many times I have had it said to me, "Well, I don't believe in that kind of God!" To which I want to reply and do reply when I can, "Well, what kind of "God" DO you believe in---and from where do you get your information about that "God?" Inevitably, the answer (if one comes at all) is entirely subjective and entirely undemonstrable, and yet theist apologists are determined to have their personally edited and ideally- designed "God" approved, embraced, and believed in by others!

(I do think these highly-charged theist/non-theist discussions would be far, far fewer if theists could let go of their belief in and devotion to an anthropocentric, personal, intervening "God," and accept a non-personal cosmic abstraction such as Einstein apparently referred to when he used the term "God"---and if only Einstein had used some other term!)

234. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65980 by Lauregon on August 27, 2007 at 4:46 pm

You have a point there, and I have thought about this. One reason I decided to stick with "God" is that I don't see why I should let the ugly/stupid bits in the Bible affect my use of the perfectly appropriate name I myself use when thinking. And, secondly, the god concept described in some parts of the Bible and in much of Christian tradition is very close to the my own. So it would be hypocritical for me to use a different name. I am really talking about God, even though I disagree not only with the description of God in much of the Old Testament but also with some basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy, including the dogma of the fall and of atonement, the dogma of hell, and the belief in miracles. - Dianelos

That being the case, it looks as though you and others who make the same objection to being thought to be talking about the God of the fundamentalists and orthodox creeds will just have to put up with others mistaking your "God" for the "God" of fundamentalists, articles of faith, and creedal statements. The thing is, believers of all stripes cherry-pick the attributes and demands of their "God," and then often are offended to be thought to be talking about a differently- assembled personal "God," and most if not all such "God"-personalists imagine that their custom-made "God" is the true one---but, then, curiously, few are willing to abandon the company of the doctrinal/creedal fold they've rejected in favor of a fresh start with their made-to-order deity.

235. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65968 by Lauregon on August 27, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Theism then is clearly a supernatural understanding of reality because it posits that the fundamental law that governs all things is not mechanical but personal will (which entails freedom and creativity).

Just look at the contortions, evasions, circumlocutions, and convolutions required to defend and support the idea of an ordering and interventionist supernatural supreme being from an unknown realm whose alleged "personal will" and perfect actions defy the common material reality of human beings on this earthly plane! WHAT exactly is the point of such an obscurant deity---and exactly who is prepared to authoritatively and inerrantly explain and knowingly describe this deity and its personal will, attributes, and perfect actions to humans living in the common reality of THIS earthly experience?

supernatural (a definition): actions and logic-defying earthly events attributed to the actions and will, perfect or permissive, of an alleged all-powerful deity who allegedly exists, orders, commands, and occasionally "miraculously" intervenes in earthly matters from a far-away realm.

236. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65913 by Lauregon on August 27, 2007 at 10:48 am

One really does not have to believe neither the religious fundamentalists on the one hand nor the recent populist atheist authors (Harris, Dawkins, et al) on the other, who all try to convince us that the Bible is central to theism. It obviously isn't, as there is no logical contradiction between theism being true and the Bible being full of errors. - Dianelos

(And, incidentally, "Bible" is a name and should be written in upper-case, as is "God" when used in the context of the three great monotheistic religions.) - Dianelos

This is a confusion that really doesn't have to occur. As has been mentioned before, when you use the term "God," the term you've helpfully pointed out must be capitalized when it refers to the "God" of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, quite naturally you invite direct associations to the "God" of Jews, Christians and Muslims, all of which derive from the Bible. Either you are talking about the capricious, bloodthirsty, narcissistic, interventionist, monotheistic "God" described in the Bible, or you're not. If you're not, why don't you avoid the very natural confusion and invent another word for the unique, not-Biblical, supernatural deity you believe exists? Why not give it its own name and make clear which deity you're talking about?

237. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65688 by Lauregon on August 25, 2007 at 3:57 pm

So what evidence do we have for the Trinity? The best evidence there can possibly be: ourselves. -Dianelos

Baloney. The "Trinity" was a theological construct craftily patched together to explain how the alleged long-awaited Messiah could have met the ignominious end dealt to Jesus in crucifixion. Like most evangelical and fundamentalist-type religionists, you've assumed a "truth," then gone in search of a pattern that can be tortured into fitting it.

238. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65481 by Lauregon on August 24, 2007 at 12:44 pm

There is a certain similarity with Sam's correspondence piece and that of Richard's remarks to Joan Roughgarden at the Beyond Belief conference. Joan, as an Evolutionary Biologist, and also a Christian, is desperate to communicate the science she loves to fellow believers who are rejecting scientific truths. Joan, who also wrote a personal book, was told, "why bother?" to use biblical analogies, something she is intimately familiar, to communicate science with those that are using the same text to reject science. Joan also has not placed her religious views into her scientific professionalism. - zarcus

Roughgarden's Beyond Belief position made me grind my teeth and clench my jaw, as does Collin's three converging rivers = the Trinity revelation. That whole wishy-washy liberal Christian muddle irritates me no end---possibly because I was trapped in it so long myself, trying to cling to the apron strings of the Christian fold, but I no longer have patience with any of it. At one time I thought I was called to be an Episcopal priest, but the spineless mushiness of a liberal Christianity that's unwilling to unabashedly stand up and be counted among those who've abandoned belief in Christian doctrine and Biblical mythologies eventually helped drive me away. To me, Roughgarden's approach, however pastoral it may be, merely perpetuates the supernatural worldview that's scientifically untenable in the light of the 21st century. As for Collins whom I heard recently on a religious radio interview talking about his three-rivers revelation in which he somehow saw the truth of the "Trinity," I see him, from his status as a renowned scientist to be rather disingenuously muddling poetry with the latest science in an attempt to encourage orthodox believers (including himself, perhaps) to have their cake and eat it too. Why not face the problem head-on and say clearly from their positions of scholarship and science that Christian doctrine IS unequivocally and entirely myth and poetry and NOT anything whatsoever to do with science, and get on with it?

239. Rational Atheism

Comment #65329 by Lauregon on August 23, 2007 at 4:32 pm

I don't exactly know how to separate the baby from the bathwater. My weak answer, "Maybe the churches can evolve, so less emphasis is placed upon faith and supernatural ideas no one can prove." - Dr Benway

Over generations, maybe. Retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong manages to ignite the fury and contempt of both fundies and moderate Christians alike with his call for a Christianity without theism. For some reason, most moderates and liberals aren't yet willing to do without the guarantee of an "A" ticket to heaven and a shiny "You're Very Special" badge.

240. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65312 by Lauregon on August 23, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Also, this is the final paragraph for the editorial.

Nature;

Collins is reaching out, from an exalted position in the world of science, to the realm of faith. By exploring, not least, how the Human Genome Project has added to our understanding of evolution, he hopes to provide a bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands, where religion is writ so large. Given the scale of the gulf, that is a laudable ambition. - zarcus

I seem to recall that Collins' revelation occurred when he was 27. I gather he's much older than that now, which leads me to suspect he didn't so much reach out to the realm of faith, but from it.

241. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65254 by Lauregon on August 23, 2007 at 10:58 am

Right, that's how one knows God: as the best explanation for the whole of the reality we experience. People don't realize it, but that's the way we think about most of the things we say exist. - PaulEmecz

Theists believe that "God" is the best explanation for the whole of the reality we experience. That's both a conditioned and a subjective perception which not all people share.

Whose "God" is this "best explanation?" What are its properties and attributes? How aligned with the traditional doctrines and dogmas of major orthodoxies is this "God?"

242. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65247 by Lauregon on August 23, 2007 at 10:33 am

Rather the question is this: Should we understand reality based on physical/mechanical principles or based on spiritual/personal principles? - Dianelos

Given the fact that the US for the past 7 years has been led by a man and an administration that believes its reality has been and is being guided by "God," I can state without hesitation the opinion that it's far better for humans to understand reality based upon what can be seen rather than upon mystery and faith in supernatural agency. :)

243. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64765 by Lauregon on August 21, 2007 at 5:44 pm

In the modern world, is empathy always going to be a tool for survival? Is it not possible, as in the scenario in my previous post, that humanity will change and will reject the idea that 'everyone counts'? If that happened, is there any perspective from which we can say "That's not right!"? - PaulEmecz

Positing a supernatural deity who has established moral absolutes isn't going to sway those who simply don't and can't believe in such a deity. You could establish a political theocracy, of course, and enforce outward compliance through torture and commissions of murder, but you can't make people believe what they don't believe, therefore, we're stuck with our situation. We'd better make the best of it.

244. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64762 by Lauregon on August 21, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I'm not saying that Hitler followed the Golden Rule. - PaulEmecz

I know you're not.

I am saying that the justification you give is that the Golden Rule is good because it leads to... You chose many examples, but if we agreed on 'a better society' I am then saying that if Hitler was using genocide to make a better society, is it wrong because he failed to make a better society? If Hitler had succeeded, and he had created a society without racial tension (having killed off so many races) and no disability, etc, would this have been good? - PaulEmecz

Sigh. When I said "better society" (and "stable society," etc.,) I was speaking in the context of the Golden Rule---that is, the Golden Rule as the basis of the "better." I've tried to make that clear several times now. I wasn't speaking in terms of any random concept of "betterness" such as might be envisioned by a tyrant like Hitler, but of a "better" that was based on the principle of the Golden Rule.

It points to the problem with basing what's good on the outcome. - PaulEmecz

"Problem?" Laws are based on the goal of achieving desirable outcomes, are they not? What's the point of a "morality" that's indifferent to outcomes---other than as a pursuit of establishing a law for the sake of having a law? You appear to desperately want a divinely decreed "morality" simply as a means of locating and confirming an eternally absolute cosmic sovereignity over humankind. I don't mean to be insulting, but that strikes me as a manifestation of an alpha-male- worshipping consciousness.

245. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64590 by Lauregon on August 20, 2007 at 9:28 pm

When Hitler used tyranny to try and improve society, would we really only criticise him based on the eventual outcome? - PaulEmescz

Your Hitler comment is obtuse given that the context is the Golden Rule. It's not likely that Hitler would have had done to himself what he had done to others. You're being deliberately perverse in the interest of defending your unprovable, subjective, and absolutist theistic beliefs.

As has already been noted, you seem young. I once thought rather as you do now. Keep on searching. :)

246. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64588 by Lauregon on August 20, 2007 at 9:09 pm

What you are arguing is that the Golden Rule is right because of the good outcomes (which you do keep changing). - Paul Emescz

As I said, most people (here) know what the Golden Rule means; you, however, seem unable or unwilling to grasp its significance, function, or value.

I don't think any of these outcomes you have so far listed are good in themselves, and that leaves you with a problem. The Golden Rule might be useful, but it won't tell you what is right (because it is the outcome that makes it right, according to the thinking you have presented). - PaulEmescz

No, I don't have a problem, Paul. You have the problem: an unprovable and subjective conviction that there are moral absolutes decreed by a supernatural being who fanatically cares what human beings do during their few years on earth.

"Right?" What IS "right?" Bottom line, you, for certainty's sake, want moral absolutes decreed from on high by an almighty supernatural being---and yet you haven't told us where these myriad absolutes are listed---nor why you assume an almighty supernatural Creator would necessarily be so limited as to be locked into the inflexibility of decreeing absolute moral rules.

247. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64507 by Lauregon on August 20, 2007 at 10:10 am

I believe that, just as we follow the laws of nature, we should choose to keep the moral law of the Creator. -PaulEmescz

Paul, you've said you don't believe the Bible is the word of "God," so from where do you get your ideas about what you refer to as the "moral law of the Creator?"

248. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64504 by Lauregon on August 20, 2007 at 9:55 am

What I don't see is how you can be an atheist, believing science can explain how we have arrived at the way we currently are, and then say that there are things that we OUGHT to do. - PaulEmescz

I've said that the Golden Rule is a pragmatic tool that wise humans have come to understand makes for more peaceful, more just, more lasting societies. Your inability to grasp that seems to me to be obtuse.

Much of what has been said in recent posts is just a way of saying NO to the question of morality. - PaulEmescz

Your confusion seems to arise from a belief that "morality" can only derive from a supernatural sky-god, thus, your argumentation appears circular, i.e., because you assume a supernatural deity exists, you assume morality must derive from that supernatural deity.

249. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64383 by Lauregon on August 19, 2007 at 10:17 pm

If that happens, it won't matter what we did. If you have a morality that's based on some form of the greater good, if the consequence is the same in the end, what difference does it make, and to whom, what we did? - PaulEmecz

You're assuming there must be a cosmic difference made. That's a subjective, reward-seeking position not all people share. Some people are convinced there must be a cosmic pay-off for moral behavior. Others think treating others fairly, justly, and compassionately simply makes good sense.

250. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64381 by Lauregon on August 19, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Have you read Brave New World? The society being described IS less stressful, it is less violent, it's 'safer'. That doesn't make it better. - PaulEmecz

Most among us grasp what living according to the "Golden Rule" means. If you don't care for the term "less stressful society" any more than you care for the term "stable society," then choose your own term to describe the results of a society living as best it can according to the Golden Rule. The point is, the Golden Rule is, arguably, a pragmatic tool of reason utilized as a means of working toward societies of peaceful and most optimum coexistence. There's no reason to assume the tool came from a supernatural deity rather than from the critical thinking skills of our most developed human beings.