251. A Familiar and Prescient Voice, Brought to Life

Comment #24748 by Fedler on March 8, 2007 at 9:57 am

I just finished the book and enjoyed it thoroughly. I especially like Professor Sagan's take on religious belief and whether science has a right or responsibility to question it. He stated science can explore beliefs (i.e. resurrection, virgin birth, existence of god, etc.), however right now there is no reason to. Unless there is evidence that any of those claims might be true, science is fine to discover other things and there is no need for science to waste its energy on myth or folklore. If some evidence presents itself, then science can be free to throw all the scrutiny of the scientific method into discovering the facts.

It just made think how scientists (like Dawkins) are often accused of attacking religion and religious beliefs, but I believe science just shows the world for what it really is. This ruffles the feathers of believers because it goes against their beliefs. I would assert that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, et al are only responding back to the believers who have been so vocal about saying how science should not 'interfere' with religious beliefs. But again, science is objective and just tells it like it is.

Professor Sagan said it best at the end of the lecture portion of the book, right before the Q&A section:

"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly understand who we are and where we came from, we will have failed. I think this search does not lead to a complacent satisfaction that we know the answer, not an arrogant sense that she answer is before us and we need do only one more experiment to find it out. It goes with a courageous intent to greet the universe as it really is, not to foist our emotional predispositions on it but to courageously accept what our explorations tell us."

Professor Sagan is sorely missed.

252. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24380 by Fedler on March 6, 2007 at 9:40 am

Re: Jenny2007 (99)

Excellent post, Jenny2007!

As a participant on the thread you mention above ("the good book and the moral zeitgeist") I, too, was appalled at the negative outlook described to me by David as a result of the crucifixion. Like you, I prefer to be hopeful about the future and help as many people as I can because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm inherently bad at birth and need to make up for it somehow.

253. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24286 by Fedler on March 5, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I will be away for the next few days speaking at a conference in the Netherlands so will be unable to respond for a while. You may be interested to know that it is on church planting in Europe - there is now considerable evidence that the secularisation of Europe has bottomed out and that there is a growing interest in the spiritual and especially in Europe's Christian heritage. Thought that would cheer you up!

Just to put yourself in perspective, David, there are approximately 1.4 billion Christians in the world
(http://www.spiritualworld.org/christianity/how_many.htm). In case you missed it the population of the planet just recently topped six billion. So, unless you claim some special pleading, please realize that about 80% of the planet is not Christian. That's a lot of people to burn for their lack of belief.

(Edit: By the way, the site I reference above is a good example, I think, of how nebulous Christian faith has become. No wonder it's hard to know who believes what anymore, or how meaningless one faith can be compared to another)

By the way, I've noticed lately you tend to post some inflammatory comments to stir things up, then claim to run off for a couple days. It's like a hit-and-run posting ('drive-by posting'). And lately you seem to change posting names faster than some people change underwear. You probably don't mean to, right?

254. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24254 by Fedler on March 5, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Very well said, Stewart.

255. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24203 by Fedler on March 5, 2007 at 8:49 am

Always a good idea to read in context Fedler. There are some things which are just wrong. If I announce that the world is flat or 6,000 years old you have every right to say I am wrong without being accused of being close minded. Likewise with the above remark - the comment was made that Hebrews was written by Paul - that comment is just wrong. The Bible makes no such claim.

Sorry about that. I stand corrected.

Read my letters and you will find that there is plenty I agree about with Dawkins.

I do know you agree with Dawkins on many things. However, the times you agree are not on what I would call "major points", the real meat of the issue. An agreement about periphery issues can only take a debate so far and would ultimately leave more questions than answers (at least for me).

I actually find the response from most (but not all) atheists on this site both amusing and somewhat pathetic and an excellent rebuff of the myth that atheists are 'together' rational and calm people.

Careful. You're straying into condescension…

The fact is that most atheists on this site belief certain things - some perhaps after long and careful reasoning - but many others because of the memes they have received, the experiences they have had, and the unexamined prejudices/myths they hold - such as some mentioned above.

I thought you didn't agree with the concept of memes. Or am I mistaken? If not, you can't use them as an explanation.

Although then you might as well close the site down - because usually it's the same comments that are made. If a pro-Dawkins article goes up, or an anti-Dawkins article, I could write most of the responses in my sleep now....xxxxx

:) Touche.

256. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24198 by Fedler on March 5, 2007 at 8:20 am

Thanks, Stewart.

David's critique of points made in TGD are located here: http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/issues07.htm and his main thread on this site is at
http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson.

There is some good understanding expressed on these threads, but my opinion is ultimately the debate comes down to differing definitions of evidence and/or truth. Generally, I feel non-believers stop at "I don't know", whereas believers go one step further and say "It's God". Neither side is more correct than the other. However, I then feel the believers have the responsibility to explain their one step further. Regardless, good discussions can happen as long as we don't backslide into negativity.

257. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24186 by Fedler on March 5, 2007 at 7:39 am

David,

Raise your game when you're on this site, at least to the level of your own website. If you start out being respectful, then you will get respect in return.

Stop being so childish and petulant - it does your cause no good.

Likewise (see below).

…atheism is full of myths. That is the purpose of my own book - to challenge them. If they are not myths you should be able to stand up to them (I mean intellectually not just simply shouting abuse or crying 'idiot').

Have you actually read any of the comments posted in response to your own letters reviewing TGD? Your letters have been critiqued already, quite extensively. Casting aside the rude comments, your points have been challenged at length.

44) Mikado - strange. You want a discussion. You want rational thought. And yet when anyone tries to give it you dismiss them as only interested in the money. What's wrong? Could it be that your faith position is really only an emotive one and that you cannot handle any really serious discussion so you resort to caricature and abuse?

There you go with the amateur psychology, something you consider lame when someone points it out to you.

45) Jone - you make a small point. But it's worth responding to because it is completely wrong and fairly typical of the uninformed responses of some atheists.

Is this what people can expect from you in terms of an open-minded response? "You are wrong." You do not leave much room for debate here because apparently you already have it all figured out.

Could we not at least discuss it in a civilized manner (as some of you have done with me personally?) or are you really in the position where you 'know' the truth and all other positions are just there to be mocked? Personally I think if that is the case, you deserve to be called fundamentalists.

Given the sampling of your comments above (to say nothing of your comments on other threads), this is really the pot calling the kettle black. You seem to call atheists wrong at every turn and mock any different position.

As for discussing I am more than happy to discuss or debate with any atheist (including Richard - but then he does not debate with fleas!).

This is a pretty safe statement considering Prof. Dawkins is not likely to discuss with you, given your presupposition that everything he says is wrong or misguided at best. Also, please cut the self-pity. Act like a scholar or not, it's your choice.

Of course I accept that there are different versions of atheism, as there are different versions of religion. However there are a number of beliefs which I would regard as myths - hence the title of my book. For example the myth that without religion human beings would be morally better; that the Bible is a self-contraditory book; that atheism is the de facto rational position; that science and Christianity are necessarily opposed.

Your definition of faith seems to be based on yet another atheist myth, that faith is irrational and despite or even in opposition to, the evidence.

Aren't you setting yourself up as god here by allegedly knowing what is myth and what isn't? This is usually something you accuse atheists of doing.

David, I have discussed with you my religious feelings on your own website. We have our differences, for sure, but they can be discussed respectfully (as we have done). While this website is not the 'clear-thinking oasis' it should be (as you repeatedly point out ad nauseum), I would think you would want to try to fix that by posting helpful, meaningful, thoughtful comments. Ignore the drivel, but respond thoughtfully and openly to those that do desire discussion and eventually the drivel-posters will drop away.

Consequently, I will try not to respond to your posts. Not because I mean any disrespect, but because I feel most everything has been covered already in previous threads and it's not worth wasting bandwidth on the same old stuff.

However, I understand how this site can be addicting, so I may find it hard to stay away, also. :)

258. Grief Without God

Comment #19524 by Fedler on January 27, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Thanks for sharing, Carol.

One major turning point for me was when my father was killed by a drunk driver a little over a year ago. During his wake service, my very religiuos family all left the church and went across the street to my grandmother's house for food. At that moment, standing in 'god's house' with my father's body, I've never felt more alone and abandoned in my life. I felt it was such an insult for everyone to just up and leave him like that. The religious comfort is certainly not all it's cracked up to be.

I am sorry the priest had the presupposition to assume your husband would want the last rites. While it's difficult to be helpful to someone who is experiencing the death of a loved one, it only makes it worse to dig out the usual catch phrases, i.e. "he's in a better place", "it was god's will", "it happened for a reason", etc.

My best wishes as you cope with the loss and the new you that has emerged as a result.

259. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #19500 by Fedler on January 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm

"I think that the guy whocalls himself stpetes is actually the guy who calls himself Deuan on the free church web site."

Thanks for the clarity, scottishgeologist, although I haven't seen anyone by that name either. I'll keep my eye open for both 'handles'.

260. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #19486 by Fedler on January 27, 2007 at 3:14 pm

stpetes,

I apologize for I don't see any comments to me from you on the Free Church MB? Can you direct me to them, please?

261. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #19157 by Fedler on January 25, 2007 at 8:50 am

Incidentally, David, I'm also waiting for your response to my question at the end of post #863 about the speculative nature of religious texts (like scientific texts).

262. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #19155 by Fedler on January 25, 2007 at 8:48 am

Hello, David. While I don't have the biblical knowledge to respond to many of your points, there are some statements I would like to ask you about or comment on.

Secondly Pat Robertson, New Orleans and the various twisted theologies of some exponents of Christianity have nothing to do with the teachings of the Scriptures which should be judged on their own merits.

Maybe, however the likes of Pat Robertson and the twisted theologies of some exponents of Christianity claim to base all their actions on Scripture, or derive their beliefs from Scripture. This association by these exponents to Scripture is quite mainstream, which causes confusion and misunderstandings at best by the general lay person of what are to be considered the true Christianity ("will the true Christianity please make itself known?). This constant confusion about Christianity is what turns many people off to it, including myself. Some of us go beyond and decide even the basic theology is flawed.

Thirdly you need to learn the basic principles of reading the Bible. You must always read it in context – that includes historical, literary, theological and biblical context. To read out of context is to misread.

I would be willing to venture that not everyone (certainly not me) has the resources available to read the Bible in context. If your statement is accurate, one would need to read the Bible with a whole library of historical accounts with which to reference so it can be read in context and fully understood. This, again, would appear to make the 'true Christianity' inaccessible to most people except scholars like yourself who have taken 25 years to study it.

This is the idea that the Bible, written over a period of more than 1000 years progressively reveals God to us. Little by little the curtain is opened and the light comes in. Therefore some aspects of earlier revelation are superceded by the New Testament.

Again, this makes it contradictory and confusing for the average lay person.

When Jesus said I am the vine, he did not mean that he was green and produced literal grapes.

I actually don't know why I'm including this line. It just sounded funny and I thought it was highly entertaining. Thanks!

You ask "by what criteria do you decide which passages are symbolic, which literal?". The answer – context, genre and common sense. I really do not expect to be dressed in white and playing a harp in heaven (aka the Book of Revelation) but I have no doubt that Jesus literally rose from the dead. It was not symbolic of anything, it was written not as poetry but as verifiable history, and it is a fact that is repeated several times.

Where is it repeated several times? In the Bible. So, this would qualify as a circular argument, also.

I, too, can see why you would not be dressed in white and playing a harp in heaven, however I'm having trouble dismissing that, while accepting 'Jesus literally rose from the dead' as common sense, context, or genre. One seems just as foolish as the other. Is the resurrection separately corroborated in any other texts?

Mind you if you seriously believe that when Jesus taught the Old Testament refrain 'love your neighbour', he meant only Jews, then I guess you can make the bible say whatever you do or do not want it to say!

This explains one of the biggest problems with the Bible, I think. Its meanings are vague so as to be construed to mean anything. Anybody's interpretation can be called into question because someone else thinks it means something different. Hence, the confusion factor.

Not long after becoming a Christian there were parts in the Bible that greatly disturbed me. I read a book which purported to deal with most of those difficulties however it did not help much. But I made a decision that it was stupid and arrogant of me as a young Christian to think that I alone could understand the bible and to attempt to sit in judgement upon it.

I can easily see how this could have been the result of the indoctrination as described by Dawkins in TGD. I'm sure you had been told by many authority figures that a 'young Christian' cannot fully understand the Bible unless you immerse yourself in it (which, to me, translates as "convince yourself god exists and he will reveal himself to you"). Of course, I have no way of knowing definitively, but it's highly suspect to me that this is the case. I believe this is what has happened to me, personally.

Is it really the case that the Moral Zeitgeist is improving in Britain and the US? Are women really being treated better? Has racism and prejudice been done away with? Is our current sex obcessed, materialistic and shallow society better than it was one hundred years ago? That is not immediately self-evident!

In some places, women are generally being treated better (Afghanistan); racism and prejudice have not disappeared, but has improved, generally; we do live, generally, in a materialistic society, but that would appear to be due to the fact that more and more people have the means with which to obtain materials (possessions), which is a good thing. More people can have things. Whether 'having things' is good or bad seems disconnected from the overall quality of life. Some people are happier with things, some are happier without. Like any general trend spanning many decades there are dips and valleys among the peaks. I agree in that at this day and time we appear to be in a valley, but overall I believe the human race is improving.

I'm often amazed at the negative outlook on quality of life by a lot of religious believers. I suspect this may be due to the fact that the Bible shows us a morality which we can never hope to maintain (as indicated by your quote, cited by me in post 864. Comment #18162) which breeds negativity and frustration at never achieving a goal.

I admit Dawkins' moral zeitgeist is not on real firm ground in terms of its universal acceptability, but morality does tend to flex and sway over time, bending to the values of the time period.

The only argument I have heard atheists use is that well really Stalin was not an atheist because he behaved unreasonably and unreasonable people cannot be atheists. It's the ultimate in circular arguments and there is no point in trying to break into the circle.

Actually, I've never heard this from any atheist (at least on this site). I've heard people say he was irrational, but not BECAUSE of his atheism. I've heard it said he substituted one religious doctrine for one of his own choosing. But, I've never heard anyone say he could not have been atheist because he was unreasonable.

The apparent inaccessibility to understand the 'correct' Christianity for lay people breeds a lot of confusion and leads to intellectual shortcuts being taken in order to allegedly understand it. In this way, I can see that as explaining in part the many different versions of Christianity. But, in that case, why don't Christian leaders do a better job of explaining it? Why would the religion seem to require a theology degree in order to BEGIN to understand it? This inaccessibility turns people off, which cause some people like me to step back and question the basic tenets of the belief. Incidentally, I feel the logical conclusion about the basic tenets, given scientific evidence collected via universally accepted methods, is that there is no god. Once that belief disappears, the confusion about the details dissipate, also.

263. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #18712 by Fedler on January 22, 2007 at 3:05 pm

The accompanying article from www.nhne.org quotes:

"Psychiatrists that have spent time with Akiane can't explain why she is a linguistic genius. They call it a miracle."

Her poetry is good, but not worthy of 'miracle' status. I agree with Ivar, some people are amazingly gifted (Mozart, Einstein, Da Vinci, etc.) and it would be interesting to some day find out how this level of skill is manifested in someone so young.

The fact she paints 'god' or what she claims to be god/heaven, or that she had an atheist mother, means nothing in and of itself. It's hard NOT to have god in your face at some point in today's society.

264. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #18162 by Fedler on January 18, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Fedler: "I can't remember fully, but no, I think the only evidence for moral authority according to David was the Bible, as one would expect. "

DR: No – that is not what I say at all.

I apologize David, you were right. What you actually said was:

"Real Christians realize that the Bible's teaching is that there is an absolute morality – which we all fall short of. And no amount of religion, good works or pious acts will ever be able to make us right."

Having just re-read this, this seems awfully pessimistic. A lofty goal we can never hope to achieve? I must admit to being extremely confused by the Bible and how accepted it has become.

265. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #18130 by Fedler on January 18, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Welcome, back David. I was actually beginning to miss our conversations :)

Fedler: "The mere fact he is questioning it causes you to take offense, without listening to what is actually said."

DR: No. I meet people every day who question what I believe. That does not cause me to be offended. The fact is that you want that to be the case and there is little I can do with someone who only reads into what I say, what they want to be there.

OK, David. You have previously expressed your displeasure at people offering free psychoanalysis to you on this site. After that statement, at least please recognize that the psycho-babble has been flowing both ways over these 18 pages of thread. I realize there is no real way to prove my statement, just as much as there is no way to prove yours. We're all amateur psychiatrists at heart, though, don't you think? :)

DR: And the original question still stands. Does anyone have any evidence of life coming from non-life?"

Whereas evolution describes the process by which pre-existing life evolves, I believe the origination of life remains disputed. I admit, I don't know of any instances of life coming from non-life. But, filling in that gap with god is a slippery slope at best. 100 years ago quantum physics wasn't imaginable, either.

You have an innate sense of right and wrong. Where does it come from? And what if that sense is itself wrong? What if for example your innate sense of right and wrong tell us you that it is ok to kill white people or women, or disabled babies? If it is innate who is to say that is wrong?

I agree. Kin and reciprocal altruism (from an evolutionary basis) can go far to explain this. Granted, it's not widely studied, though, and I think it's more of a hypothesis at this point. I'm not up on the literature. But, isn't it possible in the "pre-civilized" lives of our ancestors that a 'status quo' developed whereby dictating social norms of behavior? I don't know much about it, but I'm interested in reading Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong by Marc Hauser, or similar books (man, all this reading is getting expensive…)

Morality is something that is hardwired into us from God as well. The law of God is written on our hearts.

Could this be the same as the Einsteinian version of god? God as a description of natural processes? Surely we don't physically see handwriting signed by god on our hearts, but I realize that statement is a literary device.


A bit off subject, but I wanted to share one of my own revelations lately. I've been beginning to relate my religious doubts with my family (a very religious bunch). The responses I've received, with very little variation, are always either "You're thinking too much about it", "You're trying too hard", or "The human intellect cannot understand or know the great mysteries of God and the universe." (a variation on the 'god is outside time and space' statement). My initial reaction, which I don't share with them, is that "Yeah, because if I think about it too much, I might actually realize religious beliefs are nonsensical". However, putting my initial sarcasm aside, I thought about it some more and began to wonder something. If god is outside time and space or can't be known in any way (which appears to be a popular religious stance), why are there racks after racks of religious books at my local bookstore talking about a god we can't possibly know? I'm certainly not implying that the sheer number of religious books adds any sort of validity to the beliefs contained within, but there seems to be an inherent discrepancy within religious beliefs about what one can know about god, and the volume of literature written about an alleged unknown. This strikes me as odd. Wouldn't it be fair to say that these religious books writing about an alleged unknown are at best like science books writing about untested hypotheses - speculative in nature?

266. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #17687 by Fedler on January 15, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Billy,

I can't remember fully, but no, I think the only evidence for moral authority according to David was the Bible, as one would expect.

267. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #17633 by Fedler on January 15, 2007 at 8:21 am

For those who may be interested, David has posted hew newest article here: http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/jan07.htm

After summarizing Dawkins' stance on morality, he then continues to miss the mark and re-state Dawkins in a way he can handle (and misinterpret).

Just a sample: "Firstly it does not seem much of a morality. It is still primarily focused on the Selfish Gene. It is all about me, me and me. As a Christian I believe that the bible teaches that human beings are fundamentally selfish and self centred – however the Bible is not content to leave us there. There is something better. Christ came to challenge and to deliver us from the self centeredness which you glorify as the basis of morality."

As I'm sure most everyone will realize, David is putting emphasis on the wrong word. Dawkins stresses in the TGD that the gene is selfish, NOT the individual. Indeed, Dawkins then continues to point out how our moral sense of 'right' and 'wrong' may have an evolutionary basis, citing several studies from Moral Minds by Marc Hauser.

David continues, "Secondly, it is deterministic. We are only 'good' because we are programmed to be that way. What ever happened to free will? If my will is not free then you cannot blame me if I only do what I am genetically programmed to do. What would you say to a rapist who used that argument? On the other hand if I am free and responsible for what I do then I cannot be genetically programmed. I do not doubt that there are genetic factors in all aspects of human behaviour but I cannot believe that every human being and their actions are governed by such determinism. A crucial part of being human is having the ability to choose."

By setting up atheists as mindless automotons who have no "moral compass", of course his point sounds valid. But, I don't feel that's the case. We DO have an innate sense of right and wrong (see above) and we DO have the choice to follow that sense or not. That's totally compatible with an alleged evolutionary basis for right and wrong. Personally, I feel the concept of "free will" is not an absolute but those are just my personal feelings based on personal experience.

Continuing, "Thirdly your secular morality is not as you admit, absolute– "fortunately however morals do not have to be absolute". As you indicate it is changeable according to the whims of society. Indeed if we are, as your favourite philosopher Bertrand Russell puts it, "tiny lumps of impure carbon and water crawling about for a few years, until they are dissolved again into the elements of which they are compounded."; then seems to be no basis for absolute morality. You recognise this - "it is pretty hard to defend absolute morals on grounds other than religious ones".

I admit I'm a bit confused on this one. David states that secular morality is not absolute, quotes Dawkins as saying morals do not have to be absolute and are changeable, and quotes Bertand Russell as a means to say there is no basis for absolute morality. The part I'm unclear on is David quotes Dawkins as saying morals are not absolute, that they're changeable; but in the first sentence says Dawkins says morals are absolute. I can't tell from this paragraph whether David thinks Dawkins believes morals are absolute or not absolute. It could be I'm not reading it correctly, but if anyone wants to explain this one to me I would appreciate it.

"And finally your absolute Darwinian philosophy cannot logically and consistently argue for morality because to put it bluntly there is no good or evil. As you so brilliantly describe it in The Blind Watchmaker "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe had precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference". That then is the atheist basis of morality – no justice, no rhyme nor reason, no purpose, no evil, no good, just blind pitiless indifference. It is little wonder that atheist philosophers have been desperately hunting round to try and establish some basis for a godless morality.

Again, the preceding paragraph above quotes Dawkins as saying morals are NOT absolute, so this statement appears to get off on the wrong foot initially; and then David comes back to atheists having no good or evil (although he has called us evil on previous posts), which, again, is a misinterpretation of what Dawkins says (see the beginning of this post).

After stating how the Bible explains everything we need to know, the article then goes on indicating that if everyone subscribed to the morals espoused by Dawkins (as explained incorrectly by David), then the world would erode into a worldwide cesspool of rapists, depravity, and evil moral delinquents. The phrase "hell in a handbasket" comes to mind.

So, in a nutshell, it's the same stuff from David. Misinterpretation, calling us bad and evil, conflicting statements. I realize it has been almost a week since anyone has posted on here, so this thread may have run its course, but if someone wanted to explain David's confusing paragraph on absolute/non-absolute morality I would appreciate it.

268. The Only One in Step

Comment #17548 by Fedler on January 14, 2007 at 4:49 pm

gimlibengloin: Still I do believe that the November 2004 edition of National Geographic stated that the fossil record is like a film of evolution in which 999 of a thousand frames are missing. As creationists have pointed out 99.9 % of the evidence for evolution aint there, baby

Considering 99% of ALL species to EVER inhabit our planet are now extinct, I doubt many biologists or evolutionists would ever claim the fossil record is 100% proof of evolution. To the theist, your statement puts the nail in the coffin of evolution. To the rational thinker who doesn't logically expect the fossil record to be 100% proof of evolution, yoiur statement lacks an incredible amount of thought. Dawkins admits that with all the fossils currently discovered, it is only a portion of 1% of all the species that have ever lived. To say 99.9% of the evidence for evolution isn't there is to also say you are 99.9% ignorant of the fossil records. As you say, 99.9% of the fossil records remain to be discovered - a little early to throw up our hands and say "See, creationism/god wins!" Far from it, my friend...

269. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #16898 by Fedler on January 9, 2007 at 1:57 pm

DR: For evolution to work it needs the right conditions and above all it needs life to start with. Does anyone have any evidence of life coming from non life?

Fedler: Evlolution. My understanding is that life came from evolution, life was not a prerequisite.

David, I would like to modify my previous statement. You are right in that the origin of life is different from Darwinian evolution. I often keep forgetting that. Life happens, and then evolution took over, but they are separate.

However, physics and chemistry are beginning to piece together the origins of life (amino acid formation, electric spark of some sort, etc.) and, admittedly, it isn't all figured out yet. Those concessions aside, what makes god any more plausible? In my opinion, god is an alternative, but not an explanation. Some could say evolution is an alternative, but considering the amount of evidence in favor of it, calling it just an 'alternative' doesn't do it justice.

In your opinion, why is the god hypothesis more feasible than what physics and chemistry have slowly begun to unravel?

270. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #16703 by Fedler on January 8, 2007 at 7:32 am

For evolution to work it needs the right conditions and above all it needs life to start with. Does anyone have any evidence of life coming from non life?

Evlolution. My understanding is that life came from evolution, life was not a prerequisite. Again, I can see this leading to us having different definitions of 'life', so I won't bother saying any more.

Theists don't believe that evolution says life is created out of nothing. We all recognize that it is talking about life coming from something. But where does that come from?

See above response.


DR: "Thirdly as Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge, points out "Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider context, they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic". And I would go way beyond that. They are dangerous. If you regard religion as a virus what should be done with a virus? It should be eradicated.

Fedler: That's it. Is that a point? I think that's just quoting someone else. Explain, please."

DR: Yes – it is a quote. I can't pretend it is my own words. So what? Does it matter who says it if it is true?

Irregardless of who says it, it's just a quote essentially saying 'memes are bad'. That is not an argument.

As for the danger of regarding religion as a virus, I think you should be able to work that one out.

It's only dangerous to think of religion as a virus if I believe in religion. Then I would be offended and at a loss for explanation. Perhaps that's why you tell me to work it out for myself….

The content is clear. Dawkins defines a fundamentalist and what a fundamentalist would say. I challenge his assumption and you say that this is not responding to any content. Indeed in this and the remainder of your posts you keep saying 'I do not see any content'. Yet each of them responds to what Dawkins says and cites him. If you mean that you do not see any content you like then fair enough. But if you really mean that you do not see any content I give up. I can't argue with those who cannot see.

Ignoring content of his book and disputing the definition of 'fundamentalist' leads us nowhere. The definition is just literary set-up for the content to come, which you conveniently ignored. In your latest article you say " I find your analysis in these two chapters hard to respond to because they depend upon the failed thesis that God has been proven not to exist, and because your treatment of religion is imbalanced, distorted and reflective not so much of objective analysis but rather your own subjective anti-God feelings." This pretty much sets up the rest of your article to dismiss Dawkins personally, while trying to forgive yourself ahead of time for not speaking to content. I would maintain you can't see the content because you can't get past what you see as Dawkins' attacking your precious belief system. The mere fact he is questioning it causes you to take offense, without listening to what is actually said.

Regrettably, I, too, cannot have a discussion with those who cannot see (or are unwilling to look).

Goodbye, David.

271. God-less

Comment #16404 by Fedler on January 6, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Re: 2. Comment #16399 by gimlibengloin

What tends to get ignored by believers is the personhood called us. You appear to show no faith in human beings to behave with innate goodness towards one another unless threatened with eternal damnation by religion. That is what scares me as an atheist. I think it's ironic that atheists in general seem to have a better faith in humankind than believers.

272. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #16266 by Fedler on January 5, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Mr. Robertson,

I have read your new article on the Free Church website and have a few comments:

In discussing memes and children naturally having trusting obedience which is good for their survival, but gullible to 'mind virus's' such as religion [Dawkins' term], you state three reasons why the meme explanation falls down:

Firstly there is no empirical evidence of such a theory – this is once again a 'science of the gaps' just making things up as you go along in order to fit everything into your all encompassing evolutionary theory.

At least in what I've read, memes have never been called a 'theory' – more of a concept. This statement appears to be like asking someone for proof of the 'happiiness theory'. Happiness is more of a concept or a state of mind and not something that can be proven empirically, at least to my knowledge.

Secondly if it were true then your own ideas, including Darwinian evolution, would be considered memes as well.

How so? If anything, Darwinian evolution is more of a meme complex. One definition of memes on www.dictionary.com states "The term used especially in the phrase "meme complex" denoting a group of mutually supporting memes that form an organised belief system, such as a religion. However, "meme" is often misused to mean "meme complex". Even still, how so? You don't explain this point at all and move right on to point #3.

Thirdly as Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge, points out "Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider context, they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic". And I would go way beyond that. They are dangerous. If you regard religion as a virus what should be done with a virus? It should be eradicated.

That's it. Is that a point? I think that's just quoting someone else. Explain, please.

Your next paragraph continues…

You state that you do not like confrontation and that you 'regularly refuse invitations to take part in formal debates'. I'm afraid this will not wash. Your book is highly confrontational. The fact that you are not prepared to debate is I suspect more to do with the fact that you prefer to be confrontational about people who are not present. You surround yourself with those who agree with you before being aggressive about those who do not.

I can't speak for Dr. Dawkins, but I suspect that he doesn't debate because it's hard to have a debate over differing concepts. Debating with theists, to Dawkins, is probably about arguing over the color of unicorns. But, putting that difference aside, I don't see any substance to what you say. You don't appear to be debating the content of what he says in the book, only that you don't like it that he doesn't debate regularly.

Whilst it would only be a fool who denies the fact that some aspects of religion and some religious people have caused a great deal of harm in the world, it is equally foolish to make the kind of irresponsible sweeping statements that you do here – in order to foster the myth that religion is in essence harmful. This is an atheist half truth which is widely accepted.

I understand you don't like his statements, but what about the content of what he says? In addition, I don't know of anything 'widely accepted' when it comes to atheists.

But you don't like being called a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is someone by your definition who believes 'in a holy book'. A fundamentalist would never change their mind "we believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that". Really. I believe that the Bible is true. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I believe that God is the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe that all human beings are created equally in his image. And I would abandon these beliefs tomorrow if new evidence arose to disprove them. So that makes us even?

This seems a bit childish and, again, does not respond to any content. Just more Dawkins-bashing.

Now of course you argue that your hostility that you 'occasionally voice towards religion is limited to words'. You are not going to bomb anyone or behead anyone or fly planes into skyscrapers. But on page 318 you directly contradict yourself when commenting on the old adage "Stick and stones my break my bones, but words can never hurt me". You declare "the adage is true as long as you don't really believe the words". What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you are concerned about the impact that words used by religious people may have then you must apply the same criteria to yourself. When you go around describing religion as evil and as a virus you should not be surprised if there are those who hear your words and put them into practice in a way you would not like. Nice middle class professors from Oxford do not kill (unless you watch Inspector Morse) but then neither did nice middle class Professors from Nuremberg in the 1930's.

I don't see content. Perhaps I'm missing it somewhere.

You go on to list some examples of atheists doing bad things (burning churches, talking about executing Christians [from the Church Arson website]) and then say,

Of course it would be entirely wrong to take the actions and words of a handful of atheist extremists as being indicative of atheists in general (just as it is wrong of you to take the actions and words of a handful of 'Christian' extremists as indicative of Christians) but please bear in mind that your vehemence and language can have consequences that are as serious as the consequences of the vehemence and language of some 'religious' fundamentalists.

I feel you almost had a point talking about atheists doing bad things, but then you turn to more bashing of Dawkins for his vehemence and language ("How dare you say such things!").

As Dawkins states in the TGD and Sam Harris states in "The End of Faith", they assert that those 'moderate' Christians who are not fundamentalists create a buffer zone around the fundamentalists and makes it taboo to criticize them, even though everybody knows they're doing stupid things. However, as has been said here many times, even if religion were eliminated, people would still find ways to be jerks to each other. Unfortunately, I think we can both agree on that one. You continue…

Secondly you do not debate – which gives the impression that you know you are right and that there is nothing really to discuss. It also reinforces the impression that you operate within a very closed world view. In this sense your website has more fundamentalist believers than many religious ones I know. Another sense in which you can be described as fundamentalist is the way that you attack anyone who dares to disagree with you and how you gleefully jump upon books that support your point of view. An example of this is when you hammer Mother Teresa as a woman with 'cock-eyed judgement' not worthy of a Nobel Prize and 'sanctimoniously hypocritical' on the basis of one hostile book you read. Thirdly you caricature, mock and misrepresent those who disagree with you. This is easy to do when you do not debate with them but it is not fair.

Again, I don't see a discussion of content, however it's now very clear you don't appreciate Dr. Dawkins having a different opinion.

Another example you use of extremism is Pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church of 'God Hates Fags' infamy. "It is easy to write Fred Phelps off as a nut, but he has plenty support from people and their money". You even cite as evidence for this the fact that since 1991 he has been able to organise one demonstration every four days. Is the fact that one self publicising head banger manages to organise a handful of people every four days to carry obnoxious banners proof that religion is dangerous? Are you really blaming Mother Teresa, the Pope, Billy Graham, one thousand million Christians throughout the world and even yours truly for every lunatic who expresses their mental and emotional imbalance in religious terms? That is as rational as my suggesting that because Dr Josef Mengele was a scientist, all scientists are to blame and therefore science should be banned. The point is simply that anyone could produce a list of fringe mentally imbalanced people on any subject. That does not invalidate the subject.

I agree with you to an extent. However, I don't see atheists picketing on street corners with banners saying "Religion Sucks", or suicide atheists willing to kill themselves for being too rational. Dr. Dawkins is not blaming Mother Teresa, et al., only saying that their willful turning of 'the other cheek' to such atrocities does nothing to stop it from happening.

You have a good reason for equating Christianity with the unbalanced fringe. It suits your purposes to agree with them as to what Christianity is. That's why you interview extremists. You set up straw men and then it makes you look so much more reasonable.

Straw men? OK, I've heard that before. So far, your latest article is more attacking Dawkins than the content of what he says. However, I'm sure it makes you seem more reasonable.

You define faith as believing something without evidence – a definition which is just something that you have made up in your own head and has nothing to do with Christianity.

I like using www.dictionary.com because it's very user-friendly and cites many different dictionaries, but one of the definitions of 'Faith' (among other similar definitions) is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Another definition states, 'belief that is not based on proof'. I admit there are other definitions listed on the website, but these show Dr. Dawkins didn't just make up the definition to suit his purposes. He used an acceptable definition.

You wrap up the article agreeing with Dr. Dawkins that 'we are innately predisposed to be creationists', but then add,

Can I make a tentative suggestion to you? That the reason that human beings worship is that there is someone to worship? That the reason we have a sense of God (as opposed to other animals – when did you last see rabbits holding a prayer meeting or cows a worship service?) is because God has given us that sense? That the reason we are spiritual is because we have a spirit?

I'd like to flip the question around. Could the reason that human beings DON'T worship is that there is NOT someone to worship? That the reason we have no empirical proof of God is because God does not exist? As you say, perhaps the boot is on the other foot.

273. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #16210 by Fedler on January 5, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Oh, dear, I told myself in my last post that I was leaving this thread. But, it's like the scene of an accident. You don't want to look, but you just can't help yourself…

Why would something that is not personal experience be heresy? I have not personally experienced that Australia exists but I have no reason to doubt it. On the other hand I could experience things which may not be real – I could for example have an hallucination. So experience and evidence should go together. They are not necessaraily contradictory.

The difference though is you don't doubt the existence of Australia because you know people have been there, walked on it, seen it, smelled it, etc. The evidence is there and we are aware of it, although indirectly through other people. Like Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot floating around Jupiter, there is no evidence of the teapot, not even indirectly through the experiences of other people. I've never known anyone to have any credible experiences of god, either direct or indirect. As stated many times, that difference likely flows from our different definitions of evidence.

I agree that experience and evidence CAN go together, but not always. For example, you mentioned you could have an hallucination. Having an hallucination of god, for example, is not I would call evidence. Hallucinations can mostly be explained by brain chemistry, but I admit I don't know anything about brain chemistry so I'm getting out of my element.

"Please provide your precise proof of how god is outside time and space, or else your faith in this statement is just…well, stupid (your own words)."

There is of course a difference between 'precise proof' and evidence. Also the trouble with your demand is that the only proof you will accept is that which is confined to time and space. The evidence for the statement that God is outside time and space is logical and revelational. It is also within time and space because if you had completed the quote you would have found that I argue that God is also in time and space. There are 'footprints' of the Creator and there is above all the evidence of Jesus Christ.

Again, I would talk more about this, but it would come back to our differing definitions. I would assert that if god does come into our time and space, then there ought to be some tangible evidence of god somewhere. You assert that JC is evidence of god, I do not.

" It seems ironic that the religious believers turn up their noses at evolution,"

There are many religious believers who do not turn up their noses at the idea of evolution.

True, but they twist it around so that it all of a sudden must have been a tool of god. They claim god used evolution to start biological life, but the vast majority I know can't seem to accept the possibility of evolution without god himself starting it.

"You stated how God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing (because the Bible says so). Yet, at the same time, theists claim how absurd evolution is because it spontaneously creates life out of nothing."

You will forgive me saying this but I think your understanding of the theory of evolution is wrong here. I have never heard an evolutionist claim that evolution 'spontaneously creates life out of nothing'.

You're right. I've never heard of an evolutionist claim that evolution created life out of nothing. But, that's not what I said. I said theists claim how absurd evolution is because it creates life out of nothing. But, then theists (such as yourself) turn around and state 'God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). This is a contradiction – atheistic god of the gaps.
.
We are not claiming that an unknown is evidence for God, but rather that a known (the conditions for life in the Universe) is evidence.

With the exception of the initial bang of the Big Bang, the conditions for life in the Universe are known (through physics and cosmology) to have evolved to their current state ever since the first nanosecond after the bang. The unknown is what is left. This unknown gets attributed to god by believers. Atheists believe an answer will someday be found and it's premature to give a god the credit.

"Other than claiming Jesus was born of a virgin, do you have references for human virgin births"

Are you seriously suggesting that the only way for a woman to conceive today is via sex? I had thought we had developed the technology to avoid that.

OK, I'll admit I hadn't thought of IVF. I was thinking of the more traditional method, "the old college try" as my college friends used to say. However, that's still a far cry from immaculate conception.

Of course atheists are allowed to have faith. That is what I stated. Atheism is a faith – a belief system which you claim is based on evidence and which I suggest also includes a fair amount of wishful thinking and acceptance of presuppositions which have not themselves been clearly evidenced.

Most presuppositions which have not been clearly evidenced are the result of mathematical equations and hypothetical scenarios based on current evidence at hand. I dare say that a lot of theories have moved beyond our technological advancement. We just don't yet have the technology to accurately test a lot of our equations, especially in physics and chemistry. However, the 'wishful thinking' is based on current evidence or knowledge. For a simple example, if I throw a ball in the air, I know it will come down. I don't have any doubt. I can't pinpoint exactly where it will land, but it will come down. I can approximate where it will land based on the trajectory, wind speed, weight of the ball, etc, but unless I whip out my notebook and do all the equations precisely I can only approximate. (Besides the ball will land before I have the equations written down anyway, so there's little point).

The equations currently in progress are leading somewhere, and though we can't pinpoint where they will lead, approximations can be made. As the data is refined, the 'landing' comes in clearer focus.

274. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15081 by Fedler on December 28, 2006 at 7:46 pm

"Then they wave their hands and magically produce statements that depend upon a leap of faith. None of them squarely faces the moral abyss that beckons them."

It may be a leap of faith, but it is a much more educated leap of faith - more of acknowleding a gap in our knowledge. The evolutionary contributions to our "moral sense" appear to be in the process of being worked through and discovered, but the details remain fuzzy at this time (no, 'fuzzy' is not the technical term). However, it appears to be worked out enough that an educated guess (or 'leap of faith') can be made about logical outcomes, along with a healthy injection of philosophy.

I don't see the moral abyss you speak of. In what way to you mean?

I should note it is late and I need to get up early tomorrow. I'll continue tomorrow if my work schedule permits....

275. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15074 by Fedler on December 28, 2006 at 6:54 pm

"Things are structured in such a way that the pain of non-conformity is usually too great to bother with it. The difference is that you and I and RD are not bound to obey arbitrary rules any more. Accepting that there is no duty, frees us to act rationally, according to our true self interest. Most of the time we will follow the rules. But sometimes, we won't. A little arson here, a little embezzlement there. Think of the thrills we can have!"

I can't recall if it was Henry David Thoreau who said "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation". I take this to mean, with regards to your quote, that "sure, without a fear of God holding us back, just imagine the stuff we could get away with." However, I think it says a lot that most of us would conform to the norms and continue to be rather boring in our daily lives. As you said, "Accepting that there is no duty, frees us to act rationally, according to our true self interest.".

The clincher is that I'm not sure morality is a fiction as you say. I've skipped to page 214 in TGD to better understand RD's point about an evolutionary basis for our morality. While it's not the focus of the book, he does touch upon this issue speaking of altruism and the selfish gene as compared to the selfish person. Our genes can make us act altruistically toward other people, whether they are related or not. This particular section in the book has given me more "wants" to add to my wish list at my local book store, namely Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong by Marc Hauser.

I, too, admit to being a bit apprehensive about casting aside my religious beliefs. I think I've reached the point of being ready to cast them aside, but I also would miss the familiar comforts of its conformity. However, I do feel there is a liberation to be felt, also. I'm striving to work that liberation into my life and I have begun to view the world differently, for the better I think. Most notably is the feeling that I can make decisions for myself without referring to Christian 'standards'. I can be a human, a caring, moral human separate from any belief in a god.

RD does seem blissfully unaffected by this self-doubt, but undoubtedly he has had much more time to get used to the idea than myself. In time, I'm sure I will be as confident as he is, or as many of us are striving to be.

276. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15068 by Fedler on December 28, 2006 at 4:43 pm

"So which is it, superior innate moral intuition, or degrading fear of negative consequences?"

Both, most likely. Initially, I think it was innate (at some level I haven't researched yet). As society progressed, we likely would have collectively found it advantagous to make laws and societal 'norms'.

"I am saying that god's non-existence has some wonderful, liberating consequences that RD and his disciples are afraid to accept."

Like what? It sounds like you're saying life will be one big destructive free for all if there is no god, whereas RD states the opposite. We can still be civil, even without fear of a god.

Binx, what frustrates me is that you seem pretty safe by asking our opinions (which vary), and then shooting them down from on top of your throne as if in a position of moral superiority. What do you believe? Don't ask for opinions, then say we're wrong. Tell us, then engage constructively. Or, enlighten our poor little souls so we can be saved from ourselves.

I apologize, I disdain moral snobbishness.

277. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15054 by Fedler on December 28, 2006 at 3:01 pm

"If I find it convenient, or satisfying, or pleasurable to ignore societal norms in favor of my own preferences, why not do so?"

I think this would come down to consequences. Ignoring societal norms usually comes with a price to pay in terms of punishment or other consequence. So, why would you choose to do something when negative consequences to yourself would be the result?

Sorry, I'm at work right now and don't have time to elaborate.

278. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15035 by Fedler on December 28, 2006 at 11:11 am

I apologize for this interjection...

"To assume the existence of quantities called "good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong", which exert power over us is precisely the same irrational thought process that leads people to believe in God."

This could very well be. I'm on my 2nd reading of the God Delusion and I'm anxious to re-read the chapter where RD states there could have been an evolutionary basis for our invention of god. While it's not the focus of RD's book, it no doubt will provide a good off ramp to further discussion or research. I'll have to withhold comment further until I re-read that chapter.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming....

279. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14696 by Fedler on December 24, 2006 at 1:12 pm

Mr. Robertson,

This will be my last post to your comments on this thread. While I appreciate your time and energy of your many postings on this thread, I don't feel I receive insight from them, in fact just more questions. (Memo to self - why did I once believe so deeply in religion?). Some statements from you seem contradictory and rather nebulous, therefore are not proper basis for discussion. Some of these statements include:

"Indeed I question whether we could know anything without revelation…" vs. "..it is not always the best idea to judge everything by personal experience."

Without revelation through experience (whether personal or indirect), what is left? Personal experiences dictate who we are and reveal the various choices we have to make on a daily basis. Something that is not a personal experience can only be heresy, unless it's backed up with sufficient evidence or logic. These comments seem contradictory.

"God is outside time and space…" vs. "…faith without evidence is just stupid."

Please provide your precise proof of how god is outside time and space, or else your faith in this statement is just…well, stupid (your own words).

"Anything CAN be used to justify anything…" vs. "I specifically argue against the God of the gaps idea."

If it CAN be used to justify anything, then the God of the gaps is still a valid argument, specifically regarding your feelings on evolution. You will have to forgive my memory because I'm sure it's not accurate, but I think it was Vatican II where numerous theologians gathered at the Vatican to rectify the apparent disagreements between Darwinian evolution and religious faith. From this meeting, the Vatican essentially claimed evolution as their own saying God 'used' evolution to bring about life on this planet. It seems ironic that the religious believers turn up their noses at evolution, yet in the same breath claim it as their own to help "prove" the existence of their god. This is another example of religious thought "moving the goalposts" to keep their religious faith alive. You stated how God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing (because the Bible says so). Yet, at the same time, theists claim how absurd evolution is because it spontaneously creates life out of nothing. Again, theists are claiming the same thing, but it appears to be OK as long as it suits their own argument.

As a result, religious believers can always say to any refutation of their beliefs "Ah, yes, but where did X come from?" This becomes the theistic version of the god of the gaps argument. As long as theologians can always push back their claim by saying "Ah, yes, but where did X come from?", religious belief is immune to any logical argument. Any unknown is attributed to god, until the scientific community finds the answer, then the goalposts are moved.

"Actually people have been born of virgins…" vs. "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."

Other than claiming Jesus was born of a virgin, do you have references for human virgin births? If so, can you understand how it was possible to defy human genetics in each case? I've never heard of any human virgin births.

"And again indicates the degree of faith required to be an atheist…" vs. "An atheist already has faith…"

You seem to indicate how as atheists we aren't allowed to have faith, as if faith is strictly for believers. No one else can have it. Then, you seem to indicate it is inherent in all of us (even atheists). Our definitions of faith may be different, but these statements are contradictory even without different definitions.

I hope the gaps in your logic are filled one day, also.

Have a good Christmas, and I wish you the best going forward.

280. It is possible to respect the believers but not the belief

Comment #14406 by Fedler on December 22, 2006 at 9:52 am

It would be nice if we could all get along. However, that would require a commitment from ALL religions (Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, atheists and, indeed, two-plus-two-equals-fivers) to collectively stand up to any one other religion and say "You're being irrational, now stop it" if any one of them gets 'unruly', a sort of religious democracy of checks and balances. But this does not appear to be tolerated by some religions. For example, it seems common that if you upset a Muslim or highlight inadequacies in their logic, you risk riots and bloodshed for even thinking about it.

Would it be nice if we all got along? You bet. But it's hard to see how that could be practical nowadays. It would be at least as difficult as halting the indoctrination of children.

Well, atheists can dream!

281. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14171 by Fedler on December 21, 2006 at 10:47 am

I DENY ALLAH, TOO! Now, please don't fly planes into skyscrapers because of a difference in opinion. THAT would be stupid, too.

282. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14151 by Fedler on December 21, 2006 at 9:42 am

Thanks for sharing, Billy. I'm beginning to realize the same things you talked about. When the 'god hypothesis' is taken out of the equation, things become simpler and more logical.

283. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14125 by Fedler on December 21, 2006 at 8:19 am

Understood. It's when we have to face personal issues like this that we realize that these questions are way beyond just debating. I do hope that you were not presented with the kind of trite religious explanations about the death of your father which to my mind end up being cruel (as well as stupid).

As expected, I did get a lot of the 'standard' religious explanations, such as:

"It's was God's plan…"
"It was God's will…"
"It happened for a reason…." (usually to teach us humility), etc..

I think my epiphany on religious questioning came during my father's wake service (for those not familiar with Catholicism, this is essentially a public viewing period for family and friends to pay their last respects prior to the funeral. I'm not sure if other religions have a similar service). During this wake service all my family deserted the service and went to my grandmother's house (which just happened to be across the street from the church). I think they went there for lunch. But it was in that moment when I was all alone in this huge stone and marble church with my father's body in the casket and a parade of my father's friends past his body that I felt a sense of abandonment on the part of religion, in that my family (a very religious family) just up and ditched my father in the middle of his own wake service.

While I don't pretend to generalize that this happens at all services, it did start me questioning my families' true commitment to the ideals in their faith, which inevitably lead me to question my own. While the 'god's will' and 'god's plan' explanations feel entirely unhelpful and empty, the explanation that it happened for a reason didn't fare much better. While a life lesson can be learned from it, I sincerely doubt a reason can be attributed to my father's death.

I agree that these questions are way beyond just debating or discussion, however I choose to continue because I don't see another way to seek knowledge. I know you have told me before to pray to God for the answers I seek, but that seems a bit paradoxical considering what I believe now (a bit like praying to Zeus or Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot).

284. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14018 by Fedler on December 20, 2006 at 6:38 pm

Re: 5. Comment #14006 by Aussie

I would like to extend my apologies on behalf of all of us rational US citizens on 'this side of the pond'. Unfortunately, our country is a bit like a belligerent teenager. We may do the right thing eventually, but only after doing to the extreme all the stupid things we can think of. It's a generalization, but I think it fits.

285. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13974 by Fedler on December 20, 2006 at 11:44 am

Virgin birth in the animal kingdom! Did god do it?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/20/uk.komodo.reut/index.html

"It's nature finding a way" is the best quote of the story.

I just thought it was interesting :).

286. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13963 by Fedler on December 20, 2006 at 10:03 am

Martin,

I am in the U.S., in Iowa, right in the middle of the euphemistically titled "Bible Belt" of the U.S. The Bible thumpers thump pretty hard around here, although thankfully I think I'm in a pretty liberal part of the belt.

I, too, have found the intellectual prowess of those that post here to be a tremendous benefit and a good challenge to myself.

That being said, way to turn off the italics my sneaky friend!

287. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13951 by Fedler on December 20, 2006 at 8:43 am

Thanks, Martin.

The initial shock and disbelief has tempered, but I just wanted to let Mr. Robertson know where my recent religious questioning comes from. We all question for different reasons, and that's where mine originated.

I guess I'm becoming atheist and learning how it changes my world view (for the better, I think). I find it harder in practice moving against the social tide.

OK, I don't know why I'm posting in italics...

288. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13938 by Fedler on December 20, 2006 at 7:16 am

Fedler: "Science is all about gaps, acknowledging there are gaps, and striving to find the answers for those gaps."

David Robertson: I appreciate this but I had thought that science was about knowledge. Observing what we can and finding out what we can.

Mr. Robertson, technically I find our two statements to mean the same thing. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Science strives to find the knowledge to fill the gaps.

I posted one comment on that thread (and perhaps a couple of others on others). I don't think that constitutes 'trolling'. I have discouraged other Christians from coming on this site precisely to prevent that kind of thing. It does seem to me that you are being a wee bit too sensitive on this subject. This website is meant to be about 'clear thinking' – which I assume involves hearing different points of view. But with very few exceptions I have noticed that the pattern is the same on almost every thread. Something is posted which is pro- Dawkins and the fans write in stating how wonderful it is etc. On the other hand something is posted which is anti-Dawkins or pro-religion and the fans write in claiming 'idiot, ad hominum, doesn't understand, what about the Bible, etc etc. It is getting to the point that once I have read the article I could almost write all the reactions myself – they have become so predictable. On the particular thread you refer to there were about 100 posts attacking the 'Twilight of Atheism' programme. I wrote one comment in support of it and you accuse me of 'trolling'. Is this site really to be 'atheists only'? I was very interested in the programme and also in the comments on it. But I will admit this. It was foolish to post because the only responses are constant abuse. It's a bit like being an African American posting on the Klu Klux Klan's website.

I apologize for getting a bit sensitive. I've been struggling with religion and religious explanations ever since my dad was killed last year by a drunk driver, so I'm finding my tolerance becoming shorter on certain things in which I'm trying to find knowledge about (which could also be my age settling in). I feel all posters (including myself) have lacked the 'clear thinking' expounded by this website at one point or another, and I agree with you about the overall pattern of responses (pro-Dawkins – good; anti-Dawkins – bad). However, that's probably representative of just about any comment thread on any website in support of a particular idea. Someone posting with a contrasting view is bound to be in the minority (a bit like 'David in the lion's den' if I may borrow a biblical reference). I can appreciate your African American/Ku Klux Klan analogy and find it to be spot-on (and amusing).

I would like to add that I agree with Donald's statement that I feel what you are calling evidence for God, atheists just call it awe at what we perceive to be true of the natural world. On this fundamental point, I believe we are bound to disagree.

289. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13841 by Fedler on December 19, 2006 at 5:04 pm

Billy,

Thanks for the reference. I've glanced at that thread from time to time, but never really paid much attention to it. I'll have to play catch-up on that thread.

290. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13827 by Fedler on December 19, 2006 at 2:53 pm

Martin,

I have to admit this is my first comment thread I've taken part in on the internet, so thanks for the info. on usernames. I'm learning...

By the way, Martin, I've been impressed with your posts. Keep it coming! I'm also hoping Donald posts some more.

Billy,

I believe you may be right when you say he would probably like being banned. However, I don't want him banned either, just to raise his level of courtesy. Also, thanks for drawing my attention to his quote #65 about prolonging any negative discussion.

Banter is good as long as it doesn't erode into slander.

Merry Mythmas!
(Man, why does it feel good to say it that way?!)

291. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13800 by Fedler on December 19, 2006 at 1:34 pm

Mr. Robertson,

I just encountered your other comments (if, indeed that was you) on the other thread at http://richarddawkins.net/article,442,The-Trouble-with-Atheism,Rod-Liddle-Channel-4#13795.

Needless to say, I found the comments extremely negative and insulting to those of us who want a rational discourse. Please prove to me you're not just 'trolling' this site, or I will not continue discussions with you.

292. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13715 by Fedler on December 19, 2006 at 7:10 am

Whilst I appreciate your faith position you will forgive me saying that it is very much like a 'science of the gaps' argument. Could you please answer which of the three views of the origin of matter you hold to? (again see my article for them).

Mr. Robertson, in reviewing your three origins, I can't say I agree exclusively with one particular one. Based on the available proven science at hand from physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc. (at least as much as I can understand it), I would have to say 'Something was eternal' if I had to pick just one.

Science is all about gaps, acknowledging there are gaps, and striving to find the answers for those gaps.

As explained before, obviously something banged in the Big Bang. Whether this material that banged is eternal remains to be seen, although there is evidence in the science that the Big Bang could have been only one bang in a string of bangs that took place.

From this banging, something (the universe) did come into existence, however I don't believe this banging material just poofed into existence out of nothing, either. Its origin is unknown at this time. It could be 'origin' is the wrong word since it implies a starting point, which may or may not be accurate.

Irregardless, I fail to see how the unknown origin of our universe implies the existence of a supreme being.

My faith is that humanity will continue to strive to find origins. I feel it's in our human nature to do so. This faith is different from theistic faith. It's more of a faith along the same lines that the sun will rise tomorrow, or faith that my wife still loves me even though I'm getting older and rounder. There is no rule saying atheists can't have faith in things.


Again with rare exceptions I note the inability of atheists who are responding to actually respond to the articles written. I guess if I wrote down the back of a cornflakes packet I would still get the same points being made. It is the curse of fundamentalism…

On a brief side note, may I request at the very beginning of your responses that you not collectively belittle those of us who are trying to thoughtfully post back to you. It only sours communication and questions the sincerity of the poster. We can be grown-ups.

293. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13552 by Fedler on December 18, 2006 at 10:34 am

Fedler: " My question then is how one can CLAIM an understanding of god. You make a claim of understanding god, but the "mathematical principles and order" observed above are naturally-occurring, and don't tell me god is behind them (or the mathematician that discovered them) because then that puts the burden of proof back on you to point out specifically where god's fingerprints are visible. "

David Robertson: "The extraordinary part of this statement is the view that mathematical principles and order are 'naturally occuring'. No they are not. They are what makes nature. Where do they come from? It takes an enormous amount of faith to say they were always there. The existence of order in the universe is not 'natural'. We define what is natural by the existence of order. That is the first big hint we get of God. And there are a whole lot more once we grasp that basic principle."

Mr. Robertson,
I, too, stand in awe at the 'fine tuning' of nature and I feel fortunate that we have the ability to appreciate it. However, I don't have faith that it was always this way. Like biological life forms (us), the cosmos have steadily 'evolved' into its current state ever since the first nanosecond after the Big Bang. Physicists have proven this through the concept of Inflationary Cosmology. While physicists still don't know what actually banged or what caused the Big Bang, the field is studying that issue and I do have faith that an answer will be discovered eventually. This gap in knowledge could be filled with the god hypothesis, but it feels premature to do so. Like a stream of water that naturally carves out a niche for itself in the countryside, it seems feasible to say physical laws also have a natural way of carving out their own little niche in the physical universe. (I actually believe this is on its way to being described in physics as a Higgs field [a baseline energy field to which all physical systems flow]).

The same concept of Inflationary Cosmology explains how the universe (when taken as a whole) is actually highly DISordered. The parts of the universe that have cooled (after the initial blazing hot temperatures in the Big Bang) have clumped together to make the galaxies, stars, planets, etc. As a miniscule inhabitant of one mediocre planet in a backwater outer arm of the Milky Way, our immediate world can seem highly ordered. However, our view is not representative of the whole picture as discovered through cosmology. I recommend reading The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene for further details.

Fedler: " But most importantly, how can our discussion move forward if we both claim the same evidence? I'm asking seriously. Help me out here."

David Robertson: "I don't think we do claim the same evidence. If you are following Dawkins line you are saying that because evolution is true then anything before life on earth must also have evolved. This strikes me as completely unprovable and fundamentally illogical."

As stated above the cosmos have also evolved and evolution only applies to biological life forms. Cosmology strives to account for the evolution of planetary bodies and the 'stuff' that makes up the universe.

294. Preaching to the converted

Comment #13348 by Fedler on December 17, 2006 at 7:03 am

Logicel, thanks for explaining that! It's oddly comforting that we in the US aren't the only ones that suffer an overexposure of 'TomKat' or 'Brangelina' syndrome (Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes; and Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie). Kudos to GregPreston!

295. Atheist Brigade Takes Arguments to the Tolerant

Comment #13282 by Fedler on December 16, 2006 at 6:38 pm

Good piece! Although, I admit cringing when Pat Robertson was quoted as saying "Evolution is the atheists religion." Apart from the fact that he was given air time (which is annoying), it's also annoying to keep hearing believers saying "Well, atheism is a religion, too!", basically which means "Atheism is just as bad as religion" (especially when said in a tone reminiscent of a snotty elementary school playground).

A. That statement implies that they, too, believe religion to be bad, but perhaps feel helpless/unwilling to change it (cowardly), and

B. As has been pointed out on this site before, nobody every committed a crime in the name of atheism.

Overall, it's good to see atheism getting more air time.

296. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13233 by Fedler on December 16, 2006 at 10:02 am

Billy, thanks for the site references. I particularly found the second link fascinating when it discusses "nonsensical prophecies" - so-called prophecies that aren't really prophecies at all, essentially just literary fluff.

297. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13095 by Fedler on December 15, 2006 at 11:35 am

"...That's all I care about. Does god exist?"

David Robertson: "Yes - Have a look at the latest article. Please feel free to interact with that."

The latest article is what I"m talking about. Saying "god is outside time and space" is a non-explanation and not something I can interact with, nor do I want to spend my time discussing what appears to be a figment of an imagination.

David Robertson (quoting Collins): "There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on a temporary lack of knowledge"(The Language of God – p93). I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."

As would I. I am completely lost when it comes to understanding god. I admit that. My question then is how one can CLAIM an understanding of god. You make a claim of understanding god, but the "mathematical principles and order" observed above are naturally-occurring, and don't tell me god is behind them (or the mathematician that discovered them) because then that puts the burden of proof back on you to point out specifically where god's fingerprints are visible. And I know very well that I could not point them out.

How is it that we can both claim the same 'evidence'? But most importantly, how can our discussion move forward if we both claim the same evidence? I'm asking seriously. Help me out here.

You also state that Dawkins' question of "Who created the designer" is something a 6-year old would ask. From my perspective, it says more that a 6-year old could so easily hit the mark on the central question of religious belief. I, like the mythical 6-year old, am just looking for some concrete proof to sink my teeth into (something other than 'god is outside time and space').

298. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13046 by Fedler on December 15, 2006 at 6:56 am

Mr. Robertson,

I haven't appeared on this thread since page 10. I had resigned myself to the fact that I was not going to get any respectable answers from this discussion to my questions about god's existence. That's all I care about. Does god exist? After that question is answered, only then it will be worth quibbling over the details of human nature.

In you last response to me, I believe you told me to pray to try to 'find god' (unfortunately the response is on page 10 of this thread which now seems accessible due to some glitch in the system). Sadly, I feel this response was like telling someone who is on a diet to go eat some ice cream if they want to lose weight. However, it reminded me of something someone told me when I was in high school.

I hate beer. Can't stand it. However, after trying some in high school and spitting it out because it tasted so bad, someone who was trying to pressure me into having a beer said "it's an acquired taste". In other words, the more I drink, the better it will taste. You can probably see where I'm going with this. If something doesn't 'taste right' (religion), drinking more is only going to accomplish one of two things: 1) I'm going to get sick, or 2) I'll like it, but only because I'm too drunk to know what I'm doing. I'm reminded of the same thing when my family sits down to pray before meals, or when we go to church. I look around and wonder if people really have a conscious thought about what they are saying anymore. Religion has become a mantra to be spewed out on autopilot, to the point of having no meaning. In this way, I do feel the majority of religious followers are 'drunk' on religion. Practicing religion is more of a habit, than a profession of faith. WAY back in your original article on RDF that started this thread you state:

"You state that your book is for those who have been brought up in a particular religious faith and now either no longer believe it, or are unhappy in it and want out. You want to raise the consciousness of such people to the extent that they can realise that they can get out. Do you really think that people are that stupid? Do most people not already know that is perfectly possible to leave a religion and not suffer any significant social consequences...?"

Frankly, no. People are that stupid when it comes to breaking old habits, like religion. Until reading some recent books (like Dawkins), it had never occurred to me that I could change my religion, or toss it out completely. It was something that was always so ingrained in me that I never questioned it. Never even considered questioning it.

So, now I'm questioning. Does god exist? In your most recent article you state how "god is outside time and space". I've heard this circular logic before and it's becoming tiresome. How do you know? There is no way to quantify that which allegedly lies outside of our ability to comprehend it. I've sought further guidance from your posts, but the explanations lack substance for me now. Partly due to the fact that we have different definitions of evidence, and partly due to the fact that I feel your posts are vague or abstract, as to mean anything - kind of like being 'drunk' on religion. I don't mean to imply you're drunk, but I only wish to point out how religion has a certain sedation quality nowadays among most practitioners (at least in my Catholic faith). I was drunk. I didn't realize I could question it like anything else.

I now hesitate to add that we have had 15 pages on this thread to provide sufficient reasoning for a belief in god. Obviously, it hasn't appeared to work. We can't agree on answers, or even the main talking points for that matter. I feel this thread has basically deteriorated to a 'territorial pissing match' as it were and it is really not beneficial to anyone anymore. Based on my recent experiences and my newly-discovered ability to question, I find it easier to believe there is no god. I don't feel that's my faith, I feel that's just simple fact.

299. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7873 by Fedler on November 19, 2006 at 6:13 pm

Re: Comment #7495 by David Robertson

"May I ask what evidence [of the existence of God] you refer to?"

"Sure. In summary – the creation, the very idea of God, human beings, love, joy, beauty, the concept of evil, morality, human history, the sense of the religious in all human beings, others experience, the Bible and personal experience."

Mr. Robertson, thank you for your replies. Again, it all comes back to definition. I don't feel the above things you mention prove the existence of a god, as I feel most of them are subject and could mean anything to anybody. It is, of course, near impossible to fully engage through an internet blog, so my reasons I'm sure will seem incredibly incomplete, but if I may....

"the creation.." - obviously highly debateable to many people, but I feel is more accurately explained through evolution,
"the very idea of God.." - I don't feel an idea proves the actual existence of anything. I have the idea of peace on earth, but it obviously doesn't exist.
"human beings.." - again, highly debateable (like creation), but I feel is more accurately explained through evolution,
"love, joy, beauty, the concept of evil, morality.." - I feel these are highly subjective and, broadly speaking, could mean to 'prove' anything,
"human history.." - proves human beings have a past, but not the existence of a god,
"the sense of the religious in all human beings.." - many people do have 'religious' experiences, but I don't feel they prove the existence of a god or that the experience was somehow given to us by a god,
"the Bible.." - I feel even among believers the Bible is considered partially accurate (at best) and mostly symbolic, but I don't feel it proves the existence of a god.
"personal experience." - subjective to the extreme and I feel it only proves we have experiences.

I'm a Christian (Roman Catholic) and I haven't committed to leaving my faith, yet, but I'm actively seeking to find some concrete reasons why I should stay with my faith. I still consider myself a spiritual person and I feel I can still experience beauty, joy, love, morality, etc., but my definition of evidence (via subjective personal experience) is changing to one that does not appear to be in agreement with a belief in a god.

Despite this, I don't feel one belief or disbelief is "more right" than the other, just different viewpoints.

Again, thank you for your time, effort, and consideration, but it appears my search will continue. Like you, I have a family I need to spend more time with and I've already spent too much time with this thread (I think my wife is beginning to doubt my sanity). Best of luck in the future!

300. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7133 by Fedler on November 17, 2006 at 9:27 am

Re: Comment #7128 by Martin

"When science manages to explain what has always before been "god's work" you just move the goal-post."

Nice analogy, Martin! I've had the same feeling myself.