Comments by _J_

Comment #60144 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 6:02 am

And Lady Grey is actually made of wrong.

Comment #60143 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 6:00 am

Red Label's fine and Earl Grey, too. Most major brands are perfectly respectable and Assam, Darjeeling and Ceylon all have their strengths. I can particularly recommend vanilla tea if you can ever get your hands on it (proper tea with added vanilla-y goodness - not one of those debasing herbal concoctions).

But some things are just wrong and that's that. Don't pretend you don't know it.

403. The Out Campaign

Comment #60134 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 5:31 am

BillySands, 235

Proof indeed.

Any deity that supports the production or sale of lapsang souchong is undeserving of respect. It is perfectly clear to all right-thinking people that lapsang souchong is an objective and absolute wrong. I know this from personal introspection and from just knowing stuff.

Furthermore, in spite of the fancy name, lapsang souchong is not even oriental in origin - it's distilled from the air on the ride at the Jorvik Centre. This is a scientific fact.

Where will this appalling charade end? What further abominations can be expected in the name of Quetzalcoatl? Are we to anticipate enthusiastic endorsements of [stifles a shudder] Lady Grey?

404. The Out Campaign

Comment #60116 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 3:55 am

BAEOZ, 206,

Sorry, my pocketed pal. Just my pathetic placentalistic envelope-envy. You carry on carrying young. So long as you don't mix them up with your car keys, it's a great system.

405. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60107 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 2:54 am

Hey, Fanusi - round of applause for the Marlowe quote!

Never got round to reading Tamburlaine. Sad to think that, had Tamburs gone on to perform the exact same demonstration on the Bible, not only would the play not have been performed but Marlowe would likely have been on the receiving end of some hefty state retribution.

[Please note, ever-watchful buffoons of Righteous Response, that no incitement to incinerate your favourite fairy tales is intended.]

406. The Out Campaign

Comment #60051 by _J_ on July 31, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Sorry, feeling a bit silly today. WeeFlea deemed me worthy of a put down.

I'm 'a credit to this site'. Stick that in your pouch, marsupial.

[Preens and falls asleep.]

407. The Out Campaign

Comment #60011 by _J_ on July 31, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Yorker - Ta, and (drumroll...) congratulations on hitting Comment 60,000!

[Dances]

408. The Out Campaign

Comment #60005 by _J_ on July 31, 2007 at 12:12 pm

173. Naturalist1

I foresee blasphemous YouTube shenanigans.

Irrespective of my guilty joy at the sheer kitsch, I reckon those toys are a strategy that may well backfire. Kids spot patterns and make associations - part of learning and growing up. And what do the vast majority of characters reincarnated in all-action plastic form have in common? They've as much basis in fact as a statement by Jeffrey Archer.

409. The Out Campaign

Comment #59999 by _J_ on July 31, 2007 at 11:58 am

Yorker, 161

Thanks for the list! There're six books there that I haven't read - I'll add them to my ever-expanding Amazon wish-list.

'Books to lend an amenable theist' has been a thought I've been considering quite often of late. I probably started on this because a friend of mine is about to enter training to become a minister (though I've basically decided that she'll be happier if I don't nag her about this subject. Can't win 'em all!). Your Dawkins books'd be on mine, too, as would The Demon-Haunted World.

I agree about being friendly to doorstep evangelists. The JWs who do my road are really nice. Always friendly and the man who usually appears is an interesting fellow with all kinds of wide ranging hobbies.

One Sunday a few years ago, shortly after I became a godless heathen, I was writing to a Christian friend who had spent some time on helping me to become a Christian a year or so earlier. I was midway through a long email explaining just why I'd decided his entire sincerely-held belief system was nonsense when the doorbell rang. Lo and behold it was my Jehovah's Witness friends.

Usually, when faced down by a stranger, the thought of arguing makes me very tense and so I just smile and say yes. But this time, as he talked to me (pointing to a picture in which children of families of all races (no mixed-race families, though) frolicked with gentle lions in sunlit fields, and asking me 'Would you like to live there?') I knew in my whatever-an-atheist-has-instead-of-a-soul that if I meekly nodded agreement I would be selling out my (un)beliefs, as well as patronising his. I'd return to my email a coward and a hypocrite. It seemed as if the Fate that I don't really believe in had set this up to test me. So (jaw shaking with unwarranted adrenaline) I politely dissented. I can't remember what I actually said, but my friendly neighborhood JW traded friendly differences of opinion with me for a few minutes before leaving me to it. And I felt much, much better about life. (And skipped merrily back to my computer to carry on thoroughly disappointing my old faith-buddy in good conscience.)

It's hardly running through a Bible-belt city centre screaming 'GOD IS A LIE!' but it's my own little 'coming out' story and I remember it fondly. Everyone was honest and no one got hurt. (These days, of course, I burn crosses and spit in baptismal fonts, like all real atheists. But you've got to start somewhere.)

410. The Out Campaign

Comment #59976 by _J_ on July 31, 2007 at 9:55 am

Yorker, 128

I suppose I'd better come clean, I was thinking of Hitchens

I hope Godless Mickey's got a big wine cellar.

David, 131

Well, there goes my street cred. (Seriously though, thanks.)

I will get back to your comments on the free church website when I get a moment.

Thanks. Just checking they'd gone through okay. Sorry for demanding so many of your moments.

Your questions to Dawkins about getting on with doing some actual science. He's spent decades doing, and explaining, important and influential science. Since the mid/late nineties, he's been the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, as you know. Now, I'm no expert, but to my mind that title suggests communication of science to the public as the number one concern of the role. Spending weeks prodding ants in Zambia (or whatever), whilst certainly making a direct contribution to the body of scientific knowledge, wouldn't be directly getting on with the task of helping the public to understand science. For my money, Dawkins is going about his job extremely effectively, having kicked off spectacularly well with Unweaving the Rainbow (which reminded me of my all-time favourite in this field, The Demon-Haunted World; I'm hoping The Enemies of Reason will do the same) and not paused for breath since. The enthusiastic support you can find in places like this suggest that Dawkins' efforts are hitting the nail on the head; the many dissenting responses – particularly those that lurch from misunderstanding to misunderstanding – indicate just how necessary his work is.

I would love to see a genuine discussion take place between the Professor and those he is actually writing against.

Well, there are just so many of you! It's like fighting the hydra – every time one interview takes place, millions of the variously faithful shake their heads and say 'Well, that's not my belief'.

Scan the articles on this site and you'll find discussions between Dawkins and theologians, representatives of particular faith groups, scientists, other atheists, sympathetic and unsympathetic journalists and presenters, members of public and more. Look at the list of forthcoming events and you'll see more on the cards. There's a lot of people who'd like to have the chance to talk to Dawkins in a public format and he's been working hard to engage in discussions of various types that will be available to a range of audiences.

As for the chances of you personally debating with Dawkins – well, whilst you and I would be interested, it may be that you will have to make do with other atheists. After all, there have turned out to be quite a few of us. Don't take it to heart, by the way. Visible and vocal though he may be, Dawkins is not 'the leader of the atheist movement' or any such nonsense (a little perfectly human hero-worship here and there notwithstanding). Witness, for instance, 'the atheist movement's spectacular failure to agree with itself on whether it likes a t-shirt.

Can I come to the opening of the Richard Dawkins Theme Park as well - after of course I have visited Creationland (or whatever they call it).

Utah, isn't it?

Elutheria, 136

could we not get Flea and Dianelos on the same thread, arguing the toss eternally

This thought has also occurred to me, and I like it. What do you say, David? You want the Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath thread if so…(Actually, since Dianelos is talking all about 'God and how Christianity relates to the modern world, especially as regards science and current philosophy', you could use it to bamboozle your 18-30s in Bulgaria. You won't be invited back, but I guarantee it'll keep their hands full.)

Yorker, 142

A long time ago I imposed upon myself a rule

…and an excellent rule it is. Thanks for the tip – I will speaking these words over the next copy of Watchtower to arrive on my doorstep.

By the way: which books did you recommend to your cousin?

411. The Out Campaign

Comment #59939 by _J_ on July 31, 2007 at 7:32 am

Yorker, 119

Of course we all know who would make the ideal customer but I can't suggest him.

God?

(Great idea, btw.)

412. The Out Campaign

Comment #59912 by _J_ on July 31, 2007 at 4:40 am

Just want to say well done to those people who've posted their tales of 'coming out' here. With Dawkins' well-balanced article capping the whole thing off, this thread has already become one of the most uplifting and motivating places on the whole site.

Hello again, David! Nice to see you back. You must be pleased with the reception - not only Dawkins, but you've even managed to pull epeeist away from his house-moving responsibilities (for which, thanks).

I continue to find your reasoning baffling, though. Like in your first two points, where you take the same bizarre attitude to honesty and deception that crops up in your arguments about Dawkins and the bible on your own site.

Dawkins will openly acknowledge uses of imperfect data so as not to mislead his reader, and he tries to deal head-on with anything that may be seen as a weakness in his case (alerting us to the need to do our own thinking and not just lap it all up like...well, gospel). Whenever he does so, you triumphantly seize upon the detail as though it is some crippling Achilles heel that you have spotted through your own Holmesean mastery of deduction, and that the wily atheist Moriarty Dawkins was trying to sneak past you...completely ignoring the point he was making and leaving your own attacks a step behind the arguments they are attacking. It's strange and embarrassing to watch.

By contrast, when you go to the bible for evidence, you seem completely satisfied that there's no trickery going on there because the bible tells you that it's all true. Door to door salesmen must earn a good living in your neck of the woods.

Anyway, nice to see you again. Hope your summer wasn't too much of a washout (look: no jokes about Noah!) Hope my final (final (final))) comments on your site might filter through moderation one day...

NMcC, 96 - understand your response there, but I was childishly delighted to see that response (just as I am about the forthcoming Enemies of Reason). I'm a terrible cheapskate, but I'd actually pay good money (to the non religious charity of Dawkins' choice) to see the Professor go head-to-head in debate with our friend David. (I'm not a betting man, either, but I'd take a gamble on the result - though I doubt the bookies would make it worth my while.)

413. The Out Campaign

Comment #59812 by _J_ on July 30, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Dr B, 28 - it's a nice idea, although there are already so many different coloured bands for different causes. Still, the more the merrier.

I actually still like the idea of putting WWJD? on the wristband, alongside the 'Come OUT' or 'A' logo. A URL for Dawkins' 'Atheists for Jesus' article would finish it off, making it all sincerely, but ironically, consistent.

414. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59809 by _J_ on July 30, 2007 at 5:36 pm

fides_et_ratio, 241,

Thanks for the response!

As I think I made clear in my post, I'd encourage them to keep looking.

Great stuff - we can agree there.

[...Science and religion] both seek the truth, and are in that sense complimentary as far as I can see.

This always interests me, these claims about 'different sorts of truth', with different - but equally valid - ways of reaching them. I don't think I've ever heard an explanation of this that doesn't involve a lot of being extremely vague and dodging direct questions. Perhaps you can help set the record straight!

Can you give some idea of how religion (yours or in general), as an alternative (but complimentary) truth-seeking system to science, works? Does it seek the same sort of truth, or does it have its own kind? What are its working methods? How can you tell when it's giving you reliable results and when it's misleading you?

This really isn't a trick question and I'm not poking fun. I'd like to know how you believe this works. If I'm lucky, I might learn something...

415. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59732 by _J_ on July 30, 2007 at 1:03 pm

BillySands, 235

:D

[EDIT: Much as I trust all Disciples of Quetzalcoatl absolutely, I was just checking out that comical gem of wisdom, and found this, at the International Bible Society's pages:

Portions of the book were probably added by scribes or editors from later periods of Israel's history. For example, the protestation of the humility of Moses (12:3) would hardly be convincing if it came from his own mouth. But it seems reasonable to assume that Moses wrote the essential content of the book.

How much are you left with if you cut out of the bible everything that seems 'hardly convincing'? Or is 'Moses is a shocking big head' somehow less fantastical a notion than, say, the creation story, Noah's flood, the plagues on the Egyptians, the parting of the Re[e]d Sea, God's maniacal rules, the logic of the atonement, etc, etc, etc... Guess that all 'seems reasonable'. The selective intelligence of the religious strikes again.]

416. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59727 by _J_ on July 30, 2007 at 12:39 pm

230, fides_et_ratio,

It's called humility to accept that one doesn't know everything (and also that one cannot know everything).

There are people whose vocation it is to ask questions about the origins and nature of life and the universe. Is it humility to pre-empt their findings by stating that some form of god did it? Or that their fields of enquiry lie within your personal opinion of what can and cannot be known?

Accepting that we are in a large measure ignorant is the working practice of science and the bread and butter of atheism. It takes theism to whack a god into that (and to imagine that doing so is 'humble').

(On this subject, you might enjoy this short clip from Beyond Belief, if you've not seen it before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MVqtZvf8U)

Oh, on uses of the word childish, I resubmit post 208, above. Any thoughts?

Cheers!

417. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #59700 by _J_ on July 30, 2007 at 9:37 am

Is anything going to be done to make amends with Tom Barbalet?

418. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59637 by _J_ on July 30, 2007 at 2:44 am

Dianelos,

I'm trying not to write large or frequent posts here any more, so I'm resisting the temptation to respond to numerous things you've mentioned in your posts to me and others over the last twelve hours. But I'd like to say thanks for writing your long reply 1677 to me, which was interesting and quite thought provoking.

Giving myself a 5-minute limit, I'll try to hint a couple of the things that struck me, in that post and others.

Ta for referring to the only Nietzsche book I've ever read any of! His Apollonian and Dionysian dimensions perhaps (Dr Benway can probably clarify this) correspond to observations made by psychologists and thinkers-to-do-with-the-mind since time immemorial, who have seen the mind as split between a rational, consciously intending part and an other bit – the bit that's all drives, instincts, urges and emotions and that won't do what you tell it to. That book I recommended a while back (The Happiness Hypothesis) pictures these elements as a rider and an elephant. The author, Jonathan Haidt, refers to the experience of 'flow' as something akin to what you describe as 'I suppose the best path is to combine both the Apollonian and Dionysian dimensions of life, but I am having trouble with the later.' – periods when we can get our rider and our elephant to work together as though they are actually on the same team for once. You may find all this stuff interesting.

However, I did notice that, upon realising that your initial understanding of my dancing metaphor was different from what I'd been trying to say, you then ploughed on with your original interpretation of it! So you said lots of things I can happily accept, but that didn't really address the argument.

Also observe that the fact that life is not such as we would like it to be does not contradict the existence of a benevolent God, because what matters here is how God would like life to be, and why.

Take a step back: the supposition that there is a god at all is an expression of how you would like life to be. You would like there to be a god, and therefore like the question 'how God would like life to be, and why' to be important and meaningful. This is issue I was addressing in my previous post. It's not addressing the argument to just assume your way past it!

Well, first of all the most important thing in life is not loving God, but loving all persons.

In your god conception, yes. Your personal theism is laudable in this, and is also in a small minority. Certainly, the Christianity that I have personally experienced differs from this in its core doctrine. It sees loving all persons as part of Christianity, but only as a consequence of the essential act of loving god. All good flows from god, such that the (observable) good cannot possibly exist without the (unobservable) god. (I have presents, therefore there is a Father Christmas.) This kind of buggered up, morality-perverting, backwards thinking seems to be a lot more common than your version of theism.

Let's consider two equally good natured people […]

Some thought-provoking stuff in this long paragraph (and elsewhere). Thanks.

Skip to the end:

First I think our experience is such that it can't be understood naturalistically.

I disagree with you. See entire thread! ;)

In any case I disagree even more strongly with your belief that non-believers can be as happy and fulfilled as they might be through religion […]

I can't be sure about this. It clearly varies from person to person – propensity to be religious looks to be highly variable. I admit that it seems a logically reasonable hypothesis that actually being religious – even if religious beliefs are universally factually erroneous, as I contend – may be the best way of being happy and fulfilled, bar none. (To me, this argument seems quite similar to saying 'it's possible that the placebo effect is the best form of pain relief, bar none'.) Personally, I think that as we continue to understand ourselves better and better, the consolations of religion will become increasingly available to us through means other than religion. We'll see.

[EDIT - where I've used 'the best' in the above paragraph, please read 'the most effective' instead. 'The best' suggests an overview, taking into account associated side effects and so on, which isn't the point I was trying to make. A 100% effective cure for the common cold is suicide, but most people wouldn't be keen on the side effects.]

What I am saying is that the idea of religion that Dawkins, Harris, and fundamentalists all share is grossly wrong. The only theistic idea that should be taken seriously is one that claims that God is present and reachable within every one of us, but that all anyone of us may say or write about God may be wrong.

If this was the commonly-held theistic perspective, Dawkins and Harris would not have written their books. The world's major religions slip off your definition like water off the proverbial duck's back.

There are lots of other things you mention in other posts that I'm sure others will come straight back to you on – for instance:

So the naturalistic belief that the physical universe objectively exists is immoral too because there is absolutely no evidence, corroborative or not, for that belief. [etc.]

No, you've again slid into an ontology argument that we've done to death. It's as though the repeated statements to you that Dr Benway is ontologically agnostic and instead concentrating on the realm of observable experience in which 'corroborative evidence' has some worthwhile meaning have never been made. This is the slipping and sliding, sidestepping and backtracking that you are often accused of!

and:

Who said that God is unseen, unheard and unfelt? Not me. According to my worldview everything you see, hear or feel is basically caused by God (except those parts that are random or are caused by other people), and how it is like to see, hear or feel is also caused by God.

…ie, the 'I have presents, therefore there is a Father Christmas' argument. How do presents from Father Christmas look different to presents from real people? How can you isolate the supposed God from the 'everything you see, hear or feel'? Unless you have a way, your god has no more claim on existence than the famous dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.

But, don't worry - I know your answer to this involves your doubts about naturalism (your contested objections on consciousness, morality, QM), and your feeling that your theism 'works better' (which you don't see as an unjustified step in the direction of the theoretical simulated 'Happyland', which you reject as 'nightmarish'). And so on.

This is why I was trying not to post – five minutes have become forty. SharonMcT, there's no hope for either of us.

419. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59561 by _J_ on July 29, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Dr B, 1672

That really was a fantastic post. Interesting thoughts, well explored. And a good, clear, concise one-line statement of a (the?) major gripe at the end. Thanks.

420. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59511 by _J_ on July 29, 2007 at 9:47 am

Wow! What an astonishing kerfuffle!

170, pzmyers and 171, bouwe - hear, hear. Surely those injections of common sense are all that need to be said on this subject.

...oh, except one thing: if you're buying one, buy a black one. Makes it much harder for a mischievous theist with a red marker pen to write 'SSHOLE' on you.

EDIT - Oops, least original joke ever, there. Should have guessed, given all the words already spilt on this monumentally important subject.

421. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59253 by _J_ on July 28, 2007 at 2:30 pm

SharonMcT,

I've really got to let it go, thank goodness.

You and me both. If we were friends giving up smoking, I'd offer to slap the deathsticks out of your hand if you'd do the same for me. Hard to police a forum habit though, isn't it?

Have a great time in Chicago. I've always wanted to go there (well, ever since they invented ER).

422. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #59242 by _J_ on July 28, 2007 at 1:58 pm

The whole bit about 'whoever achieves a peace treaty in the Middle East is the antichrist' - does that count as incitement to violence? On a massive, massive scale?

Just trying to work out how close this is to being an actual crime.

423. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59241 by _J_ on July 28, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Well done, hope it goes well.

Don't think I'm going to buy one, though. Where I live, people would just wonder why I was making such a big deal about it. But I expect there are plenty of other places where this might be a worthwhile statement-garment.

Like Homer is a true GOD, I wonder if maybe a more subtle one might be good for some people. One with just a little emblem in the 'shirt pocket' area (sorry - I have no clothes terminology) or on the sleeve.

How long before there's a red plastic OUT Campaign wristband? (You could even stick WWJD? on it - alongside a URL for Dawkins' 'Atheists for Jesus' essay...)

424. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59238 by _J_ on July 28, 2007 at 1:42 pm

SharonMcT and bouwe,

Talking round the point is certainly annoying, no matter what the discussion. I agree with you there and it's frustrated me more than once.

I think the reason I'm less frustrated and cross about this than I was a while back is that I don't see this really as a debate any more. Dianelos has explained once or twice of late how he sees his participation here (eg in 1651, above) and I've realised that it's worth taking him at face value. He's talking about his faith. Not trying to get us to join it. Not challenging us to disprove it. Just describing it, exploring it, and enjoying the act of doing so with people with different opinions.

Dianelos is in his rights to do this. These threads don't seem to have a designated purpose (unless it's to comment on the article, in which case virtually this entire thread has been one immense off-topic digression). If he wants to just chat to all comers about his faith in a fairly good natured way, he's at liberty to.

I initially entered this as with all debates, trying to advocate my view and taking an antagonistic position to his. I wanted to change his mind or, failing that, to have mine changed. And, whilst it's been fascinating and frequently educational, that was just never going to happen.

This thread isn't a journey with a destination. It's all journey. The terminal isn't going to appear over the horizon. The whole thing is about looking at the scenery and having a nice chat along the way.

Overall, I've rather enjoyed being on this epic pilgrimage to nowhere. I've met some really interesting people (like you two) and been made to think about religion (and other things) from angles that wouldn't have otherwise occurred to me. So I hardly want to strangle Dianelos at all anymore ( ;) ). He may not be the coachman of choice for travellers in a rush to get anywhere, but he sure can keep you talking. I like him.

That's my present understanding of it, anyway. I find it stops me going insane (and even, just about, helps to quench that itching desire to comment on absolutely everything).

425. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59233 by _J_ on July 28, 2007 at 12:54 pm

And he's quite certain that life is better when you're dancing.

Yes, I am quite certain about that. Aren't you?

Well, not really. As 'dancing' was standing for 'holding a religious faith' in my metaphor, it can't be a surprise to you that I'm not completely in favour!

However, I may have been a bit lazy saying 'life is better'. I guess my overall position is a bit broader in view, and would better have been expressed by something like:

And he's quite certain that it is overall correct and desirable for him to continue dancing.

That I'd be able to disagree with strongly: I don't think it's desirable for people to be religious, on the whole.

But, when it's phrased as 'life is better', which can be interpreted as a statement purely of a person's subjective appreciation of quality of their life experience, I can admit that it is possible that a lot of people may be happier with religious faith (ie while dancing) than without.

Your paragraph about the cancer-suffering lady is a great example of what you termed 'the joy and meaning and strength of surrendering'. I remember this feeling very well indeed. And I am often sorely tempted to try to find a way of recapturing it.

At the minute, I'm failing pretty miserably to get any kind of a hold on life, because I'm terrible at making big decisions. Every time I come close to settling something, I just rip myself to bits with contradictions, so I end up going nowhere and being very frustrated with myself for it. How I would love to be able to be able to put the big decisions in someone else's hands.

I expect this is a near-universal feeling. It's what being a child was like for most of us – our parents make the decisions, life's challenges are largely limited to jumping through pre-set hoops (at school, for instance). There's very little weight of responsibility for us to shoulder.

The idea of god settles all this angst perfectly. I remember the feeling from my time as a Christian. It's such a powerful idea. Let's say I face a tough decision. First, I can stop myself getting too anxious about it because god puts it into perspective. The most important thing in life is loving him, and I've got that sorted. This mortal life isn't my only shot at things, so no decision I make is too big a deal. It isn't worth worrying about.

This train of thought reminds me that god is watching and he loves me. So I'm calm, my pulse rate is back where it should be and I'm feeling happy and loved. Back to dealing with the problem, whatever it is.

Well, I'll give it my best shot. And the best way to do it is clearly to avail myself of the Ultimate Resource and ask god. So I pray to god, asking him to guide me and to help me to open my heart to his will, so that I can follow the path that he has in mind for me. I try to give this prayer as earnestly as I can, and if I'm not sure it felt right, I'll indulge in a spot of OCD and make it again.

Now I know that I have done the most important thing you can do in making a decision. No matter how lousy my other attempts to make my decision are, I've referred the matter to the Big Guy and am striving to be receptive to his response. I have given myself the best possible chance of making a good decision.

Since I'm striving to stick to god's plan, I can't really go wrong. Even if my decision winds up being something I'm not happy with, I can be happy in the knowledge that the apparent mistake was somehow intended by god, for some reason. Probably he's teaching me something, in his wisdom. If I end up wanting to change my path later, months or years down the line, I'll pray to god again and take his guidance again. And whatever sequence of blessings or catastrophes my life actually becomes, I'll bounce along happily knowing that I'm doing the best I can, doing what god wants, and that it's all basically trivial anyway because the only really important matter is already resolved.

Whether this is actually a good way of making productive decisions or not is immaterial to the question of whether or not it makes one feel better to think in this way. I'm pretty sure it did. And I quite miss the feeling, sometimes.

The difference today is that I don't believe in god. I was a sceptic even before I became a Christian, but I managed to overpower my scepticism for a while and to genuinely become one of the faithful. Eventually, though, my desire to understand my religion and how I related to it led to the realisation that there is no god, and the few years since then – in which I have remained fascinated by the subject – have only confirmed this.

How do I see the above 'surrendering to god' process now, as an atheist?

It seems to me that it is probably helpful for making some decisions. It's certainly a good way of staying positive-minded (very valuable), putting anxiety out of your head and utilising your gut instincts (which are frequently very good). It's not such a great strategy for more complex issues, though – ones that involve making judgements on counter-intuitive facts, for example. (Like when we find people who think with their guts and faiths objecting to stem cell research on the grounds that it…um…'diminishes human uniqueness'…or something…)

Worse, it's hijackable. Your faith, Dianelos, being very much your own, seems nicely inoculated against this. But for the vast majority of people who embrace 'the joy and meaning and strength of surrendering' through an organised religion, opening up to the sense of a greater authority also entails letting that presumed authority's earthly representatives – its holy book writers and preachers – stick their noses in.

From my naturalistic perspective, I reason that if I have to make an important decision about something I don't know much about, I should go to specialists in that field to help me weigh up the options. People who surrender to faith, though, frequently give their ear to a group of self-appointed authorities who are specialists only in appointing themselves as authorities. When a member of any of the big faiths surrenders their decision-making to their idea of god, they are not just opening up to their instinctive reasoning, but also to the commands of their preachers and holy book interpreters. This is massively irresponsible and leads to some spectacularly bad decision making – which is made all the worse by being stamped with the authority of god. (Sticking with the stem-cell research example, this is like those protesters who ground their objections in their understanding of their holy books or in the attitudes of their spiritual leaders, and are thereby quite certain that god doesn't like the idea, and that it's therefore sinful, evil and arrogant.)

I think the 'surrender' strategy is full of powerful psychological self support. But I think, for the above reasons, that surrendering to a genuinely believed-in god, particularly as part of an organised faith, is irresponsible and dangerous.

So, I think it's a challenge for researchers of the mind and behaviour to help us to find ways of matching or surpassing 'the joy and meaning and strength of surrendering' without the factual errors and inherent dangers of religious surrender.

I still think that your particular faith is a pretty good way of doing this. Way back, I ended a fairly long post (Comment 564) with a paragraph musing on how, if I could somehow convince myself into believing something that I think to be factually untrue, I might opt for a faith a bit like yours. (At the time, you mentioned you wanted to come back to talk about that point, but the discussion moved on.)

I hope I have never suggested that I think religious faith to be powerless and without its rewards. I just think it's erroneous, dangerous and irresponsible (to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the faith in question). I think that in earlier times religion was on balance useful. For all the harm it did, I suspect we needed a religious period in our history.

Religions earn their adherents rewards through dubious, dangerous short cuts, but shortcuts that are the only way when you're below a certain knowledge threshold. Getting there the long way round takes more time and effort, but avoids the terrible pitfalls of religious faith. Some people simply neither need nor sympathise with faith. But many, many do. I think we're finally reaching a state at which we can not only equip most people with the knowledge to live as well-informed non-believers, but also provide them with the tools to be every bit as happy and fulfilled as they might be through religion, too.

You may say that I'm a dreamer. But...

426. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59203 by _J_ on July 28, 2007 at 8:22 am

(Dianelos - Just before we stop discussing you, I'm personally quite happy with your having a lot to say and being annoying at parties. I'm quite relieved that I'm not the only one.)

427. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59196 by _J_ on July 28, 2007 at 4:44 am

Hello, fides_et_ratio, 206,

Ah - semantic games! :D

I still mantain that it is logically inconsistant to declare that faith is childish whilst at the same time saying children can't have faith.

Nice trick! Works brilliantly if you don't look too closely.

Analogy time. Believing in Father Christmas (Santa Claus, if you prefer) is childish. We have no problem with saying 'Little Timmy believes in F(ather) C(hristmas).'

We'd find it odd if Little Timmy's parents phrased this as 'Timmy is a FatherChristmasist', though. What could this mean, we'd wonder? Of course he believes in FC - most kids are fed that story, most believe it, all are encouraged to grow out of it as they become adults. It would be very odd to use the sort of terminology we associate with adult, chosen beliefs, opinions and professions for a kid believing in FC.

Let's say we now meet a group of adults who believe in FC. This lot have somehow never shaken off their affection for the idea of FC and so have managed to rationalise a way of continuing to believe in him (his magical chimney-descending abilities, the mysterious logic with which he determines who gets the most presents, his mastery of flying reindeer, etc.).

These people can sensibly be called 'FatherChristmasists' ('FCists'). They are grown, thinking adults who have chosen to hold certain beliefs and to define themselves by them.

Does this mean we can't observe that their beliefs are childish? Of course not. The ways in which they have rationalised their beliefs and the things they do as a consequence of them may be very sophisticated. Their decision to be FCists is an adult decision. But this doesn't stop the core motivation - not wanting to let go of the jolly bearded magic man - being childish through and through. They have clung to childish motivations and ideas, and applied adult justifications to them.

Now, it's fine for FCists' children to believe in FC, like all kids. But when we find FCists calling their children FCists, we do have something to object to. 'FCism' implies a deliberate self-definition; an adult, reasoned choice of belief. A child can believe in FC, but should not be encouraged to view him/herself as an 'FCist'. Nor should anyone else be encouraged to see the child in this way. The child should be free from the definitions that flow from adult choices until s/he is old enough to make those adult choices for him/herself.

So there is no logical inconsistency between observing that faith is childish and saying children shouldn't be attributed membership of faith groups.

Your next feat of semantic shenangians is with the word 'faith' itself:

To whoever it was who said that 'if I know there is a God then it isn't faith' consider this. I know that my doctor is well-qualified, I put faith in that knowlege when I allow him to operate on me with a sharp knife. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Okay, we're toying with different meanings of the word 'faith'. Often when a religious person or atheist says 'I/You have Faith', they mean 'faith without evidence'. But it's also possible to talk about faith that does proceed from evidence. You may not have direct evidence of your doctor's reliability with a knife, but you trust him because you understand the rigorous training that medical professionals have gone through and checks and balances that exist to ensure patients' safety. You know that in all probability you are safe in his hands.

Test this: suppose the person about to operate on you was someone who bumped into you in the street as you were travelling to the clinic, struck up a conversation with you and then claimed to be a doctor, and offered to do the surgery at lower cost in his private surgery – which turned out to be a back room in his home. You've seen no ID, no other patients - you've just got this person's claims to go on. You may want to believe him - he may be promising to save you a fortune, or a long waiting list. But have you got much 'faith' in him?

I think it's fair to assume that 'whoever it was who said that "if I know there is a God then it isn't faith"' was talking about 'faith without evidence'. I assume you won't leap to the snap defence 'Well, that's not what I mean by faith'. It's clear enough that the usage is very common, and I'm sure you understand that if this sort of discussion is to go anywhere at all, we can't spend our time spiralling in endless circles of semantic sidestepping.

Also, remember the original point, RD says that to label one's child a Christian is wicked. He's not just wrong about this, he's mistaken too.

I still don't see how he's wrong, but I'm impressed that he's 'not just wrong…he's mistaken too'. Not merely wrong – tautologously wrong! Good heavens.

428. Richler defends atheism

Comment #59161 by _J_ on July 27, 2007 at 5:07 pm

ThomasB, 29

Well done! I can only applaud your calm restraint.

429. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59128 by _J_ on July 27, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Self-styled LORD Quetzalcoatl - you want 1309. Comment #55678

430. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59122 by _J_ on July 27, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Elutheria, 1639

It's sort of exciting to hear some kind of verdict from someone who's kept up right from the start but managed to avoid getting sucked in. Especially as you can put the thread in the context of a year or more of rd.net surfing.

I know I'm in a minority (possibly of one) here, but I thought Dianelos' 'twisterooing' through the resurrection was a high point. Sure, he openly invited castigation by using the phrase 'special case', but in fact his explanation made a damn-sight more sense than any other interpretation of the resurrection I've heard from the mainstream denominations (which, whether they admit it or not, tend to incorporate whopping, steaming heaps of special pleading). At least in Dianelos' version god comes across as a recognisably human sort of an entity who gets a bit misty eyed sometimes and cares about how we feel. Rather than that egotistical monster of inept moralising that most Christians prefer.

I don't think there's any danger of Dianelos putting anyone out of their misery though. I've just been reading Northern Bright's posts on the Hardtalk thread (s/he's also off on holiday – you're not connected…?), where s/he describes the remembered feeling of, when faithful, having a sort of subconscious awareness of the nonsensicality of it all – but burying it in Christianity's capacious faith/doubt/humility trap. I remember this feeling, too.

But Dianelos is beyond that isn't he? (I mean 'aren't you' – sorry, Dianelos, very rude to talk past you.) His faith is consciously, wilfully, meticulously constructed to make some kind of sense, leaning solidly on carefully chosen and hazily conceived gaps.

Many believers are on a kind of fairground waltzer of religious faith. It's all quite thrilling and enthralling as long as you keep going to church, saying your prayers – as long as the ride is moving, the cars are spinning and the real world is just a blur. But should the ride stop, reality has a chance to swim into focus and the former believer can disembark, looking back on their faith from the outside, with a bit of sick feeling in their stomach.

But Dianelos' faith is a true Viennese waltz around the ballroom of life. He's practiced the steps to near-perfection and he can dance for as long as he wants to. He never has to give it up – he's doing all the work with his own fair legs. There's no ride controller and no power cable – no church, no minister, no rituals, no prayer groups.

'A painstakingly circuitous route around [his] various intellectual interests and hang-ups' it certainly is – and 'layered and labyrinthine – beautiful, even' to boot – but there's no danger of him coming out of it. Only Dianelos himself can choose to leave this ball. And he's quite certain that life is better when you're dancing.

Probably even better in the south of France, though. (Especially just at the minute.) Have a good 'un.

431. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59089 by _J_ on July 27, 2007 at 9:05 am

BillySands and Veronique - this just in from the Free Church - looks like the comments are finally updating as we speak. (I was all prepared to write 'no news', which was the situation when I last checked a few hours ago.) I guess signing loo roll gets frustrating after a while (rips easily, too absorbent, always being stolen by labradors).

Northern Bright - tiresomely, I just want to echo everyone else in saying: what a good post that was!

I'm not keeping up with this one. Has fides_et_ratio explained how Dawkins is 'wrong' about labelling kids? Can't see it myself - perhaps I'm about to learn something.

(By the way, back on the interview itself - did it seem to anyone else that Dawkins actually has much stronger arguments against Sackur's - largely quite weak - points in his armory than he made use of in this interview? He came over as clever and reasonable, but could have afforded to fire up his big guns a little more readily - especially when Sackur did the politician's/journalist's trick of sliding questionable assumptions into the phrasing of questions so as to pass them off as facts.)

EDIT - Disappointingly, the only new comment to appear at the Free Church thus far is from someone called ecco who feels quite content with the logic of a god who requires no material evidence. Marvellous. I'm off to run at a wall.

432. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58830 by _J_ on July 26, 2007 at 9:53 am

Oh, this is looking promising! That's not only 'Response to request for evidence' (extra points for lack of direct witnesses), but also:

Anyway- just did it.

Unsubstantiated claims.

I walked backwards through a cluttered room without falling over.

Moving in a mysterious way.

How did I do that without looking? It's a mystery.

Miracles.

I often manifest as a winged serpent.....

Creation ex nihilo.

Your worship had better be worth it.

Vague threats.

I'm not sure I like being tested [...]

Thou shalt not test thy god.

[...] by a giant eyeball.....

Chosen people (implicit).

What with your Prophet, High Priest, second-coming status (owing to extinct body of prior worshipers), contradictory (or not) announcements, doctrinal disputes (see previous point), subsumption of pre-existing beliefs (Tea Fu) and Commanding of Commandments, you're racking up the God points like nobody's business.

This most recent post is extremely efficient manifestation of a whole glut of divine attributes. In fact, it's rather more than we've come to expect of our gods, who usually do a lot more faffing about with tomes (and you've already published one of those) and rituals and Dungeon Master proverbs, and don't generally go in for this sort of blinding concision.

So, am I signing up? Very tempting, and with all this mounting evidence... But all ingroups need an outgroup and every faith defines itself by its heretics. I'll continue to provide you and your worshipers an important service by clinging to unbelief for now.

In fact, carry on as you are doing and I may be able to sublimate directly from scepticism to apostacy without even having to pass through the intermediate 'blind faith' stage!

433. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58813 by _J_ on July 26, 2007 at 8:07 am

monoape, 11

Barbara seems to be clinging on to one sound bite from Albert - "God doesn't play at dice". That's it. That's enough for her to be certain that Einstein is on The God Team.

It's amazing, isn't it? If Babs is using the 'If I take this quote out of context, it can mean whatever I want it to' game, she ought to be made aware that Dawkins could, in complete consistency with his position, say 'Fairies don't play dice'. 'Playing dice' is an activity for which existence is prerequisite.

Also, her religious views are definitely of the 'a la carte' variety. She asserts that 'god' is a straw man set up by atheists to mock the religious. I'm not making this up, folks!

Shame you can't send an e-slap, isn't it? Some people are in serious need.

434. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58811 by _J_ on July 26, 2007 at 7:55 am

Philip1978

Billy was allowed to redeem himself in the best way possible and for the benefit of us all!

Disappointingly reasonable. Not the way to satisfy commonly accepted God criteria.

However, if I stick with 'Quetzalcoatl's word is contradictory' and you maintain that it isn't, that gives us interpretative variation, which is another rung up the ladder to godhood.

Now, Quetzalcoatl: let's see you move in a mysterious way.

435. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58769 by _J_ on July 26, 2007 at 4:13 am

But do not take me for granted- Billy did once, and almost lost his sacred Lab Coat.

I am not a vengeful deity.

Already the contradictions in His Holy Word start rolling in! I have to admit, the case for 'Quetzalcoatl Is God' is gathering strength.

436. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58676 by _J_ on July 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

JoyOfLife,

Correct: he didn't.

The noun bright was coined in March by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell of Sacramento, California.

From Dawkins' article, as reproduced at the-bights.net, here:

http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/let_there_be_brights.html

437. Camp Joins Summer Fun With Teaching Hindu Faith

Comment #58547 by _J_ on July 25, 2007 at 6:59 am

Earlier, Christian conservatives had argued against a having the Hindu chaplain lead prayers in the Senate chamber because, as David Barton of the evangelical group Wallbuilders, explained, Hinduism "is not a religion that has produced great things in the world."

Strange how little sympathy the 'Science gets results' argument garners with Christians, isn't it?

Mind, it doesn't take a biblical expert to spot that 'consistency' is not foremost among Christianity's virtues.

438. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58545 by _J_ on July 25, 2007 at 6:54 am

Dr Benway,

Of course you're right, as usual. Your 'sock puppet' theory of divinity did cross my mind, but I just couldn't be bothered getting into the details.

I like the sock puppet theory. The only modification I'd suggest is that religious people tend to let their chosen authorities stuff their arms into the sock, too. It's as much about choosing someone else to do your thinking for you as it is about hoisting the resultant decisions onto some 'You Can't Touch This' pedestal.

Even though I can't write Quetzalcoatl's posts to ensure I get the divine messages I'd hope for, I can read him selectively and certainly don't need to let him boss me around. After all, as my deity of choice, he'd be providing a service at my discretion.

I'll think about it. I wonder whether a Democratic Assembly of Mutually Recognised Deities might be the way forward.

439. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58522 by _J_ on July 25, 2007 at 5:06 am

Hmm, it's tempting, Quetzalcoatl and Philip1978. I'm just wondering whether the FSM would mind. Although, it's months since I've visited his church or talked like a pirate, so he's probably realised that I've lapsed. (Unless he's drunk again.)

I guess I could have more than one false god. Although, having any gods means getting over myself a bit, and I just don't know if I've got it in me.

On balance, I think I'm most inclined to follow you in the Tau of Twii Ning, Philip. Authorities you can ingest are always on the right track.

440. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58514 by _J_ on July 25, 2007 at 4:39 am

Quetzalcoatl, 1350 and BillySands, 1351

You may both be right - but something in his style makes me suspect he has also been taking tips from Pi Ji.

441. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58361 by _J_ on July 24, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Not heard this yet, but,

ab_initio, 4

Ah, so it's the old 'If I redefine one of your words to mean something that I choose, suddenly your argument doesn't work anymore, and therefore you're wrong' chestnut, eh?

Amazing how so many theists - especially creationists using 'evolution' to mean 'spontaneous emergence of homo sapiens from Play-Doh' - don't recognise the sheer embarrassing dumbassery of this argument.

Very frustrating when people fall back on childishly nonsensical arguments (and especially so, as I find often happens, when they refuse to admit that they are nonsensical even when it's been spelled out slowly and repeatedly).

You know, I'm starting to think that - like all the best arguments - Theism vs Atheism is going to deteriorate all the way down to 'You're Just A Dick'.

442. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58293 by _J_ on July 24, 2007 at 9:06 am

Dianelos, 1607

Just very quickly – can't resist!

First, thanks for the Sam Harris material. Not read it myself. Interesting stuff.

Second:

But the idea of humanity doing nothing but experiencing the happiness induced in the brain of its members by that machine is nightmarish.

'Nightmarish'? Does that mean it makes you unhappy? In that case, it's not actually the route to all happiness. You can't demolish an argument by inserting arbitrary stopping points like this.

Third:

So, Socrates concludes, what is good is what makes any of the properties proposed good, and that is personal virtue.

This seems wise and clever, for a moment (and it is, really). But then we can see the problem. If 'good' is defined as 'personal virtue' for the reason that virtuous people do good (by exercising their strengths in 'good' ways), then all we are doing is chasing our concept of 'good' around the playground. For either 'good' or 'personal virtue' to have any meaning, one of these two concepts needs to be defined independently of its relationship to the other. At the minute, all we've got is:

Personal virtue is good.
Therfore, good is personal virtue.

Great, but useless. We need something more, like (for instance):

Charity is a personal virtue.
Personal virtue is good.
Therefore, charity is good.

…and more besides.

As far as I can see, Harris' substitution of 'good' with 'happiness' is an attempt to find something objectively appreciable (using my usual 'as objective as we can realistically be' definition of objectivity) to hang morality on, but doesn't delve into endless nitty gritty explorations of 'What makes us happy?', 'Why do those things make us happy?', 'How have we become creatures that are made happy by such things?' and so on. Which, if we ultimately want a full account of morality, are the questions we'll have to tackle.

And that leads us to the sort of debate you've been having with us for the last twelve years (or is that just how it feels? ;) ).

(Incidentally, if you'd like to follow Harrisean (!) morality up with something that does explore happiness, may I recommend (one of about two or three books that I recommend constantly) The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt. Not only enlightening, but also genuinely cheering. Making it, I suppose, a 'good' book in more senses than one.)

Basically: glad you've found so much to agree with in Harris. But it still doesn't appear to allow you to play your 'Virtue! No further questions allowed!' card. As far as I can see.

Thanks again. Interesting post.

443. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58131 by _J_ on July 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Hi, Billy,

Wow - thanks for all that. I'm always impressed by your ability to reel off biblical references. I can't do this, so I tend to fall back on 'Look, if there's something really amazing in the bible, show me it'. Hasn't happened yet.

I don't know whether David's still about. He went on holiday weeks ago. After a couple of weeks, some posts I'd submitted finally appeared, alongside others. I then posted more, including one promising that it was my last. And I meant it. (Hasn't appeared yet, though, nor has David posted again himself.)

Also trying not to participate here. As of tomorrow, going to try not to even visit here. (Managed it yesterday!)

Anyway: your fu kyu tue jimmy is powerful indeed, sifu Billy.

444. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58112 by _J_ on July 23, 2007 at 2:31 pm

LeeC, 1325

However, we are still short of a theist at the moment, so we are just passing time.

Perhaps you should spar amongst yourselves. Practice your rationalistic kung fu, in preparation for launching casually devastating throat jabs when the next theist happens along.

I generally can't be bothered with the 'biblical evidence' debate. Probably all this has been said earlier in this thread (sorry, I haven't checked). But to give my tuppence-worth:

I agree that if the bible could be shown to have made unusually accurate prophecies, that would be impressive. Otherwise, it's just an old book and no matter how wonderful, it's not evidence for anything other than that the people who wrote it wanted their readers to believe them. The world's journalists pour out a bible's worth of (largely better-informed) words with the same intent every day.

No, if the bible really was good evidence for god, I'm pretty sure someone would have pointed out how and where by now. There're enough people (like David Robertson) who automatically point to the bible as their evidential keystone, yet fail to say anything more substantial in explanation than 'it's so beautiful' or 'it's so complex', to convince me that they don't have a case. If I accepted that sort of woolly eulogizing as evidence, I'd be worshiping Shakespeare.

One thing I do find interesting, though, is how the bible's attempts to deal with the evidence problem tend to backfire. If you get beyond a simplistic 'I'll just accept what the author wants me to believe' frame of mind and inspect the logic underlying the stories, it often performs a neat pirouette and kicks a stiletto heel back into the author's apparent intent.

The testimony to Moses episode is a good example. This point's already in a post waiting to clear at the Free Church site. So I can lazily cut and paste!

It's interesting that the evidence we are to believe that god actually chose to give Moses was of the sort that does not survive until today. The tablets crumbled or were lost. They are also of the sort that, were they to reappear today, could easily have been faked by a man with chisel. They are also, interestingly, limited to the prior experience of the people that wrote the whole biblical account. I mean, if someone were (hypothetically) just to have made the story up, they could easily imagine god providing his word on stone tablets. Stone, inscriptions, mountains and thunder were all things that people of that time knew and understood. But imagine if the bible gave the following account:

Moses descended from the mountain atop a horse of metal that galloped on black wheels and thundered as it ran. He carried a slab, filled with the majesty of the LORD and made of material unknown to man. He set the slab upon the earth, before the mountain, and prayed before it, laying his hand atop its shiny surface. Immediately, the face of the LORD appeared brightly on the mountain side and spoke his Testimony to the tribe of Israel. Moses could repeat the LORD's Testimony at any time by praying before the slab and touching its top.

This would be much more impressive, because we understand that the people who were about at the time of the bible had no experience of motorbikes and audiovisual projectors. They simply couldn't have imagined this stuff for themselves. Whereas the actual passage in the bible could have been invented by anyone capable of stringing sentences together. The result is rather like damning with faint praise.

My favourite example, though, is the 'Doubting Thomas' story. Here we find that even Jesus' closest followers couldn't accept the resurrection. Even if you knew him personally and were sold on his miraculous powers, you wouldn't buy it. Jesus had to put in a personal show.

If you're blankly lapping up what John (or whoever actually wrote this nonsense) is asking you to believe, I suppose you're supposed to say 'Oh, well, Thomas got the evidence, so we don't need it'. Someone I challenged on this point has bought it hook line and sinker - they said: 'How much more blessed are we, then, for not needing evidence?'. Sure. Save it for the judge.

If you lay aside the emotional blackmail and special pleading, what you're left with is a story that says that even if you had immeasurably more reason to believe than anyone living today has - if you knew Jesus and had experienced Biblical events first-hand - you still wouldn't be in a position to rationally accept the 'Good News' without a serious smack in the face with the wet fish of cold, scaly evidence.

So, kids at home, reading your bible: wake up to the logic of the text. You've no reason to believe this stuff and the writers know it. They're just hoping you'll fall for their superficial feats of narrative and argumentative legerdemain and that, by the time you pause to analyse anything, you'll be so sold into psychological dependency on the story being true that you'll instinctively resist anything that indicates the shoddy bullshittery that the whole myth rests upon. Even when it's staring you in the face.

Back on the kung fu metaphor: it seems to me that, when making its own claims for 'evidence', the bible repeatedly overstretches and leaves itself wide open for a nice biu sau to the windpipe.

Just my opinion. Have fun hitting each other nicely.

445. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58063 by _J_ on July 23, 2007 at 8:19 am

Suffolk Blue and Quetzalcoatl

The page before the Matthew one, on epistemological relativism, could possibly have saved about 30 pages of discussion elsewhere on this site...

Bloody prophets. Never around when you need them, then two come along at once.

446. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #58052 by _J_ on July 23, 2007 at 6:48 am

ReligiousAndRational, 33

Thanks for that post. It's very difficult to be reasonable about something when no one is speaking up for one side of the debate. Your points sound eminently sensible.

I notice that Terry Sanderson's objections are limited to 'I don't like it because I don't understand it' and unnecessary roadside objects. With regard to the first argument: well, I don't really get it either, being an atheist, but that doesn't count as a legitimate argument against it. As for the latter - I notice that over recent years making roads and pavements more unpredictable has become a genuine policy in an attempt to get drivers to slow down and pay attention to their surroundings. 76 six-metre high poles could even be helpful...

447. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57856 by _J_ on July 21, 2007 at 4:32 pm

CanadAdam, 8 - cheers, I hadn't noticed that.

448. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57853 by _J_ on July 21, 2007 at 4:17 pm

My heart goes out to this journalist.

Don't attack him for not skipping merrily into the world of godlessness. We know the dirty tricks religions play with their adherents' emotions. Facing up to the non-existence of god when for years you've been sold wholesale into the belief that all of life's goodness stems from him cannot be easy. This man deserves respect, sympathy and support.

I hope he'll be able to continue his soul-searching without being bullied one way or another by spokespeople for any religious (or anti-religious) group. Personally, I hope he'll be able to take the step from here to the Jonathan Edwards position, and rediscover all the value he had previously erroneously attributed to god.

Shame the site doesn't take comments, and that I don't live in LA. I'd like to pat him on the back and buy him a drink.

449. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57713 by _J_ on July 20, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Elli,

I think "improve" is probably not the right word. It really just progresses, and it has the appearance of "improvement" (i.e. getting "better" or more "good") precisely because it accords with our individual moral change.

Absolutely right. This is 'History is written by the winners', isn't it? Morality is always changing, but it is always, necessarily, the case that the thing it has changed to is what we have right now, no matter when 'right now' should be. Any observer will always be able to see the history of morality as a process of improvement towards its present state, just as anyone taking a naive view of evolution might see it as process dedicated to bringing about the wonder that is humanity. How silly a a similarly partisan Neanderthal evolutionist would feel, magically transported to today.

phil rimmer,

(Not a disagreement with you at all, by the way - just taking an opportunity to once again point out the forehead-dentingly obvious...)

Now I understand your claim to completeness in idealistic theism.

Of course, for everyone who lived and died before the modern-day scientific investigations of QM and consciousness, and everyone who does live today but doesn't share Dianelos' intellect, reading habits and interpretative predilictions, his hypothesis was/is still unavailable. QM may scream 'Don't get this, do you, ape-man?' but it doesn't have 'A benevolent God is synthesising your conscious experiences in the hope that you will strive to accrue virtue, in accordance with her/his/its notions of morality' written into it.

For how many generations was God watching humanity scrabble vainly around the living room for the remote whilst muttering frustratedly to her/him/itself 'Under the sofa, you halfwit, under the sofa...'?

This is no god of mine.

Dianelos could argue: 'But before we got to QM and so on there were other unsolved problems. Humanity has never had a full and satisfactory understanding of all things. God has designed the universe to be irreducible to human understanding, no matter what our level of comprehension is - we will designedly never quite be, in apprehension, like a god. So humans have always been able to find a signpost to God.'

The counter argument is that the signposts have always led off into picturesque fields of nothingness whilst gritting your teeth and driving straight through them has paid dividends. That following them off the path of enquiry into 'Here Be Dragons' Godland has delivered us nothing but a false feeling of satisfaction ('Oh, so storks bring babies!') whilst simultaneously posing more baffling questions ('Where the fuck do storks get babies?'). Whereas confession of present ignorance and commitment to patient enquiry has felled dodgy signpost after dodgy signpost after dodgy signpost.

And again the argument is god of the gaps, and I'm repeating myself, and I've already said every argument that I've got to say on this, usually more than once, and I am not in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more returning were as tedious as go o'er - so I'm done. I've got the measure of this now. If you will take 'idiot' to mean 'very intelligent, well-read, well-meaning and in many ways admirable person who will nevertheless brook no reason':

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

So long, and thanks for all the...

450. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57658 by _J_ on July 20, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Dianelos, 1535

Thanks for the response, and for correcting my misuse of the word 'theories'. My reference to QM was indeed muddled (probably because I find QM so very muddling).

The talk through dual slit experiments wasn't news to me, but I appreciate it because every description of anything to do with QM brings me fractionally closer to almost understanding some of it, maybe. (I like to think so, anyway.)

But, fascinating and counter-intuitive though the results of dual slit experiments may be, I don't see that you're really addressing the arguments I've stated. Again, you refer to phenomena that are currently not understood, areas of ongoing research, and posit your god as the explanation; again it is god of the gaps. Again you segue discreetly from describing the methodological naturalism of scientific endeavour to a denouncement of metaphysical naturalism.

I'm going to follow's Elli's example and not waste time restating my arguments. They're there for you to tackle if you want to.

Bouwe – are you suggesting that I am the ghost of a small animal who has long since died after being stuck up Dianelos' ontology? I hope you're wrong. But, I'll do my best for brave Elliwinks, that she may become a magnificent Gerbil Queen and free us all: