401. Fleabytes

Comment #136912 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 2:56 am

MPhil: Btw, Paula if you should happen to read this - I would really like to hear your opinion on my long post on page 50

I thought it was fascinating stuff, MPhil. It's great to see that we have people on this site who can tackle these issues on the theologians' own terms, and I've followed the discussion that's sprung from your post with great interest.

Speaking for myself, though, I'm afraid I've never really "got" philosophy - there's something about it that seems to require more patience than I possess or even aspire to possess; but I readily concede that this is my failing, not philosophy's.

My instincts are with those who have suggested that we risk letting the theologians off the hook by agreeing to debate them on their terms. As I've said before, it seems to me that it's only reasonable to insist that they establish beyond doubt the existence of a god AT ALL, before spending time arguing about his preferences, his abilities, his limitations, his use of metaphor, his eye colour or his opinion of Marmite.

To me the key point is that, whilst it would admittedly be impossible to disprove a non-interventionist, deist god who simply lit the blue touch-paper at the beginning of the universe and has been standing well back ever since, this is not the god that the theists believe in. They believe in a god with specific characteristics: a god who regularly intervenes in his creation; a god who has a loving purpose for each of us; a god who confers free will; a god who drops £80 into preachers' laps just in time to save them from being prosecuted for writing cheques without the funds to cover them; a god who is loving and powerful; a god who hates to see our suffering; a god who has been known to raise people from the dead; a god who still performs miracles today; a god who answers prayer; a god who confers eternal life. And the moment you start attributing characteristics to an otherwise unknowable god, hey presto! it becomes possible to test for them, and to test alternative explanations for them, and consequently to reach rational, evidence-based conclusions on the likelihood of that god's existence.

The church depends on people not noticing this. Hence its emphasis on the importance of theological debate, and its dependence on strange concepts such as omnipotence, the Trinity, atonement, sin, even faith itself. Religion cannot survive without mystery, and it knows it. It therefore has a vested interest in creating the illusion of that mystery. And this is where, to my mind, theological debate comes in. Theology's job is to coat reality in mystery. And our job, as I see it, is to strip it off again!

Having said all that, MPhil, I'm perfectly aware that, since theologians DO in fact argue in these terms, we need to be able to take them on in the same terms, whether I like it or not. And you (and others here too) have shown yourself more than up to the task, thank goodness.

402. Fleabytes

Comment #136636 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm

2471. Comment #136628 by GOD HIMSELF on March 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm

I APOLOGISE FOR THE ASININE IDIOCY OF MY FAN CLUB

Have you seen the message you get if you click on GOD HIMSELF's user name? !!!!

403. Fleabytes

Comment #136630 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Hello: Purpose? What's that?

That's my question to you. Why are you posting on this site? With what goal in mind? You are not an atheist, you clearly disapprove of atheists, you are not putting the case for Christianity, you are not engaging in any discussion, you are not answering our questions, you won't even state what you believe and why you believe it, and you have made it clear that you think this website is a waste of time and is olfactorily offensive to you.

So why post here? What exactly are you hoping to achieve?

404. Fleabytes

Comment #136620 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Hello: But you did feel in the first place that you needed to!

Hardly. I simply chose to answer your question, since it conveyed the apparent assumption that the answer must be that Christians outnumbered atheists in working with the homeless. From my experience, that is only true where the Christian organisers exclude atheists for fear they'll thump the very people they're there to help!

How do you account for the fact that I made the decision to stop working with the homeless whilst I was still a Christian?

You are the one who seems to think that the question about soup runs somehow strengthens the argument for the truth of your beliefs. Why?

405. Fleabytes

Comment #136611 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Hello: No, Paula, you have been there. you know what we are talking about. You have made the decision to walk away. You have decided that it did not satisfy your desires, nor fulfill your longings.

Thank you for articulating so clearly that your belief is based on wishful thinking. It satisfies your desires and fulfils your longings. Sweet. But how does that make it true?

What is your purpose in posting on this site, by the way?

406. Fleabytes

Comment #136605 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Hello: and what stops you from organising your own?

Duh, I didn't need to: I joined in the one that was already running. Or do you mean now? I spent 4 years of my life working with homeless people, Hello, in both a voluntary and a paid capacity and don't feel I owe you any explanations on this score. Would you like me to tell you about the experience of one of my fellow volunteers when he took one of the homeless guys to his church with him? Would you like to hear about the tut-tuts, and the dirty looks, and the open abuse he got from the dear, sweet, Christian souls in his congregation, and the way it was made absolutely clear to him that such actions would be unwelcome in future?

What particular significance are you assigning to the soup run question anyway? (Oh, but please don't let this question distract you from the one I've just posted above - for the third time - you know: the one about exactly what you believe and what evidence you have to support that belief. I'd really like to know.)

407. Fleabytes

Comment #136594 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Hello: No, Paula. You just don't like our answers.

You'll have to remind me what they were, I'm afraid. Can you point me to the post where you've answered this one, for instance:

What exactly DO you believe? Please describe your God to us, in as much detail as you can. And then tell us what evidence you have to support the view you hold. We're all ears.

408. Fleabytes

Comment #136591 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Quetz: Oh, and we've been chastised for off-topic posts (atheists in general, not just you and me).

... which some people might think was a bit rich, coming from someone who's only been allowed back onto the website on sufferance!

409. Fleabytes

Comment #136576 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 12:54 pm

D'Arcy: Sorry Paula, did I misunderstand? Charities exist because the universe is indifferent?

What I was saying is that the suffering that requires charities (or other human intervention) for its alleviation is not difficult to explain in atheist terms. In a universe that is not created by an all-powerful and all-loving god, there is no particular reason to suppose that bad things would not happen.

I share your view that it's down to us to make the world a better place. In an atheist universe, who else is going to do it? Theists have the problem of explaining why their oh-so-loving god doesn't.

410. Fleabytes

Comment #136567 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Re charities - atheists, at least, have no difficulty explaining why they're required: the universe is, after all, indifferent. Christians who believe the world was created by an all-loving, all-powerful God, on the other hand, have some serious explaining to do. And when I say "serious", I'm not referring to talking snakes.

411. Fleabytes

Comment #136548 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 11:43 am

Epeeist: I don't think it is going to happen Paula.

Well, that would be very strange behaviour on his part, Epeeist. After all, he seems a genuine kind of person, who is genuinely convinced of the truth of his belief and genuinely wants to convince us of the error of our non-belief. How could he possibly think he can do that without answering our questions? No, I'm confident that he will tell us clearly and honestly all about the god he believes in, and what evidence he bases that belief on. And, of course, he'll be happy to engage in discussion with us thereafter, because that will give him the opportunity to overcome our objections. It will be an interesting discussion, I'm sure. Unless, of course, our funny smell has put him off. (Comment #136368 by hello on March 1, 2008 at 2:43 am)

412. Fleabytes

Comment #136535 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 11:25 am

Hello: As a matter of interest, anyone know the relationship between the number of atheists and the number of theists who help out at soup kitchens?

Has anyone else noticed that it's all take, take, take with these Christians? They ask questions, we answer them. We ask them questions, but they don't answer us. In fact, then they come back and ask yet more questions. Which we answer. And we ask our questions again. But what kind of answers do we get? None at all. Just more questions.

OK, Hello, I'm going to answer your question from my own experience. In my Christian days I used to volunteer with a soup run. There weren't any atheists on the team. How do you explain that? I wouldn't want you to over-tax your brain, so I'll give you the answer now. Only Christians were permitted by the organiser to take part. Whenever we used to get offers from non-Christians, the organiser used to panic and always refused to have them on the basis that - and I'm quoting now - "we couldn't trust him not to assault one of the homeless people if they annoyed him".

Later I stopped volunteering and worked with homeless people profesionally, via a local charity. Of the 4 of us who worked directly with the homeless, only I was Christian.

Now I've answered your question, perhaps you would return the favour and answer the two I posted for you yesterday:

Comment #135857 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 9:52 am
So I'm really excited now. I really think this may be what we've all been waiting for. PLEEEEEEEEEEASE share it with us. I promise that, if it's real, proper, actual evidence (you know - in the real, proper,actual sense of the word, same as we'd use it in any other context), I am absolutely open to being swayed by it, and I'm confident that many others here are too.

and

Comment #135974 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 11:44 am
OK, Hello, let's not play the tired old game of us guessing what you believe and you then claiming you believe something different. Let's cut to the chase.
What exactly DO you believe? Please describe your God to us, in as much detail as you can. And then tell us what evidence you have to support the view you hold. We're all ears.

413. Fleabytes

Comment #136508 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

Steve Zara: To be fair, they do provide what they believe is evidence (such as personal revelation). There is much discussion about what constitutes evidence.

Indeed. There is much discussion about it. In other words, we do not "immediately move on to another unconnected question". That, I'm afraid, is far more typical of the theist posters on this site.

414. Fleabytes

Comment #136410 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 5:33 am

Steve Zara: I have now started Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers".... it will be interesting to compare.

I'll very much look forward to hearing your comments when you've done so, Steve. I found Stenger's explanations absolutely fascinating, but he himself acknowledges that some of them are not widely accepted, and I have no way of assessing their likely validity. It will be fascinating to hear your thoughts.

415. Fleabytes

Comment #136242 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Steve Zara: I would just like to state how grateful I am to this site, and to so many of the posters here for having expanded my mind and my knowledge.

I couldn't agree more, Steve. There's hardly a day goes by when I don't learn something new here.

416. Fleabytes

Comment #136217 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Whatthe..?!: A intelligent designer is a sufficient cause but non-intelligent matter isn't.

'Fraid not, Whatthe. An intelligent designer has precisely the same explanatory power as "It was magic". In other words - none whatsoever.

How did your intelligent designer come by its intelligence?

417. Fleabytes

Comment #136138 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Flying Goose: PS anyone know how I can change my user name?

I don't think you can change it as such; I think you have to re-register from scratch under a different name. The only slightly complicating factor is that you'll need to supply a different email address from the one you gave for your Flying Goose id. But that's not difficult to do, even if you don't have another one already: hotmail and/or yahoo let you set up a new email address foc within seconds.

418. Fleabytes

Comment #136130 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Whatthe..?!: The atheist claims that intelligence arose from mindless matter. Clearly this is inadequate.

"Clearly" to whom? The only thing that is "clear" from your comment is that your scientific knowledge is woefully lacking. Why not pop back when you've read a bit about it? Until then I'm afraid you're just going to make your user name seem comically apt.

419. Fleabytes

Comment #136115 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Flying Goose: not I

No, I don't suppose Bonzai was thinking of you with his raiding party comment. You're not a newcomer to this site - you're a welcome returner. Good to see you back.

420. Fleabytes

Comment #136092 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Whatthe..?!": Surely this applies to the atheist as well? After all, it would be absurd to reject theism (in this case 'Christianity') because of a perceived lack of evidence for it if atheism also lacked evidence. Atheism is the POSITIVE assertion that there is no god therefore the atheist must provide evidence for that belief.

My, another questioner who's just registered today. What a coincidence.

Actually, Dan Barker expresses this rather well: "Atheists do not say that God is DISproven; they say he is UNproven." In other words, we do not say that God has definitely been shown not to exist; we say that there is no evidence to suggest that he/she/it does. There is a difference.

Theists, by contrast, believe that God DOES exist, but are strangely reticent about sharing their evidence with us.

So - over to you. Evidence for God's existence? As you'll have gathered, we're longing to hear some.

421. Fleabytes

Comment #136071 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Cartomancer: Hey, Paula, no fair! I spend most of my life wearing mass-produced polycotton tracksuits made in China!

Maybe, but not to my celebration gala, surely? ;-)

422. Fleabytes

Comment #136057 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 12:49 pm

2149. Comment #136047 by robotaholic on February 29, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Thank you, Robotaholic!

423. Fleabytes

Comment #136038 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Geoff: Oh, and Paula: congrats on P2k, does your Tesco have a clothes department?

Thank you, Geoff! As for Tesco, well, yes, it does have a clothes department of sorts - but I wasn't convinced that a polycotton tracksuit made in China was quite what I was looking for ...

424. Fleabytes

Comment #135974 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 11:44 am

OK, I'm back (sorry, Epeeist, it was Tesco, not the dress shop, that I went to). What have I missed? What is this evidence that God has revealed to Hello since Hello believes in him and has therefore removed the barrier to God's revealing himself?

Well, come on, tell me, someone.

Oh? Oh really? Nothing? What, nothing? Really? Oh, how disappointing. I felt sure there that Hello had something conclusive to share with us. What a let-down. Honestly, makes you feel like never believing anything a Christian tells you ever again, doesn't it?

Especially since I see that, in the space of a few posts s/he has gone from denying that non-believers will go to hell, to trying to justify it. This is not exactly an example of consistency or radiant transparency, is it?

And I see that s/he is also trying the "Oh, but that's not my God you're describing" ploy. Oh yes, and the "My God is real, not just a religion" ploy as well.

OK, Hello, let's not play the tired old game of us guessing what you believe and you then claiming you believe something different. Let's cut to the chase.

What exactly DO you believe? Please describe your God to us, in as much detail as you can. And then tell us what evidence you have to support the view you hold. We're all ears.

425. Fleabytes

Comment #135857 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 9:52 am

hello: indeed....anymore than you can reliable know anything about me, unless you want to know about me and I choose to inform you. But of course, I'm not going to do that if you have already decided that I don't exist and am not worth bothering with.

Oh right, so this is the God-only-reveals-himself-to-people-who-believe-in-him argument.

Firstly, I, like many other atheists on this forum, used to be a Christian. So God had every chance to convince me that he existed.

Secondly, what a petulant God you believe in! We'll be condemned to an eternity in hell for not believing in him ... though he loves us all deeply ... but can't quite be bothered with those of us who aren't convinced that he exists. Maybe there's a reason why we're not convinced that he exists? And maybe that reason is lack of evidence. All he has to do is provide a bit of proper, incontrovertible evidence (surely a simply matter for a being of his calibre) and hey presto, that'll be a whole host of souls saved from hellfire - something he's supposed to be keen on doing. But no. We have to believe in him FIRST, before he'll give us any reason to believe in him. Yeah, right.

Thirdly, the bible makes it clear that God DOES reveal himself to those who seek him. There are many people on this site who are entirely open to that proposition - but what do they get? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Hunt down and read a number of the posts by _J_, if you don't believe me. Maybe, by your analogy, God simply doesn't choose to inform them. Bit tough, since I've heard that hell gets rather hot, and not particularly loving in an all-loving God, but hey, I've also heard that he moves in mysterious ways, so it must be ok, mustn't it.

Fourthly, great, so presumably God has supplied his reliable evidence to you. We're all agog. Will you share it with us? Now clearly you're not just going to talk to us about "inner conviction" and that sort of thing, since no doubt you'll be fully familiar with the fact that neuroscience has blown that one entirely out of the water. Besides, countless Hindus have a deep inner conviction that it's Lord Krishna who rules the universe, and I suspect you'll see why inner conviction doesn't work in their case.

And obviously you'll have something tangible to share with us - after all, the God you believe in not only created the universe and sustains it, but intervenes in it tangibly too - to answer prayer for instance. You believe all sorts of really quite concrete things about your God (well, if you're any kind of mainstream Christian you do) so presumably you have concrete evidence for these things.

So I'm really excited now. I really think this may be what we've all been waiting for. PLEEEEEEEEEEASE share it with us. I promise that, if it's real, proper, actual evidence (you know - in the real, proper,actual sense of the word, same as we'd use it in any other context), I am absolutely open to being swayed by it, and I'm confident that many others here are too.

I won't be able to respond straightaway, since I have to go out now, but I'll be back in an hour or so and can't wait to read what you've given us.

Oh, what a momentous day this is about to turn into.

426. Fleabytes

Comment #135810 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 9:25 am

Hello: Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there.

Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean its existence can't be demonstrated by other means - IF it's really there, of course. The problem for those who would have us believe in God is that his existence simply can't be demonstrated by any reliable means whatsoever.

427. Fleabytes

Comment #135798 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 9:17 am

Steve Zara: The scientific explanations are so much more awesome and exciting

Well, I agree, but Kairos doesn't. He thinks it's boring to just see the universe as it is - it needs a bit of supernatural magicking before it's interesting enough for him. Maybe he just hasn't learned enough about the universe as it is to understand just how deeply thrilling it really is.

Kairos - have you read Unweaving the Rainbow? If you haven't, please do. It's not about religion, it's about the universe and how fascinatingly, mindblowingly, poetically beautiful it is - as revealed by science.

428. Fleabytes

Comment #135744 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 8:46 am

Peacebeuponme: Best be quick so that your avatar is ready in 50 posts time.

Second thoughts, I'm sure MPhil could create one for me. A dressed-up avatar, I mean, not the frock! If he could give me a halo and a harp, a glitzy dress should be child's play, surely?

429. Fleabytes

Comment #135732 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 8:37 am

Kairos: Sorry, Paula, but my understanding of rational is 'makes sense' and what I said makes perfect sense to me.

Yes of course it makes perfect sense to you. I'm merely pointing out that theists start with the idea and create the evidence to support it, rather than starting with the evidence and seeing where it leads. Just different ways of seeing things? "Different" doesn't automatically mean "equally valid".

430. Fleabytes

Comment #135707 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 8:23 am

Peacebeuponme: Surely you would also say "this is not just for me. This is for every nameless faceless woman of atheism."?

Ah yes, good point. And now I come to think of it, I'd need to buy myself a new frock too.

431. Fleabytes

Comment #135685 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 7:53 am

Peacebeuponme: Paula - how do you feel about nearing the "2,000 club?"

Well, considering that when I saw how long my article had turned out to be I was convinced that only 2 or 3 die-hards would ever read it all the way through, absolutely astonished! And delighted, of course. And slightly stunned. If I say any more I shall start crying and thanking my mom ....

Steve Zara: The Dawkins Letters: God exists because the universe appears designed.

Yes, this is very much his argument, but don't forget his other one, which is that he'd find it so depressing to feel that humans weren't the apple of God's eye and weren't going to live forever, that Christianity simply MUST be true.

432. Fleabytes

Comment #135654 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 7:24 am

Kairos: Steve, because I think it is rational to accept Hick's point that God had to create a distance between himself and human beings - an epistemic distance as he terms it - in order to preserve our freedom

No, it's not rational to accept this because it's not rational to accept that there is any such thing as "God" at all - ANY god, let alone the Christian "God" whose stance on human freedom you feel able to comment on.

Atheists look at the lack of evidence for a god and conclude that there's no god.

Theists look at the lack of evidence for a god and conclude that there's a god who doesn't choose to leave evidence of himself. They then invent a whole load of characteristics for this god in an attempt to explain his coyness. And THEN they call this rational.

433. Fleabytes

Comment #135637 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 7:02 am

Artful Dodger:There is nothing in the cosmology of the Bible that makes it incompatible with modern astronomy.

Apart from that bit about the sun stopping in its journey round the earth, of course.

434. Fleabytes

Comment #135616 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 6:28 am

Artful Dodger: I'm surprised that you do not see this in the correspondence.

Artful, you are being very boring. Look what I wrote:

The letter to which David Robertson is responding is a perfect illustration of certain attitudes within the FCoS - and will bring joy to the heart of anyone who has been seeking confirmation that the FCoS requires ordinands to declare the Pope to be the antichrist - but, to be fair to David, he's clearly trying to counter these attitudes.

The letters are interesting, to me at least, because they reveal a great deal:
1) The splits within the Free Church between the traditionalists, represented by "S", and the modernisers, represented by David.
2) The real nastiness of some of the views still rattling around in there
3) The real nastiness in the way advocates of the two approaches square up to one another.
4) The utter absence of conflict resolution skills demonstrated on both sides
5) David has caused a great deal of anger and resentment on this site, NOT because of his Christian views (although it doesn't suit him to acknowledge the fact) but because of the sheer nastiness of his style of interaction. This exchange of letters suggests that this style may not just be a personal foible on David's part but may actually be representative of a prevailing culture within his church. (In fact, I have seen enough of the FCoC to know that, whilst there may be very pleasant individuals in it, David-Robertson-type behaviour is not unusual.)
6) The contrast in the type of interpersonal behaviour accepted in a Christian church and that accepted in any other professional workplace.

Now, since you seem not to be familiar with David's posts on this website, do you think you might like to go and actually read some of them before sticking up for him and declaring them to have been all sweetness and light?

435. Fleabytes

Comment #135589 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 5:50 am

Artful Dodger: Paula, I have reread the letter. Show me one example of anything objectionable in either the content or the delivery!

OK, here's one, though there are several.

: I understand that for many years you saw no difficulty in attending a church whose denomination belonged to the 'apostate World Council of Churches'; it is therefore hardly appropriate for you as an incomer into the Free Church to complain of a "motley crew".

Am I saying that DR shouldn't argue his case? No, I am not. I am pointing out that his style of arguing is unnecessarily abrasive, aggressive and unhelpful. This is not how conflicts get resolved. In this whole letter, there is no attempt at a conciliatory tone, no attempt to find any common ground before dealing with the points on which they differ. You refer to the way people interact on this site - something we do in our free time, when we're letting our hair down. David has written this letter in his professional capacity as a preacher and as an editor. I can think of few other professional contexts where such a style would be considered acceptable.

Like him I am really saddened by how some thoughtful Christians with a heart for God are written off as heretics in pharasaical fashion because they don't slot into the reformed or evangelical mould.

Then read it AGAIN: it is David who makes the accusation of heresy.

From everything I've seen of it, the Free Church is a particularly judgemental, finger-wagging church that takes upon itself the right to upbraid people it doesn't approve of in the strongest possible terms - publicly, quite often. Free Churchers I have known have quoted biblical chapter and verse in support of this approach. In no other sphere of activity would such behaviour be tolerated. There are better, more effective, less aggressive, less bullying, kinder ways of resolving differences. Ironic, isn't it, that it should be the secular workplace that leads the church in this respect.

436. Fleabytes

Comment #135559 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 5:05 am

Artful Dodger: In the first place these two letters are out of place on a thread dealing with Robertson's response to Richard Dawkins, and their having been posted here is clear evidence that the responses to him have become pure ad hominem attacks.

How so? How is simply quoting someone's own words an ad hominem attack? Or perhaps you see something in his words that reflects badly on him?

Secondly, I am not sure that it is ethical to lift correspondence from another site as fuel for this very different fire

But presumably you think it was alright for David to take comments from this website and quote them in his book in order to deride atheists? Everything quoted here is in the public domain and available for download as a pdf from the Free Church website (which, by the way, is why he was entitled to take quotes from here for his book too.)

Thirdly, if Robertson's letter is read objectively one cannot fail to be impressed, not by how he leaps for the jugular, but by how fair-minded and irenic the man is. The problem is that even a normally cool head like Paula's has become incapable of reading anything the man says objectively

Interesting. Are you sure of your own objectivity here? Fair-minded? Irenic!! Maybe you should read it again. Actually, maybe you should read what I wrote about it again too: I said I'd found it very revealing; and also that I thought it was a point in David's favour that he was standing up to even more abhorrent strands of thought in his church - what's not objective about that? Although I didn't spell it out, I was also interested in the fact that he's clearly battling on other fronts than just ours. Actually, I admire people who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them OR their tactics. As you know, I disagree with David's beliefs profoundly, and I find his manner of defending them intolerable - what interests me about the exchange I've reproduced here is that he's equally aggressive with fellow-Christians. I find that an interesting insight.

437. Fleabytes

Comment #135536 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 4:34 am

From the same edition of the Free Church magazine: David's article about The God Delusion and the "new atheists":

The Dark Night of the Soul and the Sweet Light of the Gospel
In November 2006, I walked into our local Waterstone's and noticed to my astonishment that the number one book was entitled The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. I bought the book and began to read it with great interest. It astonished, infuriated, depressed and inspired me. As a result I wrote an open letter to Richard Dawkins on the Free Church website, which was subsequently posted on the Dawkins website, and resulted in an extraordinary response. These letters continued, and in March 2007 a book of them, The Dawkins Letters, was published. Since then my life has been hectic - dozens of e-mails and letters, opportunities to hold meetings in bookstores, universities and churches, and various other 'media' opportunities. All of this was unexpected, but what has been most unexpected is the spiritual aspect of it all. It is this I want to reflect on, not least because it may reflect and be of benefit to others who have gone through similar spiritual struggles.

The Dark Night of the Soul
At first the level of abuse from the followers of Richard Dawkins was surprising and somewhat amusing. To read that I was a 'moronic retard with the intellectual ability of roadkill' was hilarious. And years of training on the Free Church Message board certainly prepared me! Sometimes, however, the constant vitriol (and especially the polite kind) did hit home and become overwhelming. I remember one night waking up with my mind in turmoil and being unable to go
back to sleep �quot; all the accusations, bitterness and demands were running round in my head. It was only when I sat and read the word of God that peace was restored. It continues to amaze me how relevant the Bible, and especially the Psalms, are in the midst of spiritual battle.

An additional discouragement was the reaction of 'the Church'. Over the past few months I have come to realise how the Christian church in Britain is often weak, inwardlooking, cynical, self-obsessed and generally copies the ways of the world. We rarely engage with the world (being far too concerned with our own wee corner and our share of the Christian market) and when we do, although there are some fantastic exceptions, we do so in a way which somehow ends up being about ourselves rather than Jesus. But the really depressing thing for me was how few Christian leaders have seen the tremendous opportunity that Richard Dawkins has given us to present the Gospel. I have been puzzled that while the book has been a bestseller and sold in secular outlets about a subject that is regularly in the news, it has almost completely been ignored in the Christian media.

However, the darkness, discouragement and depression really began to hit home when the bleak, dark and dreary world of atheism began to get under my skin. Knowing beauty does not mean that you are not upset when you see ugliness �quot; indeed it can make the experience all the more depressing. This feeling of discouragement, darkness and depression really hit home one Saturday afternoon at Dens Park, the home of Dundee FC. I was enjoying the game when the thought hit me, what would it be like if the atheist worldview was true? The thought of a life without Christ was for me an overwhelming one. It shattered me. Dawkins and the New Atheists do their best to describe their view as beautiful, poetic and meaningful. It is nothing of the sort. It is a black hole which leads to the pit of despair and meaningless[ness]. And I have looked deep into that pit.

The Sweet Light of the Gospel
However, sometimes experiencing the darkness only helps you to appreciate the light all the more. I am thankful that as each of the discouragements hit me, so also the Lord has sent shafts of light into the darkness, sometimes overwhelming in their sweetness and the joy they bring. I have been enormously encouraged by what many of us would take as normal; I have learned to appreciate all the more music, food, the beauty of creation, and, above all, my family. I am very thankful that I belong to a Christian family and that my wife and children are believers. I am thankful for every moment of life; in all of its wonderful detail.

In addition to this, while I have been discouraged by much of the culture and inward-lookingness of the Church and Christian networks, the response from many ordinary Christians has been fantastic. On average I get one letter or e-mail per day from a Christian who has been encouraged, entertained and enthused by the book. What is even better is the number of non-Christians who have written, some of whom have been challenged and are seeking God.

The fellowship of the saints has also been sweet. Many times I have been shattered, discouraged and disorientated only to be reorientated by worshipping together with the people of God. Prayer meetings, home groups, and Sunday worship
have all been incredibly real over this period of time. The consciousness of the presence of God is palpable.

And that leads to the greatest sweetness of all; the glorious light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I will leave the last word with the apostle Paul, who describes my experience over these past few months perfectly: The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness', made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
(2 Corinthians 4:4-6).
The Editor

Can't stop to write any more now. My atheist pit of despair and meaninglessness calls!

438. Fleabytes

Comment #135529 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 4:19 am

At the risk of bringing this thread back to something a little more closely connected with its subject, I thought this exchange in the November edition of the Free Church of Scotland's official monthly magazine might be of interest. The letter to which David Robertson is responding is a perfect illustration of certain attitudes within the FCoS - and will bring joy to the heart of anyone who has been seeking confirmation that the FCoS requires ordinands to declare the Pope to be the antichrist - but, to be fair to David, he's clearly trying to counter these attitudes. The way he does so is interesting, though: the lunge for the throat will seem familiar, I think.

The exchange is rather long, I'm afraid, but I do think it's so revealing that it's worth reading. First, the letter TO David:

As I read through the September issue of the Monthly Record (MR) I became more and more convinced that my previous concerns for the Free Church were well founded.

To begin with, the new Editor tells us that the magazine is not only a Free Church publication but is for everyone - no doubt Free Church (FC) distinctives will have to be watered down so as not to offend non-Presbyterians, unbelievers etc.

As the writer to the Hebrews said, 'Time would fail me' to go into everything that stirs up questions even in this one issue of the MR. The Editor speaks glowingly of a book by John Stott, thereby causing others to believe that Stott is a reliable guide in Christian matters, when in fact he is a heretic, believing in Pre-Adamites, no Hell, no Tree or Serpent in Eden, Annihilationism etc.

Let's go on to the Ordination at Badenoch (p. 6). Here we find the reporter, Rev John Ross, complaining about the questions put to the Minister at his ordination, when he was asked to confirm that he did not hold to any false doctrines, such as Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, Erastian and others (true, most of those present couldn't tell an Armenian from an Arminian, and need to be taught).

Mr Ross's main concern was that a Roman Catholic 'priest' was present and might have been offended. Since when did we have to keep quiet about our beliefs lest we offend someone from an unbiblical "church" ? - a church which, according to our Confession of Faith, is headed up by the Antichrist. We certainly didn't learn this from Knox or Calvin or Luther, nor indeed from Christ or Paul or Elijah.

We'll pass over the nonsense written about Harry Potter - surely something quite out of place in a church magazine, to say the least.

Let's move on to an item in the Prayer Diary, where we find that the church in Cumbernauld is joining with 12 other churches in a mission. One has to ask how many of these churches are affiliated to the apostate World Council of Churches, the Ecumenical Movement. How many of them hold to teachings that are directly contrary to FC beliefs? How many of these denominations have women in the ministry or eldership, contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture? How can a Free Church join with such a motley crew - what will be their message? 'Time would fail me.'

What about the July/August issue of the MR? Change, change, change, with none of its advocates brave enough to say exactly what they want changed. To me these things are all signs of a church that has lost its way. We're going from Disruption to Disaster-- led by the Light Brigade-- only this time it's not "onward and onward", it's downward and downward. A long time ago Francis Schaeffer said something like this: When a church splits, those on the right go further right and those on the left go further left. How right he was. The original Light Brigade charged on to disaster - let's not follow today's version.
S

And David's reply:

Dear S,

Like you, I am at a loss for words, concerning your extraordinary letter. But since you had the courtesy to write and, more importantly, because it is my duty as a shepherd of God's flock and a teacher of his word to combat heresy, I feel obliged to respond.

Your letter saddened me in many ways. The first problem is its deeply unbiblical sectarian spirit. We are more than happy to have non-Presbyterians and unbelievers reading The Monthly Record. And we have no intention of producing a magazine whose raison d'etre is to magnify 'Free Church distinctives'. Rather, we follow the motto of our founding father, Thomas Chalmers - 'who cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland?'.

Your misuse of Scripture is interesting. The writer to the Hebrews spoke of 'time failing' him because of his desire to talk about the heroes of the faith and their example. You misappropriate his words to attack, nitpick and condemn Christian brothers and sisters. Ironically, as your letter arrived I had just had a conversation with the Rev Murdo Macleod (Dunvegan, retired) who told me of John Stott's final sermon at Keswick. The 87-year-old John Stott is like one of the heroes of Hebrews 11; he is a brother to be much admired.

How ironic that you join with liberals in condemning this godly and gracious man. As Rev John Reese wrote in the Church Times, 'How very sad and perhaps symptomatic of disease in the Church were the three letters critical of Dr Stott's address to the Keswick Convention. A great servant of the Church, making his last public appearance, did not deserve to be treated with lofty disdain by those who purport to agree with him that we should be more Christlike'.

Although I do not agree with John Stott on everything, he deserves to be honoured as one of the great servants of Christ in the 20th century, not shamefully dismissed in such a contemptous and disrespectful manner.

I do not have time to address your criticisms of the Moderator, John Ross, which were ill considered and inappropriate. And where better to discuss the most popular book in Britain this year, than a Christian magazine?

As regards the mission in Cumbernauld, I spoke to the minister and he assured me that Cumbernauld Free Church did not engage in any apostate worship or share in evangelism with any church that does not teach the Gospel.

I understand that for many years you saw no difficulty in attending a church whose denomination belonged to the 'apostate World Council of Churches'; it is therefore hardly appropriate for you as an incomer into the Free Church to complain of a "motley crew".

The reason that the Assembly spoke of change is because we are a Reformed Church, which means we are semper reformanda, always reforming. I hope we will never be so arrogant as to think that we have arrived and have no need for change.

And your accusation that the Free Church is being led by 'the Light Brigade' is unworthy. The Hebrew word for glory carries comes from the root meaning of 'heavy'. The Free Church today is concerned for the Glory of God. Although we often fail miserably, we want to live for His glory, proclaim His glory and glorify His Name, not ours. Ironically, in complaining about the 'charge of the Light Brigade' in the language and spirit of your letter, you have betrayed a flippancy, irreverence, and contempt which is the very opposite of that weightiness of the Glory of God. It is for that reason that such letters in the future will only rarely be published. Whilst we are happy to accept criticism and want the Record to be a forum for discussion, we are not prepared to allow our magazine to be used by those who trivialise the Gospel in the name of God.
Yours in Christ,
David

Both letters just brimming over with Christian charity and magnaminity, as you can see! I'd be interested to hear what other people make of them.

439. Fleabytes

Comment #134980 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Quetz and Richard M: Yes! And I think this is an area where we atheists could and should be much more robust in our argumentation. The David Robertsons of this world would like to make out that it's atheists who pose the greatest threat to the safety and well-being of other humans; that atheism is an inherently anti-humanitarian proposition; that compassion for our fellow humans can ONLY come from God. But we are not the ones claiming that humans are the authors of their own suffering, or that humans are sinful, loathsome, fallen or "polluted". We are not the ones who view ourselves and our fellow humans with revulsion and who, instead of seeing rounded, fallible, lovable beings, simply see a mass of sinfulness. The Christian view of humans propounded by David Robertson is both vile and dangerous. We have nothing whatsoever to be defensive about on this front.

440. Fleabytes

Comment #134959 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 12:00 pm

ScotishGeologist: I couldn't agree more. Atheist explanations of suffering are not only more in line with reality, they are also more moral in that they don't attempt to offer justifications where there are none, and they don't add to the suffering by suggesting that the sufferer was somehow to blame for it.

The idea of humans being polluted is just disgusting. The loathing and self-loathing expressed in this notion are terribly sad, but also rather frightening. And to think that Robertson rails against Dawkins for claiming that the universe is indifferent! He rejects it because it's too bleak, too comfortless, too "depressing". Yet he offers the pollutedness of humanity as the antidote. It's desperate, it really is. I pity any poor, vulnerable, self-doubting person who gets caught up in this foul philosophy.

441. Fleabytes

Comment #134950 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 11:23 am

Richard Morgan: One's own death, or the death of a loved one? I, personally have not yet learnt how to face up to the death of a child with equanimity. Many of my religious friends, however, have been able to achieve that. I would appreciate your input on that one.

That's a fair point, Richard. I meant one's own death. I think you're absolutely right in suggesting that the death of people we love is even harder to deal with. And I can understand why some people derive comfort from the belief that they'll be reunited in an after-life.

However, the death that knocked me hardest occurred whilst I was still a Christian - and I was conscious even at the time that my then-religion wasn't anywhere close to being up to the task of comforting me. It simply didn't work. In fact, it felt utterly irrelevant in the face of my grief. That wasn't the end of my faith - that didn't happen until a few years later. But it was certainly one of the early nails in its coffin. (Oops. Just re-read this and noticed the unintentional almost-pun at the end.)

442. Fleabytes

Comment #134847 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 9:03 am

Clearthinker: I own you an apology. Your article is on the front page. I had been away from this site for so long that I did not realise that this was now how it worked. I was wrong. Apologies.

Thank you, David. Apology accepted.

Anyway how are the plans going for Richards appearance at UHI?

Very well. But UHI aren't announcing it officially until next week, so I won't go into detail about it until after that.

Sorry to hear that he refused to debate (or was that just a vicious rumour?)

That is indeed a vicious rumour. It was UHI (that's University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute - for anyone who is not in Scotland and doesn't know) who decided that they didn't want a debate format.

but glad to hear that at least UHI have the fairness to ask John Lennox to give a lecture.

Is it John Lennox? I'd heard they were trying for Alister McGrath. In either case, UHI were clear from the start that they would want to hold a balancing event later in the year.

When will that be? October? Are you organising both?

So far as I am aware, UHI were hoping for some time in the autumn but I don't know what exact date they have in mind. I am not employed by UHI and I'm not organising either event although I have been involved in the arrangements for the first one.

Will people be allowed to ask questions at the Dawkins lecture or will they have to submit their questions through you?

Yes, of course they'll be able to ask questions - whyever not? The whole of the second hour has been set aside for this purpose. And no, questions will not need to be submitted in advance.

443. Fleabytes

Comment #134780 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 7:51 am

scottishgeologist: And the way this string of comments is going (up to Page 30 now) it could well be the longest thread ever as it doesnt seem to be showing any signs of slowing down.

Hmmm. Not so sure about that. I think we'd need Dianelos or Mark Taunton to join in before we could be confident of that!

444. Fleabytes

Comment #134776 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 7:42 am

Paul Creber: Would someone please clarify something for me? Both Richard Dawkins and David Robertson appear to agree that Paula's excellent review is no longer on the "front page" of this site.
Yet as far as I can see, it has always been on the front page, in the "Latest News" section.

You're quite right, Paul, this is a complete non-issue. To say that Fleabytes is "no longer" on the front page is misleading. It's precisely where it's always been, on the "Latest News" thread, where, as with any other article, it is slowly heading down the list as newer items come in.

The "Featured" thread tends to be for items by or directly about Richard Dawkins himself, or the other "horsemen". There is therefore absolutely no reason why Fleabytes would ever have been featured there. David Robertson was just doing what he does best: twisting and distorting in the hopes of sowing some seeds of doubt. Such a sweet soul.

EDIT: Oops, sorry, I see that several people got there before me.

445. Fleabytes

Comment #134724 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 6:22 am

"Clearthinker": You can believe that if you want (and then ask ' well why was I asked to write it?) or you can guess, as I am, that RD is running scared of a book which exposes his book for the fallacy that it is. Certainly they are not ashamed of your work. But they are scared and could not cope with the possibility that once again attention would be brought to mine.

An interesting example of your "clear thinking" here, David. RD.net are (according to you) scared of your book and terrified of drawing attention to it. Consequently, the last thing they want is for people to be reminded about it at all.

So what do they do? They request a review of it ... which turns out to be extremely long and detailed ... which states that yours puts up the best fight of all the four books reviewed ... which they then put on their website ... and which subsequently attracts over 1400 comments (so presumably even more "views") ... AND they lift the ban on you so that you can defend it against the comments I have made.

It would take Wee Flea logic to interpret this as quaking in their boots, but then, that's the only logic (sic) you seem to have access to. Fact is, David, you are determined to distort everything to force it to fit in with your view of the matter, no matter how devious or transparently dishonest you have to be in the process. Please don't think for one moment that anyone is fooled by your antics.

446. Fleabytes

Comment #134710 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 6:04 am

Richard Morgan
Interesting post, but I've always thought NLP was terribly overrated, and that it's no coincidence that most of its practitioners seem also to be followers of one kind of woo-woo or another.

As I understand your open letter, it all boils down to the fact that theists and atheists view the world differently and achieve their "wow!" moments in different ways. I certainly agree with that.

Are you suggesting, though, that this makes discussion between the two groups pointless? If so, I wouldn't agree.

For one thing, as Lorien has pointed out, people do move between the two groups. There is not, therefore, any inevitability about this.

For another, the religious lobby are not content to accept that the non-religious simply view the world differently, and they continue to devote vast amounts of time and other resources to the aim of converting us and, of course, to imposing their worldview on governments, policy-makers, educators and children. For as long as this is the case, we cannot just sit back and say, "Oh, they just see the world differently from us - but we can live with that."

And for another - and I realise that I'm leaving myself open to accusations of circularity here! - our worldview is, quite simply, more reasonable than theirs! As for the emotional satisfaction that some people derive from their religion, I have long felt that some religious people should be encouraged to read Unweaving the Rainbow rather than (or in addition to, at least) The God Delusion. Religion is NOT the sole source of joy, delight, poetry or awe! Nor is life only made meaningful by an entirely unsubstantiated belief in its continuing eternally after our physical death. Nor is morality only assured through the existence of a supernatural playground monitor. These are points that deserve to be made - let the fleas infest us as they will.

On one point I do agree: there's little point banging on about the greater rationality of our position when they do not value rationality the way we do. You don't refer to this, but I think there's little point, either, in pointing out the inconsistencies of their religious dogmas - there are undoubtedly some Christians for whom the dogma really matters, but I remain convinced that most Christians believe because it is COMFORTING to believe; because they like the idea of being reunited with their loved ones after death; because they like the idea of never really dying; and because they like the idea of having a big daddy looking out for them and making sure that, somehow, there'll be a happy ending, no matter how tough things may currently seem.

From this perspective I do think it's important that, alongside the rational and intellectual arguments, we give some thought to how we can persuade people that, actually, life without religion ISN'T horribly scary and DOESN'T feel depressingly meaningless, and that death, whilst sad, can be faced up to with something approaching equanimity.

So I do accept that an intellectual "cure" is unlikely to be effective against an emotional "disease". But how do you think we should proceed instead?

447. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #134673 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 5:00 am

Goldy: Cacti, surely?

No, it's alright, we're spoilt for choice when it comes to plurals for cactus: take your pick from "cacti", "cactuses" or just plain "cactus".

448. Fleabytes

Comment #134641 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 4:09 am

Rover: I think people are forgetting one minor detail...the fact that Dawkins has ALREADY addressed all of this in his book! LOL!

You mean the confusion in the Christian approaches to hell? I'm not sure he has. He certainly wrote about the changing moral zeitgeist, and there's little doubt that this has also affected the way many Christians react to the concept of hell - but I'm not sure he went into a lot of detail about the absurdity of the concept in the first place.

Besides, TGD is such a complete refutation of religion from so many angles that there'll be precious little left to discuss on this website if we avoid all the topics Richard has already covered!

449. Fleabytes

Comment #134624 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 3:50 am

doesn't the bible say that the children should not suffer for the sins of the father

Deut. 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...

So you should be ok provided everyone in your family has been good since your great-great grandparents' day.

450. Fleabytes

Comment #134618 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 3:44 am

NMcC: I don't think this separation from God thing rather than fire and brimstone as a description of hell is just a 'Liberal' stance.

That's true too. The real liberals would say there's no hell at all and everyone ends up in heaven. I do hope Jesus negotiated a good redundancy package.