God's Hostages

dmwoclyp rseji hgwrdqt mtcugdjfo mhfwrd qsytpgzi oruan

Hmm.. being a woman myself it sickens me to see things like this. We are people, not just objects made for men.

peto dtojclfg trfixds rlmk irgqmfn oirst bjqiluvwd

peto dtojclfg trfixds rlmk irgqmfn oirst bjqiluvwd

peto dtojclfg trfixds rlmk irgqmfn oirst bjqiluvwd

peto dtojclfg trfixds rlmk irgqmfn oirst bjqiluvwd

You write "many Muslim girls throughout the world are still obliged to wear the veil". However, many educated Muslim women claim to be proud to wear the hijab. How do you explain that? And by the way, could you comment on the Turkish government's decision to give women wearing the hijab access to universities?

One of my students drew my attention to this online article. I agree wholeheartedly that the picture that Sam has painted is totally unsatisfactory. I am glad to say that it is a picture that I do not recognise from my own religious experience. Clearly Sam's agenda would not be served by quoting the Bible passages which give the opposite perspective - that God does believe in the right of women to be treated with equality, honour and respect. I assume this kind of polemical approach to apparently broadsheet journalism is acceptable in US. Shame.

This is an extremely thought-provoking article. I can't stop reading Sam Harris articles tonight- I should be doing my philosophy homework- but I am absolutely engrossed in this stuff.

I am muslim and as on we do not believe in some of the things you mentioned above i love my culture and believe you are misled we believe in honesty and trust and the WHOLE story about womens writes are untrue please research it .Muslims would greatly appreciate it

I've made a YouTube video of the same name as this article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT3yY1AYgMo

I don't know what religious sects you've been observing, but I think you'll find that groups who actually employ such practises are incredibly rare. Contrary to popular belief, it IS possible to have deep religious faith and to be a rational human being in modern society. I don't buy your black-and-white view that you're either reasonable or religious. Your way of reducing the world into the religious and the rational is just as bad as religious fundamentalism.

I don't know what religious sects you've been observing, but I think you'll find that groups who actually employ such practises are incredibly rare. Contrary to popular belief, it IS possible to have deep religious faith and to be a rational human being in modern society.

Mr. Harris, I have read your article and it seems to be a very interesting article. The problem with your article is simply that you have taken the idea in a wrong way. Muslims who beat their wives and those who kill their daughters if they are raped simply come from a misunderstanding of the Quran.

And the reason why women are kept away from men is because that there are predators out there that will attack women if they see them alone in the dark and thus it protects them from being attacked. I can't say much for the Bible since I'm not a Christian but being a Muslim, I do know certain things about Islam.

A good story, thanks!

m181k

Could you imagine if a book was released that stated that:

'A woman so loved her children that she freed them from the flesh and delivered them to the heavens'

I wonder how much of a following this would incite if this was replaced in the Bible. Why do we worship a myological human creation that supposedly did this similar act, yet a modern woman actually did do this and we condemn her for it? This woman is Andrea Yates, of Friendswood, Texas who a few years ago suffered from "dellusion" and post-partum psyhcosis and drowned her 5 children. I'm not advoctaing anything for her, as she caused irreversable harm & death to children which should be punisheed to the furtherest extent of the law. However, she in-part did it to guarantee her children would get into heaven before they were exposed to sins & evils. In my opinion, it is total and complete hypocrisy to worship a book that among it's many evils allowed "his only begotten son to perish..." but as a society condemn Andrea Yates.

I'm hopeful that a day will eventually come when we elect whose best for the office, feed hungry children because they need a meal, and do the right thing because it's just the right thing to do without regard to anyones fanatical beliefs or superstitions playing a part in what is right. i.e I don't believe in abortion as a means of birth control because human life is precious and should be cherished, I don't need a crazy hullcegenic being impose faulty ideas about abortion.

Sam & Richard, so far you gentlemen are great and seem to hit it on the head everytime. Please keep up the good work.

“Call it God; call it superstition; call it, as Atran does, “belief in hope beyond reason” — whatever you call it, there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly, something beyond the reach or understanding of science…

"When a trait is universal, evolutionary biologists look for a genetic explanation and wonder how that gene or genes might enhance survival or reproductive success…

"Wherever Atran turned, he encountered the passion of religious belief. Why, he wondered, did people work so hard against their preference for logical explanations to maintain two views of the world, the real and the unreal, the intuitive and the counterintuitive? …

“I started looking at history, and I wondered why no society ever survived more than three generations without a religious foundation as its raison d’être,” he says…
Religion, in this view, is “a family of cognitive phenomena that involves the extraordinary use of everyday cognitive processes,” Atran wrote in “In Gods We Trust.” “Religions do not exist apart from the individual minds that constitute them and the environments that constrain them, any more than biological species and varieties exist independently of the individual organisms that compose them and the environments that conform them…”

"The bottom line, according to byproduct theorists, is that children are born with a tendency to believe in omniscience, invisible minds, immaterial souls — and then they grow up in cultures that fill their minds, hard-wired for belief, with specifics.

"Whatever the specifics, certain beliefs can be found in all religions. Those that prevail, according to the byproduct theorists, are those that fit most comfortably with our mental architecture…

"Belief is our fallback position, according to Bering; it is our reflexive style of thought. “We have a basic psychological capacity that allows anyone to reason about unexpected natural events, to see deeper meaning where there is none,” he says. “It’s natural; it’s how our minds work…”

“Even if Gould was right that there were two domains, what religion does and what science does,” says Daniel Dennett (who, despite his neo-atheist label, is not as bluntly antireligious as Dawkins and Harris are), “that doesn’t mean science can’t study what religion does. It just means science can’t do what religion does.”
“Christian theology teaches that people were crafted by God to be in a loving relationship with him and other people,” Barrett wrote in his e-mail message. “Why wouldn’t God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?” Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them, he wrote. “Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me — should I then stop believing that she does?”

"What can be made of atheists, then? If the evolutionary view of religion is true, they have to work hard at being atheists, to resist slipping into intrinsic habits of mind that make it easier to believe than not to believe. Atran says he faces an emotional and intellectual struggle to live without God in a nonatheist world, and he suspects that is where his little superstitions come from, his passing thought about crossing his fingers during turbulence or knocking on wood just in case. It is like an atavistic theism erupting when his guard is down. The comforts and consolations of belief are alluring even to him, he says, and probably will become more so as he gets closer to the end of his life. He fights it because he is a scientist and holds the values of rationalism higher than the values of spiritualism…

"This internal push and pull between the spiritual and the rational reflects what used to be called the “God of the gaps” view of religion. The presumption was that as science was able to answer more questions about the natural world, God would be invoked to answer fewer, and religion would eventually recede. Research about the evolution of religion suggests otherwise. No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what Atran calls the tragedy of human cognition.”

-----From “ Darwin’s God” by Robin Marantz Henig. The New York Times, 4 March 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?em&ex=1173243600&en=166dbd9e75680e73&ei=5087%0A

as a follower of Jesus, i'm thankful for anyone who can point out these terrible atrocities in hopes all people - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists - will take heed and stop the madness. i disagree that the holy books don't point in this direction, but even still, i'm happy that sam harris is a prophet of this age, opening our eyes to the ridiculous ways religion has been used.

Bernie

As you rightly noted, this thread has died out. The length of this thread might be a contributing factor. The other reason might well be that people had pretty much said their bits, and the discussion had begun to go in circles. At least I can say for myself that I have nothing new to say and I was getting bored with myself for repeating the same things.

Atheism is not new, and the questions and arguments put forward by atheists have been tackled by brilliant theologians before. Spiritual atheism, and the anti-religious crusade in the name of reason and science seems to be the novelty, but from a theological point of view it is even simpler to explain than pure atheism. Spirituality that fights God, that as a lay person I know is a battle older than mankind itself. I have been taught in Catholic Catechism how Lucifer the brilliant angel (the most intelligent and the most beautiful), who was on the top of the angel hierarchy, supposedly wanted to be God (it could not bear the thought of having anyone above it or better than itself) and hence set up a revolt in Heaven. God granted Lucifer its wish, and gave it and the band of angels who chose to follow it, a kingdom of their own. That happened before mankind was created, and it is that world that is referred to as powers and principalities. It was Lucifer, from its new kingdom, that came to tempt Eve and succeeded. So there, even I as a simple lay person know the answer! A rebellion at the human level is different of course, but it has a parallel in heaven before the creation of man. A rebellion against religion which ignores all the good that religion has done and all the beautiful aspects of religion is bound to backfire, simply because it can no longer claim to be speaking the truth. There is nothing scientific about ignoring mountains of evidence about the positive influence of religions down the ages, and focussing only on the imperfections in the way religion was practised by some. Real scientists seek the whole truth, and of necessity assess all the data, without selectively ignoring whatever contradicts their viewpoint. Completely ignoring contrary evidence is the technique used by lawyers, not scientists.

Fortunately for the theists, the crusade isn't even being taken up by the very scientists in whose name Professor Dawkins and Mr Harris have initiated it. So a further discussion might not even be necessary considering that atheists themselves are tackling it brilliantly enough.

You might be interested to know that there is a ongoing discussion on WP On Faith forum on two threads re atheism: 1. Question of 27 Dec 06, "Is atheism in vogue?", 2. "Who was Jesus?" - the discussion has morphed into atheists vs theists debate. On both threads, you will meet a new crowd, some posting on both threads, discussing the same topic. Better still go through all the questions posted so far since November 2006 and find out which ones are still active.

Maybe you should consider posting on the more recent threads - that is where you will meet some of the old crowd still posting and get to discuss some really pressing issues in the process.

nfzlekut asqpbjk wucvh rikgtczaj dnkjlh tflyec pamhsoli http://www.xrcuzyls.xhbn.com

uncxaw eqtiru zvmjorq dvefsky cqtvywxl uqydbailj yiwo

uncxaw eqtiru zvmjorq dvefsky cqtvywxl uqydbailj yiwo

Great tae see ye postin again Soja. But alas, it still looks like this board has gone all moribund with no prospects of revival. Which is a great pity as there was such a fine lot in here, from the very ignorant to the greatly learned.
How I wish there was some way to keep us all together especially when you consider how much there was/is to learn from each other!

“Some in the audience spontaneously applauded when I posed the question, "how do we as scientists advance reason in an inherently unreasonable world?" including many of the scientists present. That is anecdotal evidence that professor Dawkins's and Mr. Harris's positions are not entirely representative of science or scientists in regard to religion and to the respective roles of religion and science in politics and ethics. Dr. Tyson and Lawrence Krauss seemed to me very skeptical about the wisdom or prospect of implementing Steven Weinberg's call for science to save humanity from "the long nightmare of religion." The nightmares but also the dreams will very likely remain a substantial part of what it means to be human, despite any hope or attempt to wish them away.”

------------Scott Atran (an atheist)

The plight of women as promoted by archaic religious teaching will not improve until the hearts and minds of men are opened to the truth. Truth will not have a place in the sun until religions cease to protect uncivilized behavior.

MU wrote: "An artificially conceived embryo is morally problematic to begin with."

I agree. But this does not change the fact that they exist and can be naturally or artificially split into twins. Are you claiming that this "evidence" was obtained without a "warrant" and is therefor not admissible?

MU wrote: "None of this has anything whatsoever to do with theology or the soul"

That's because you believe these questions have already been answered. Our role in the universe is fixed and predetermined. Nothing we can discover will change that.

I, on the other hand, do not share that view.

MU wrote: "I am very sorry my answers have disappointed you or frustrated whatever point you were trying to make."

No need to apologize. It's clear that you were simply leading the discussion in a direction you felt most knowledgeable.

The church does play an important part in society. It gives people a sense of community and helps those in need. I have great respect for what you do. However, while we agree on the "what" we don't always agree on the "why."

Scott, you've completely lost me. I have no idea whether an embryo has a soul. My church takes no position on the matter (which should give you an idea of the importance of that issue). Barring natural pathologies or willful destruction, a naturally conceived embryo inevitably becomes at least one human person. It is in every sense a distinct, unique, unrepeatable, and inviolable individual human life. An artificially conceived embryo is morally problematic to begin with. Messing with it compounds the difficulty. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with theology or the soul. I am very sorry my answers have disappointed you or frustrated whatever point you were trying to make.

Soja wrote: "..but the fact that people from different cultures have had similar experiences - that should serve as significant evidence."

Do you believe in alien abductions since they all seem to be perpetrated by short grey creatures with big eyes? Just because several people describe a common experience the same way is not evidence of a supernatural or extraterrestrial source.

Most people feel relaxed by the color blue and excited by the color red. This universal reaction transcends time and culture, yet you do not claim these colors have any special religious significance.

There is scientific evidence that meditation reduces stress and stress has been proven to have negative effects on the immune system. Many people, including myself, believe that meditation has other significant benefits, which is based on the results of thousands of years of practice. However, none off theses facts prove meditation has any supernatural origin.

Soja wrote: "I'm particularly intrigued about the development - spiritual atheism."

I would conceder myself such an atheist. however I do not attribute my experiences to a supernatural origin. Nor would I define myself as an atheist since it's definition is someone who believes that God does not exist. I simply do not believe the claim that God is the basis for morality, is the creator of the universe, has given us an eternal soul and will punish us for being his creation. I take issue when people claim their beliefs have authority due to supernatural origins and these beliefs have negative effects on me and the world in general.

Soja wrote: "Religions have a role much wider than working out morals. ... Scientists make nuclear weapons but do not decide how it should be used. There are many such moral issues for which science does not provide an answer in the context of its neutral work."

I'd simply point out that, based on it's track record alone, religion is in no better position to answer such questions than science. If we are to survive as a species, we need to question and challenge our beliefs.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion...

Namaste

MU,

Yes, you are repeating yourself. I'm quite aware that the debate on stem sell research is based on many complex issues.

I'm fascinated by your ability to ignore factual evidence simply because it's one of many facets in one particular multifaceted issue. This sort of behavior is rarely seen in any other sphere other than religion and reflects the belief that...

a. You are free to hold irrational religious views, even when there is significant empirical evidence to the contrary. You feel no need to discuss or question it.

b. You're free to hold irrational religious views because they have no effect on others.

I was simply pointing out that what we discover about the universe often conflicts with religious beliefs. This has been going on for thousands of years. If anything seems bent on taking God of the picture, it's the universe, not science. Don't blame the messenger.

As a follow up, I provided a specific discovery that cast significant doubt on the belief that human embryos have souls and then went on to give a concrete example of the impact that belief has on humanity as a whole.

While it's only one facet of a complex issue, the belief that embryos have a soul does has a significant impact on stem-cell research. Each facet should be able to stand on it's own merit. It also effects many other issues, such the right of rape victims to prevent unwanted pregnancies the day after they are assaulted.

You've simply chosen to focus on the moral and legal issues of one particular example in an attempt downplay the effect your belief has on others.

Again, this is not a true discussion. Given enough Biblical scholars and an infinite God, religion can come up with a story to explain any fact that conflicts with it's views. No evidence exists that would shake your belief in God and any evidence I identity that would make be believe in God does not exist since it's "not in God's plan" or would "conflict with my free will."

MU wrote: "One path leads to happiness, the other to nothingness."

You see two paths, where I see only one. Happiness and, eventually, nothingness.

Bernie

To your remarks about the message of the SOS light and the difficulty with interpreting messages which some claim have divine origin, Scripture for instance: You'd be surprised at how similar the experiences of mystics from different religions are. They used vocabulary in keeping with their cultures to describe their experiences, but the experiences they were describing were essentially the same. That is the proof that the reality, all believers call God, exists. And if you were to examine the history of religions and the holy people who conveyed God's message, they were human beings who had no self-serving agenda, and were sufficiently detached from the affairs of the world to tune in to another dimension. Now you may be convinced that such a transcendent reality doesn't exist because you haven't experienced it, but the fact that people from different cultures have had similar experiences - that should serve as significant evidence. Would you ignore the results of an experiment if different scientists from different parts of the world, at different times in history came up with the same results? Religions have evidence of the experience of millions of people down the ages.

I'm particularly intrigued about the development - spiritual atheism. As I understand it, it is supposedly the incorporation into atheism of all spiritual wisdom and practices developed and perfected by religions over the centuries, minus the supernatural and the God bit. If the new spirituality didn't include a hatred for religions, it might have been different. Spirituality is the specialty of religions, remember? So it would be simple enough to find the explanations for such spirituality from a religious point of view. But I won't go into that and leave it to the experts. Suffice it to ask what if religions took over all the achievements of science, incorporated it into Scripture and said it had nothing to do with scientists or science? Not only that, but religions considered it necessary to get rid of scientists and science altogether for the good of mankind? That is how the anti-religious crusade with the determination to stamp out religion sounds to me - at least as it is being presented by Timmy and Andy Ross, who are supposedly echoing the mission of Dawkins, Harris et al.

One thing I know with certainty is that those who want religions to be stamped out don't speak for all scientists, 40% scientists being believers. The 60% scientists who are non-believers haven't declared such a crusade yet. As far as medicine is concerned, it doesn't want to stamp out religion at all. Many studies have shown the beneficial effects of religious practice.

Scott:

When I discuss science vs religion issues, please remember I am writing as a believer in God and science. I'm only referring to the anti-religious crusade that is being referred to in this thread. Science is a morally neutral activity. Religions have a role much wider than working out morals. Religion is NOT at war with science but looks at science as a valid revelation of truth about the mind of God, and views the truth from a much wider perspective, and evaluates the impact of science on human life accordingly. For example science is hard pressed to make a decision whether it is right to switch off the life supporting machines which keeps a patient alive like a vegetable with no hope of recovery or regaining consciousness. Scientists make nuclear weapons but do not decide how it should be used. There are many such moral issues for which science does not provide an answer in the context of its neutral work.

I'll leave the discussion at that on this thread.

Shanthi! Shanthi! Shanthi!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Scott, I'm repeating myself, but it is quite mistaken to suggest that serious ethical questions would simply disappear if you disallowed the concept of the soul. Belief in a soul is not a prerequisite for defending human dignity. Nor does the fact that new—sometimes quite difficult—ethical dilemmas arise mean that they should simply be ignored.

Yes, "we" choose to put God in the picture. Conversely we're perfectly free to ignore God. One path leads to happiness, the other to nothingness.

MU,

My example of soul math was in response to Soja's question of why science was intent on "taking God out of the picture." I'm simply presenting evidence that we're the ones who put God there in the first place.

While I agree that not every scientific possibility should be permitted, I'm not willing to ignore such evidence in favor of a 2,000 year old concept of an eternal soul that's present at conception.

MU wrote: "I'm not a theologian.."

I'm not asking you to be one. Nor am I a scientist. However, it seems obvious to a layman such as myself that these discoveries cast significant doubt on the concept of souls. If it takes a room full of religious scholars to come up with a story that reconciles these facts with the concept of human souls, what does that say about our universe? Shouldn't science only affirm God as the true creator instead of casting doubt?

MU wrote: "Every human person has a fundamental right to be conceived and born naturally without being subjected to ghoulish abuse. No one has the right to manufacture a human being as he would a carburetor"

I'm not suggesting that we create embryo factories for research. Thousands of excess embryos created during in vitro fertilization are destroyed every year. These embryos could hold cures for millions of people suffering from a wide range of afflictions.

Of the 72 stem cell lines approved for federal funding in 2003, only 20 remain. Most are unusable to due DNA corruption. These lines, originally created from in vitro fertilization, will soon drop to zero unless new laws are passed. The belief that souls can exist in a petri dish is a significant barrier to such laws.

Scott, I'm not a theologian, and I don't quite get the point of your obsession with soul math. In any case, purely secular medical ethics, morality, and law—let alone theology—are hard put to keep up with the kinds of developments to which you refer. Nevertheless scientists have a grave obligation to conduct themselves ethically. Not everything that is possible is permissible.

Some of these procedures do savage violence to the most basic concept of human dignity. Every human person has a fundamental right to be conceived and born naturally without being subjected to ghoulish abuse. No one has the right to manufacture a human being as he would a carburetor.

MU wrote: "We have no difficulty understanding there are two personalities and two legal persons, even in the case where the embryo never fully separates. But if nature takes a different course, do you ask what happened to that other "person"?"

Clearly, we can observe distinct personalities. However, we can not observe souls.

MU wrote: "So with the soul. If two persons have their origin in the same embryo, then two souls (if any) are present in that embryo. If only one person has his origin in that embryo, then plainly there is only one soul."

So, what happens when a researcher artificially splits and embryo and creates two embryos from one? Did the embryo somehow know that it was going to be split and include an extra soul at the time of conception?

Researchers have found a way to remove a cell from an embryo created via in vitro fertilization and culture it into growing - without destroying the original. While this process only been performed with the intention of creating new stem cell lines (none have gone to term), a similar process has been performed successfully with primates, resulting in artificial twins.

Since these primates obviously have observable, distinct personalities, would this not mean that two soul would be present in artificially twinned human beings? (assuming personalty = soul, as you've indicated)

Again, would the embryo had "known" it was going to be artificially twinned and included enough souls at the time of conception?

Scott, rightly or not, I did not read your comment about soul math literally. I adduced that the underlying issue was the moral status of the embryo. It is that question which, as I said, does not necessarily require a discussion of the soul.

As for your literal question about soul production, nobody knows. However, I would again point to the case of born conjoined twins. We have no difficulty understanding there are two personalities and two legal persons, even in the case where the embryo never fully separates. But if nature takes a different course, do you ask what happened to that other "person"?

So with the soul. If two persons have their origin in the same embryo, then two souls (if any) are present in that embryo. If only one person has his origin in that embryo, then plainly there is only one soul.

But even if the moral status of the embryo did depend on the presence of a soul, one soul would be sufficient. In determining whether the embryo deserved protection, it hardly would matter whether there were only one soul or possibly more than one.

MU wrote: "The point about conjoined twins is that we're perfectly capable of answering the kind of question you raised without discussing souls."

I'm rather confused. How exactly did we answer the question about embryos creating two souls after conception without discussing souls?

MU wrote: "Your definition of the right to life is distressingly contingent. I wonder if you could address when those of us not "knowingly" or deliberately conceived (surely the preponderance of humanity) acquired a right to life (if we did)? Or may we all be rounded up and sent to the ovens?"

My definition of right to life was in reference to my specific situation. To clarify...

A human fetus is, in my opinion, a human being and has the right to live. A human embryo is not yet a human being, but has the right to live if it's parents decided they want to take it to term. In other words, It's ability to become a fetus should be protected once this decision is made.

If an embryo was unknowing or unwilling conceived, it does not have the right to life until it becomes a fetus. At that point, it gains the right to live since it has become a human being.

Soja, that was beautifully written.

You write: "To me every human being is a mystery, every human journey is unique. ...I do not set myself up to judge anyone. I do not feel called to be an evangelist. I relate to the human being and not to their belief. I appreciate all that is good and beautiful no matter where and in whom I find it."

Me too.

Isn't it amazing to look back to where we have come from?

Soph: "I do wish to live at a level of consciousness where this world as I see it, is not the end; where truth and love will reign; and evil will not triumph as it does in this world."

Me too.

How is it that we can come to the same values and philosophy in life, one with a god, and one without?

I have to go offline for awhile, I love this conversation and am sorry to leave.

Peace.

When I was 4 my family stopped going to church (Catholic) because our church deemed my newborn nephew a bastard (born out of wedlock-my sister was 16 at the time) and denied him baptism for this reason. Women who were divorced in this congregation were no longer worthy to partake in any sacriments. For much of my life I explored other branches of Christianity only to find more of the same completely senseless and defeating personal judgement. As we've all seen in more recent years the growing numbers of victims of even far worse crimes by the church (pedofiles as priests)coming forward I have become completely mortified and disgusted by the reach of religion's influence. About 2 years ago I came to the conclusion that Sam Harris speaks so eloquently about. But I'd like to make very clear...it was religion that drove me away from religion.

Just yesterday I picked up Letter to a Christian Nation. I broke a personal record for the "fastest ever read" book on my shelf. I am completely overwhelmed by it and cannot stop thinking about it. I am extatic about the notion that perhaps someone like Sam Harris may reach people on an intellectual level about religion and its nonsense and archain practices. Our society could use a lot more of this as so much damage has already been done by the religious right in terms of the power they have over policy in this nation. Until more moderates open their sensibilities to this we will all remain "God's Hostages".

Mentally unbalanced: "Cham, you're right that nothing I said "proves", or is contingent on any "proof", that God is. I can't prove it, any more than I can offer absolute proof that I am or you are. But if I am or anything is, God is, because God itself is being, and God is being itself."

I must not have been clear, I'm not asking for proof of god, or even it's definition. I know that there is no proof either for against the existence of god, so that argument is futile.

What I'm curious about, is what is the benefit of god? If you assume god, what unique knowledge, what unique experience does that give you that is not available to someone who does not believe in god?

In other words, what is the benefit of believing in god?

This ties in with Soja's last posting.

Cham, you're right that nothing I said "proves", or is contingent on any "proof", that God is. I can't prove it, any more than I can offer absolute proof that I am or you are. But if I am or anything is, God is, because God itself is being, and God is being itself.

Scott, yes, some citizens' understanding of human dignity is rooted in a belief that we are made in the divine image. You are perfectly free to evaluate their public policy arguments against your own understanding of universal human rights. So, yes, I deliberately steered the conversation away from soul math. If you don't believe in a soul, that question is irrelevant. The point about conjoined twins is that we're perfectly capable of answering the kind of question you raised without discussing souls.

Your definition of the right to life is distressingly contingent. I wonder if you could address when those of us not "knowingly" or deliberately conceived (surely the preponderance of humanity) acquired a right to life (if we did)? Or may we all be rounded up and sent to the ovens?

CHAM:

Many thanks for your long post which was addressed to me sharing your views on spirituality. Let me assure you that I respect your position as atheist, your concept of spirituality and your experiences, even though I do not share the same views and have had different experiences.

To me every human being is a mystery, every human journey is unique. Only God is privy to the secrets of a human heart. I do not set myself up to judge anyone. I do not feel called to be an evangelist. I relate to the human being and not to their belief. I appreciate all that is good and beautiful no matter where and in whom I find it.

I cannot say what my experiences might have been if I were not born into the culture and family that I was, if I had not been exposed to the circumstances and persons that I was, if I was not drawn by an inner call to prayer which set me on a personal spiritual journey. I was born into a deeply religious culture with a long tradition of religious practice. Family tradition has it that our Hindu ancestors were Nambudiri Brahmins (the priestly class, who practised Vedic religion, the oldest religion known to man!)who were converted to Christianity by Apostle Thomas in 52 AD. My Christian ancestors lived in the same village for centuries until my father moved out as the first one in the family. There was not much chance of exposure to the idea of atheism in my life, if you asked me. Despite all the arguments I have heard during these discussions, atheism doesn't make much sense to me. The conviction of a first cause, believers call God, is so natural to me. Praying was natural to me, even as a child.

The questions that troubled my Hindu ancestors (at least five thousand years ago), who thankfully did the work of paving the path for belief in God for me are supposedly the following:

Who am I?

If I'm not my body, then who am I?

If I'm not my mind or my thoughts, then who am I?

If I'm not my feelings or memories, then who am I?

Where did the universe come from?

What does all this mean?

I do not ask those questions because they have been already long asked. But I do wish to live at a level of consciousness where this world as I see it, is not the end; where truth and love will reign; and evil will not triumph as it does in this world. My logic, my search for truth and my sense of justice cannot be without a God.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

MU wrote: "let's not be obtuse... Forget about theology."

Let's not avoid the question.

MU wrote: "Do conjoined twins have a single name, identity and personality, or two?..."

I don't see how this is relevant to my question.

Just because some embryos fail to completely split, doesn't change the fact that a single embryo can turn into more than one individual after conception. Are you saying that surviving conjoined twins with distinct observable personalities, regardless if they are split, do not have two souls? Can the salvation of one twin, joined at the hip, get the other into heaven?

Obviously, I'm being facetious, but you get my point.

MU wrote: "Do you have a right to life?"

I have to right to stay alive as long as I deem my live has meaning to me. Should my life no longer have meaning, and my death would not result in hardship on others, I may give up this right. I gained this right when my parents knowingly decided to conceive me and bring me into this world. In other words, I conceder "right to life" to mean my parent's right to conceive a child with the intention to bring me to term.

Personally, I find the concept of aborting a human fetus offensive. Unless the mothers health is at risk, I think it should be legally limited to the first trimester of pregnancy, if not earlier.

However, while I believe that human embryos are alive and potential individuals, they are not yet human beings. Unless an embryo has been created and chosen to be brought to term, it is not protected by such right.

Such embryos are created during the process in vitro fertilization. While many are created, only one or two of most viable embryos are actually transfered into the mother. The reaming embryos are either frozen or even destroyed. Yet, due to current laws, these embryos can not be used in scientific research.

MU wrote: "The moral and legal status of the embryo is a question of human rights, not theology"

Certainly, you don't expect me to believe that religious beliefs had nothing to do with federal funding restrictions on in vitro fertilization based stem sell research, do you?

Sorry, that message was mine. I usually don't fill in the name on emails until of written it, in case I accidently hit sent. Here it sends it anyway.

That's that daft bugger Numpty coming on as 'Anonymous' replying to his own post!
The chancer has done that so many times heretofore.
What a bampot we've got here!

from "mentally unbalanced": "But science alone never will explain the total reality and mystery of human experience in a way that is remotely satisfactory to actual fully realized human beings."

I actually agree with you here.

We are amazing spiritual creatures. Even if science could explain it all, it would not change that the experiences you listed, and many more, are important to us. (I’m not sure what you meant by faith.)

I don’t think that a god is necessary to have them.

What do you think can be experienced with a god that cannot be experienced without a god? (Let's keep it in our living life, in line with the things you named.)

Speak for thyself, O Bard.

Numpty, had you said that humans are more than animals I might have gone along with you, as I imagined even you would be aware of the fact that we are animals, but there ye are, a true to form numpty that proves the case I’m about to make here!

We humans are animals alright, and 99.99% of humans are at a big disadvantage compared with all other animals. For after all, every animal, indeed, every form of life, apart from us humans, instinctively knows what is required to be what they are. But humans take up to 30yrs to develop the true potential to be a proper, civilised human, and even then that depends on many factors being in their favour, so that it is just a few (very few) that get there.

Humans with their built-in aggression (surely you’ve seen even new born babies in paroxysms of rage when expected service isn’t up to scratch?) are the most ferocious, cruel, form of life (bar none, not even the dinosaurs!) this planet has ever known.

Speaking for myself, I’m inclined to go along with Shakespeare’s fear and horror of life that represented Man as nothing more dignified or glorious than a “poor, bare, forked animal,” chance product of “our dungy earth”. Aye, and that includes you Numpty! Def'nitly!

Cham parrots the familiar argument that religion is simply an effort to explain natural phenomena for which science now provides better explanations.

The problem of course is the premise. While wind, tide and seasons present fascinating questions, they are hardly the most essential ones human beings confront. Those important questions are for philosophy and religion, not science.

Science never will explain everything. Explaining everything is not science's job. Science may be able to explain certain aspects of phenomena like "love" in terms of brain functioning and evolutionary imperatives. But science alone never will explain the total reality and mystery of human experience in a way that is remotely satisfactory to actual fully realized human beings. Cham is content to think of the human experience of love as not "anything different" than the behavior of elephants. Thankfully, very few people are such scientific totalitarians as to utter such a foolish and bizarre statement. All I can say is I'm very glad I'm not a loved one of Cham's.

The human person is not an animal. Not only love, but reason, intellect, knowledge, wisdom, will, autonomy, self-control, self-knowledge, self-expression, civilization, industry, creativity, innovation, faith, hope, justice, mindfulness, toleration, are among the more self-evident qualities that separate man from brute animals. In religious language man is created in the divine image.

Those who foolish suppose that science will supplant religion do not understand religion—and don't really understand science.

The religion side of the argument needs to stop trying to use the existence of things that science can not explain, as proof or evidence of God. These things only speak to the truth that science has not yet answered all of the questions about life.

None of these arguments even remotely make a case for God and certainly not for the Abrahamic God. This whole, "we can not explain love, therefore God" argument is so weak and desperate. There are an infinite number of possible answers to the the things that science can not explain. Among the least plausible of these explanations is the idea of God or a creator. But when you get to the specific doctrine of Christianity, the odds of this being the answer to the unknown are so highly implausible, one can say with credible certainty that it simply isn't true. Because there isn't a scrap of evidence to indicate that it is. Moreover, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the reality that God was created by man, not the other way around.

Continue to believe if you want. But we will continue on, forever and ever, dealing with you as the delusional, gullible, duped dupes that you are. We've heard all of your arguments. They are laughable at best. Pathetically naive is a more honest assessment.

Tick tock tick tock.
The free flowing information available to all found on the World Wide Web will end this madness in a couple of generations.

You will disagree with all of this.
How sad for you.

Soja wrote:
"Timmy: Your comparison of smoking to religion = silly to the core."

Allow me to edit your sentence slightly so that it actually has meaning. Just need to omit the first few words and we get:

religion = silly to the core

Enough said.

Soja John Thaikattil: There are plenty of things in life that an atheist takes for granted without demanding scientific proof. Love is one clear example. There is really no scientific explanation or proof for love, no evolutionary explanation for selfless and self-sacrificing altruism.

Here's one: evidence of love and altruism can be seen through all of nature.

In 2005 National Geographic's web site had examples of love in animals for Valentine's Day. One example was a mother and baby elephant caught in a river during a flash storm and being rushed away. The mother lifted the baby to a higher bank to safety as she was carried away. Amazingly, she survived the storm, and came rushing back to find her baby. I don't think that behavior was motivated by anything different than the love that we feel for our children.

Altruism is seen in bees that will attack if their hive is threatened, sacrificing their lives.

Dolphins have midwives, and when a dolphin is sick and is too weak to go to the surfaced, others will help push it to the surface for air until it is well.

Many animals live in groups, ants, ladybugs in the winter, zebras, deers of all sorts, wolves, birds, elephants, penguins, etc.

There is power in numbers, a better chance of surival in groups.

Here is the evolutionary explanation: a species will survive better if parents care for the young, they will survive predators and ravages of weather if they stay in a group. They will survive better if they defend themselves.

Nature has figured this out because it helps the species survive.

In people, we see a wide range for love and altruism. Some people feel it so strongly they dedicate their lives to helping others, others feel it so weakly they live for themselves. (Interesting to note that in both cases, the extreme is not to have children.)

I would argue that this is nature's experiment.

However, I do agree that there are things that are hard to explain. Love and altruism are easy. How about the love of music? An appreciation of natural beauty? But, just because we don't have an understanding right now, doesn't mean that we have to invent one right now and say that this is a sign of God, simply because I can't think of anything else.

Gods were invented very early in mans history to explain why things happened that had been observed. Gods moved the winds, the tides, the night, and precession. These gods were sometimes and often created in man's image. They were the first answer to our question why? It could be argued that gods were created from our scientific inquiry.

Over time, we have been able to learn more about our world, and we have learned that gods do not cause these things. It flows, then, that God does not cause morality, that there are other reasons for love and altruism and the evolving moral code that people have tried to encode.

If a god were all powerful, and wanted us to know it, it seems that it would certainly have been powerful enough to give us a set of universal truths that are unchanging over time. However, all religions have evolved and changed as our views of ourselves have changed. Religion has evolved with us because it comes from us.

It's time to shake off this prehistorical need to explain things we don't know with a simple explanation of god. We know now that there are explanations for things, we just don't know the answer for them yet.

Sri Aurobindo wrote that from time to time in the history of religions, atheism appears. God uses it as a stone to destroy false religion. In other words one can say that atheism serves the purpose of purifying religion, it becomes the impetus to undertake reforms in religious practice. Believers are reminded to get their act together, and to practice what they believe. But in destroying religious belief itself, the atheist must contend with the mighty power of God Himself, who is not destroyed by any atheist.

Buddhism is a RELIGION, not a mere philosophy. Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and such beliefs among others, come with the package. Go to the countries which practise Buddhism for evidence that Buddhism is a religion. (BTW Meditation was developed in the context of religion, and NOT as a relaxation technique. To treat meditation like a tool for lower purposes while ignore the real greater purpose of it is like using a Samurai sword to cut vegetables. It sure does the job well of cutting vegetables, but that is not the highest use of a Samurai sword.)

Christianity can be pursued as a high philosophy too, if one wants – go to a Jesuit seminary to get a taste of it for example. But the ordinary people practise Christianity, just like Buddhism, in ways that they understand best, in accordance with their capabilities. But that does not make the religion any less relevant, nor does it close the doors to theologians to pursue an intellectual study based on it. Religion is meant for all, not just for intellectuals, hence Scriptures are written in a simple language. Jesus constantly used parables to explain His point, in order to make His wisdom and message accessible to the simplest man.

BTW Dawkins’ website has a humorous piece titled “I don’t believe in Richard Dawkins.” I feel great admiration for Dawkins as a person for posting something like that on his website for it pokes fun of his atheism. Such a gesture shows the greatness of the man, notwithstanding his contempt for those who believe in God and his "rich" vocabulary in describing them. In the humorous piece: The usual questions that are typically asked about proof of God are applied to the existence of Dawkins based on his books. The explanations include that Dawkins does not exist as far as people who have not seen him are concerned. And as to his books, they evolved over time by random combinations of the twenty six alphabets and the evolution of his books could have happened without any design and input from Dawkins at all. Any atheist will agree that the fact books exist is the end of one's enquiry. There is no need to conclude that there must be an author, and make vain attempts to search for one! One can enjoy the books with great awe without troubling oneself with the questions about who the author might be, and trying to find out something about him. In fact one can enjoy the books while being convinced that the books don’t have an author. And if one comes across a theist who persists with the needless question “But surely books must have an author?” they can be stopped in their tracks by demanding an answer to the question who created the author of the books. Following along the logic of the atheist, the conclusion is made, first of all Dawkins doesn’t exist; his books have evolved by random combinations of alphabets over time; and it follows logically that Dawkins couldn’t be the author or first cause of his books because the answer to the question who created Dawkins cannot be found.

---------------------------

Bernie:

Nice to read the Scottish part of your thoughts again. I suspect though that you need the next dose of toad soup from your sister-in-law to help keep your harmless febrile imaginations in check. Keep up your search for truth, but nothing but the TRUTH! You seem to be obsessed with raking up garbage or making them. Surely religion deserves better than that from you! Since time and your efforts are so precious, surely you owe yourself and your search for truth much more than that!

Timmy:

Your comparison of smoking to religion = silly to the core.

Scott:

When does an embryo become a human being? When does the oak tree become an oak tree? Are the tender shoots of an oak sampling a tree? What should one call the seed of a tree bearing plant? At what point does the seed become the tree? What is the seed before it takes on the physical shape of a tree? What is the embryo before it develops into a fully formed foetus? How old does the foetus have to be before it is considered a developing human being? Can one not trust the Creator of such a complex universe and its mind boggling laws to know His business of creating human beings with a spirit, considering He has so much expertise and experience in the area?

Religion and science: My thoughts on this topic are so limited and since I have expressed them all many times on this forum, I find it rather boring to repeat myself (and I’m acutely conscious of the fact that I must be boring others who have read my comments before as well). But here it goes (again!) anyway – The number of atheists have NOT increased proportionately in the last century despite the scientific advance. Statistics show that 40% of scientists are believers even now and the numbers have not changed in the last century. If IQ and atheism were directly proportional, first of all there wouldn’t be 40% believers among scientists today, and there would be no atheists among those with low IQs. The reality however is that atheists and believers alike are found among all IQ groups.

Atheism has a different aetiology: IMHO it has little to do with a rational mind per se or a high IQ. A rational mind that demands scientific proof for everything may be a contributing factor, but that doesn't explain all atheism. There are plenty of things in life that an atheist takes for granted without demanding scientific proof. Love is one clear example. There is really no scientific explanation or proof for love, no evolutionary explanation for selfless and self-sacrificing altruism.

As for believers among scientists: The percentage of believers is in fact higher among those who do hard sciences like physics and mathematics. In one of the lectures given at the Faraday Institute of Science and Religion, (link provided earlier) a sociologist points out that scientists who end up studying the laws of nature tend to believe in God more than those involved in specialties which create worldly rules and structures themselves. He explains that those who study the physical laws of the universe probably find it easier to accept the fact that there must be an intelligent primary cause that CREATES the laws which governs the universe.
--------------------------

To Willis Elliot (Ref: 13 February 2007 6:10 PM):

Thank you for taking the time to answer some of the questions on this thread, and for sharing your thoughts. I wish you peace and joy for the rest of your days, and a happy homecoming to the Lord, no matter when He may choose to call you home. Since you mentioned death, I wanted to share with you the thoughts written by Khalil Gibran on the topic from his book “The Prophet,” (one of my all time favourite books):

On Death (from The Prophet by Khalil Gibran)

Than Almitra spoke, saying, "We would ask now of Death."
And he said:
You would know the secret of death.
But how shall you find it unless you seek it in the heart of life?
The owl whose night-bound eyes are blind unto the day cannot unveil the mystery of light.
If you would indeed behold the spirit of death, open your heart wide unto the body of life.
For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one.
In the depth of your hopes and desires lies your silent knowledge of the beyond;
And like seeds dreaming beneath the snow your heart dreams of spring.
Trust the dreams, for in them is hidden the gate to eternity.
Your fear of death is but the trembling of the shepherd when he stands before the king whose hand is to be laid upon him in honour.
Is the sheered not joyful beneath his trembling, that he shall wear the mark of the king?
Yet is he not more mindful of his trembling?
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun?
And what is to cease breathing, but to free the breath from its restless tides, that it may rise and expand and seek God unencumbered?
Only when you drink form the river of silence shall you indeed sing.
And when you have reached the mountain top, then you shall begin to climb.
And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance.
--------------------

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Soja John Thaikattil:

Spirituality is not the domain of religion, is comes from people, and was harnessed into religion very early on.

Atheists can ask the same questions that have addressed in religion: where do I come from? What are my morals? What, if any, is my purpose? How do I console myself at times of grief? What is my relationship to the other people and the environment?

Atheists can have very spiritual feelings, exaulting at the mystery, complexity and power of the universe, or not. They can have immense feelings of love for all people. The can feel forgiveness toward people. They can feel oneness with the universe. They can feel inexplicable calm inspired by a mountain. These are not religious experiences, they are human experiences.

In the beginning of peoples's civilization, we explained everything as having a cause. Not understanding the causes, we create a cause, and imagined that cause in our own image. We called these causes gods. They were the causes for the wind, the tides, the night, and for our religious experiences.

Slowly, these gods have given way and as we have understood the reasons for wind, the tides, and night. Why should the last one standing, who is accredited with human morality (HA!), be any different. Especially, when, as shown here, God's moral code has been horrifingly amoral.

You asked for a spirituality of atheism. There will be no central spirituality, people will experience the world differently, some will find it horrible, others magnificent; some will see raw rules of survival, other love and altruism, these are views of humanity. Hopefully, there will be agreement on the scientific process of discovery for exploring the world around us and understanding what it says about where we came from.

I posted this on Feb 14 in another blog about Sam at:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,536,God-Is-Not-a-Moderate,Sam-Harris-and-Andrew-Sullivan-Beliefnetcom,page6#comments

It speaks for how I feel, not for how others feel, but it is my first public expression of what spirituality means to me as an atheist:

I call this the "Spirituality of an Atheist".

I am an atheist, I don't believe that we have spirits in the sense of religion. But, I do believe that we are spiritual; that we have experiences that, even if we can explain them with evolution and neurobiology, have more meaning than that of simple neurons firing: a response to a piece of music, the wonder of the universe, love, altruism. We have spiritual needs: we ask where we came from; how can my life be meaningful; how am I connected to the past; what is my moral code; any many more.

I have been an atheist for 20 years. I was raised as a Lutheran and suffered under its direct teachings for 25 years. I switched to atheism after I started studying world history and biology in college. But, while the rational evidence presented opened the door, it was a television pseudo-documentary on the nature of people that finally changed my mind. This documentary stated that, despite the wars, despite the fighting, we are peaceful. They showed a picture a crowded city street.

I decided that I thought people were actually not horrible writhing sinners, destined to grovel before god. People are amazing. We have a great capacity to do good. I can give countless examples of this, from people of all ages, all beliefs, all cultures. I believe this today. With this belief, that I wasn't a sinner, I didn't need Jesus to save me, and I stopped believing in Jesus.

20 years later, I have been finding answers to questions that are asked in religion, the very same ideas that Andrew has raised.

Where did I come from? Evolution is the best answer I have. I am made from compounds formed from the stars. I am related to all life on earth. How does impact my life: I feel overwhelmingly connected to all of life. I am not here as ruler, but I have to respect and preserve nature, we can destroy it. I believe that consciousness, love, beauty, and even altruism can be explained someday through the arguments for evolution. Some things are hard, what about music? I don't have all the answers, but that's ok.

I have learned from Hinduism that people seek the truth. That is the point of this discussion. It helped me remove the judgemental approach I was taught in Christian upbringing, and respect each person's path. I had a "live and let live philosophy". However, now Christianity is being forced on me and my kids, and I have to fight for my right to not believe.

Within the past five years I have started exploring the history of my cultural traditions. I am raising kids, I wanted rituals that represented my new views, not those of Christianity. I have learned that my traditions, the Christmas tree, the wreath, even Christmas itself predates Christianity. I have reclaimed the traditions as my own now, and revel in the fact that by continuing these traditions, I am connected to my ancestors dating through prehistory. Now, I have started exploring the history of Christianity, it's very interesting.

I love that I am free to question things openly. I was taught not to question, not to explore the world, other ideas were evil. Now, I can explore the world.

I have discovered that I have an internal moral compass. I trust myself to decide what is right and what is wrong. If I make a mistake, I can learn. While I can learn from others, and I value lessons for philophers and some preachers, but the lessons I learn are still my choice, not someone else's edict.

I no longer believe in heaven and hell, I believe in the circle of life. I will be cremated. The energy and material that I am will be released, and I will become part of something else. Is this reincarnation? Perhaps a natural one, talking about the body, not the soul. I don't believe in a soul.

Only in the past few days, I learned a lesson from an article in the Atlantic monthly on Bush's mind, he's efficient with his time, because his minutes as president are limited. I realized the implication of having just a short time here. Life is not to be endured, only to be rewarded with heaven in the end. Life is to be lived here and now. I can do nothing with my life, or I can try to make a contribution. I can love my kids and cherish the time I have with them. I can volunteer, I can try to do the best I can, I can enjoy life to the fullest, or not.

Soja John Thaikattil:

Your faith in religion is amazing, just as amazing as the denial of it's resistance to contributions.

People have advanced. Science has advanced. Religion has even advanced.

However, it is seldom religion leading the way. Rather religion is often responsible for digging in its heels and jailing or murdering the people who have offered advancements.

Look at the raging efforts to stifle teaching of evolution for a current example. Or that the earth was round.

Once a new philosophy is in place, religion warps it's way around it, and tries to take credit for it. This is intelligent design. Happened with the inspiration for the world being round too.

These arguments of god are not from God, but from people. Always have been, always will be.

I remember when I was 5 not listening to a sermon in Church, and imagining Mighty Mouse flying through the stained glass window and carrying me out.

15 years later, I found a way out, and I'm still free! But, I've felt caged.

Thanks Sam for opening a window.

Don't getcha kilt in a snit, O Bard.

Numpty, check for yersel that the current Pope has quite catagorically stated that members o' the Anglican Church ain't Christians at all!
And as for Boodists an Muzzies, they're way beyond the pale (am inclined tae go alang wae Benny in that regard!)

Oh aye, Benny will be mealy mouthed wae the best o' them an say he didnae mean that but the auld bugger will be right there on Judgement Day tae consign us all tae hell for not being kaflicks!
Aye an though you're a kaflic yer still headin for the same destination as the rest o' us for what ye've postit on here under 40 diff'rint aliases! Bampot that ye are!

Bernie, I'm afraid you're badly misinformed. There undoubtedly are plenty of grounds for criticizing Catholics and their Church, and you're welcome to do so, but please at least get your facts straight.

As for the Catholic belief in transubstantiation and the Real Presence: [a] As was covered in a previous exchange above, this belief is *NOT* that the Eucharistic species are changed in a "literal" or "physical" sense. [b] This belief is not some 19th century invention but has existed throughout apostolic tradition. [c] It is *NOT* Catholic teaching that non-Catholics who reject this belief are any less Christian. [d] It is *NOT* Catholic teaching that only Catholics (or only Christians) can hope for salvation.

Hivvins! What a right bampot this Father Numpty SJ is!
Well, what are we tae make of:
“Scott, just a comment. Regarding your stated supposition that the Pope would insist on a scriptural interpretation that was directly contradicted by clear and convincing empirical evidence, that supposition is quite mistaken. Catholics don't read scripture literally and, unlike most Protestants, do not regard scripture as the sole source of revelation.”?

“Kaflics don’t read scripture literally!”

Well, cristyins sich as Father Numpty SJ are very well aware o’ the fact that an numpty cristyin pope took it upon hiself tae 'infallibly' declare 18 hunner yrs after the Last Supper when Jesus spoke o’ the bread n wine as his body n blud it was ment literally, not symbolically, (as any reasonable human wid understand it!)

So that noo, a wee bit o’ white, embossed, plastic(economically tae save on the wine that the priest drinks for ye but diznae eat the plastic for ye!) is transformed by magic mumbo jumbo intae not jist flesh but blud as well!

But when Jesus said, “I am the door”? (John 10.9) and “I am the vine”?(15.5)did that mean Jesus meant he was an oak panel? A walnut veneer? Or a bunch o’ juicy grapes?
And if ye don’t buy that then ye’er not a cristyin accordin tae kaflic doctrine!

As none other than the cynical UK PM Tony Blair discovered when his kaflic wifie decided their weans should be enrolled in schools wae the best academic records no matter the expense for sich private schoolin’! Even if it entailed Tony being required tae convert tae being a kaflic hiself which he readily intends tae go along with once he gets out of jail (for selling honours!) What a shee-it! Even a cardinal (Hume no less) rebuked the chancer for participating in Communion afore he is baptised a kaflic, as kaflics are the ONLY cristyins that can hope fur salvation! And Tony has dutifully refrained from the ‘sacrament’ o’ communion since then till he makes the big switch!
Him an Dubya make a right perr o’ cristyins eh!

Scott, let's not be obtuse.

Forget about theology. Do conjoined twins have a single name, identity and personality, or two? How many social security numbers do they have? Is each of them a distinct autonomous natural person before the law, with full civil and human rights? Does each of them have an independent right to life, or is that basic human right somehow diminished or impaired by their condition? Are any of these answers contingent on the specific anatomical parts they share? Do any of the answers change if the twins undergo surgical separation?

The moral and legal status of the embryo is a question of human rights, not theology. The question is simply this: Do you have a right to life? If you do, when did you acquire it, and why then? If that right exists from the very beginning, then whether an embryo has yet divided is as irrelevant as the fact that some twins are born conjoined.

None of that has anything to do with the existence of a soul, or with speculation about when, how or whether ensoulment occurs.

MU wrote: "Finally, I'm afraid your question about soul math reminds me of the counting-angels-on-pinheads mind game. However many individuals Nature determines ultimately will develop, their souls are present contemporaneously. There's no addition or subtraction going on."

A mind game? I disagree.

Counting the number of angels on a pinhead has no significance in todays world. Pinheads are of varying sizes (difficult to quantify) and people do not ban medical research over how many angels can fit on one of them.

So you're saying that, if a mother ultimately delivers identical twins, both souls were created at the moment of conception - even though only one human embryo was initially formed? This soul is in limbo until the embryo splits and forms to separate, but identical embryos?

Or is there a divine soul fulfillment house that assigns existing souls to every new human embryo when they pop into existence?

Really curious to know: What is a soul (at least as it is defined in Judeo-Christian tradition)? I was raised Christian but I am afraid I don't really know.

Our physical bodies are conceived when the sperm meets the egg. Is that when the soul is made too? But would that mean perhaps the soul is not separate from our corporeal being...?

Christianity: The future in it is (still) imaginary.

Scott, just a comment. Regarding your stated supposition that the Pope would insist on a scriptural interpretation that was directly contradicted by clear and convincing empirical evidence, that supposition is quite mistaken. Catholics don't read scripture literally and, unlike most Protestants, do not regard scripture as the sole source of revelation.

As for the future of the Papacy itself, that's a more complicated question. Yes, there always will be a bishop of Rome, as long as Rome is inhabited. That bishop's role within the wider Church, however, has evolved and could change again, especially if there is progress in advancing Christian unity.

Finally, I'm afraid your question about soul math reminds me of the counting-angels-on-pinheads mind game. However many individuals Nature determines ultimately will develop, their souls are present contemporaneously. There's no addition or subtraction going on.

Soja wrote: "Why is there a need to paint God out of the picture in the name of science, as if belief in God were incompatible with finding out the truth about the universe He created? It is particularly ironic since science developed with a foundation of religion and the separation of the two specialities is quite recent, and nobody seems entirely sure on what basis the separation took place."

You're making the assumption that God should have been in the picture in the first place.

You and I are surrounded by living things. Loved ones, co-workers, plants, animals. We have evolved to relate to our environment as if it was alive. Doing so is highly advantageous since much of our environment reacts to our actions (or lack there off).

The success of your marriage is highly depended on how you treat your spouse. You work hard so you can get a raise from the boss. Dogs can curl up at your feet or bite you. Crops die if they are not cared for. People do not always act in a friendly or rational manner.

It's in our nature to personify things, even when we know they are not alive. Some people plead with their cars to start on cold winter mornings and scream obscenities at their computers when they crash.

As such, it's not unusual for us extend this concept to the universe and the infinite number of events that surround us.

When the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west, we think there is some intelligence behind it. When children are born or people suffer and die, we ask "why and how?" We want a fair and just universe, even though one does not exist.

The fact that the separation of science and religion is a recent trend is quite likely due to the fact that science has discovered a significant amount about the nature of universe in the last 100 years or so.

For example...

Christians think that a 3 day old human embryo has a soul. However, science has revealed that a three day old human embryo (blastocyst) only contains 150 cells, which is absent of nerves or even neurons. Blastocysts sometime split to form identical twins or fuse together to form a single individual, known as a chimera. Where did the extra soul come from (or go to?) Based on this knowledge, the mathematics of souls simply do not add up.

MU wrote: "For instance, Scott, are you suggesting that a Christian of at least average intelligence approaches his faith any differently than as your quote from the Buddha advises? Do you actually imagine that ordinary people approach their faith without questioning? I just find such a perception astonishing and incomprehensible (I won't waste energy being insulted by it)."

I'm an amateur photographer. My primary interest is in architectural and night photography. While walking downtown to shoot photos one Saturday night, I ran into a group of Christian activists unloading their van. I've seen similar groups before - standing on the sidewalk with a bull horn, informing bar hoppers they were going to hell if they didn't believe in Jesus as their personal savior.

Since we were both headed in the same direction, one of them thought I was with the local paper and accused me of following them for a story. Once I informed him that our meeting was merely a coincidence, he went on to ask if I believed. When I told him no, he went on to ask who or what was my "ultimate authority?" I told him that, while I made decisions based on information from various sources, ultimately, I was my own authority. Of course, he went on to tell me that the Bible was his ultimate authority and that God had led him here from Texas to work in a local church.

When I politely suggested that HE was his own ultimate authority, since he made the decision to believe in the Bible and listen to "God", he gave me a strange look and did not agree.

While I certainly wouldn't conceder these activists average Christians, I do think that people make assumptions about reality that can have significant effect on their decision making process. I've come to this conclusion, in part, from my own personal experience and observing the actions of others.

Note: I don't think that religious people are stupid. Nor am I somehow superior to others. However, I do think that many people fail to realize the degree they are effected by culture, their social / economic position and their upbringing. To a certain degree, I still include myself in this group.

To summarize, I think Christians do question their faith, but they do so under assumptions about reality that lead them to make particular conclusions.

I'd also note that the current Dali Lama has stated if empirical evidence is revealed to conflict with Buddhist texts or beliefs that empirical evidence should take precedence. He also states that it's up to the people to decide if another Dali Lama should be appointed after his death. Somehow, I don't see the Pope saying either of these things any time soon.

Atheism: There's (still) no future in it.

"What's your authority for overriding nature in saying 'freedom for both women and men is more important'? "

Willis, my point is that people can create a social construction for their own selfish motives and claim that such a construction is "nature's plan" or "God's plan." Why should we take such people at their word? How the hell can anyone know for a fact if nature or deity has a plan, and what that plan might be. We can look at nature and make certain conclusions, but those conclusions are merely subjective opinions. Reasonable people can made radically different conclusions about nature.

I disagree with Dawkins' claim that a man is servant of his genes, for the same reason I disagree with Augustine's claim that humans are inherently sinful and wicked. The human brain gives us the ability of moral choice. We can decide for ourselves which actions help or harm others. If we wish, we can place greater value on helping others than on preserving our genes. I define morality as about actions that help or harm others, and in my view, laws and other social constructions should follow that principle.

Why are "womb-controls" necessary for a viable society? I value monogamy not because of some genetic principle, but because adultery causes harm through betrayal and deception and breaking of promises. And those principles are valid even for infertile couples.

And your claim that "the facts are that women want to control interpersonal relationships" does not sound credible to me. I am skeptical of anyone who claims to know the motivations of someone else, whether it's an individual or an entire gender.

Alas Soja, the trouble with that wee parable you quote is that the message being flashed emanated from one human to other humans and was also intelligent and speedily understood by most humans. It is in no way analogous to the numberless, cacophonic interpretations that would be put on such flashing if emanating from those responsible for the Bible (word o’ God?) or even be on a par and make as much sense if the flasher was none other than Father Numpty SJ himself!

Yes MU I'm back.
I missed being called adorable.

Your denial of the negative effects of religion is tantamount to a tobacco executive's denial of the negative effects of cigarettes.

save the religion
save the tobacco company

There are people who smoke their whole lives and never get cancer.
You will be a Christian for the rest of your life, and it may have no ill effect.
It may even have positive effects.
Cigarettes relieve stress.
But even smokers won't deny the disastrous effects of smoking.
They just can't quit because they are addicted.

So many interesting correlations.
So much blind denial.
So sad.
But the tide is turning.
"Non religious" is the fastest growing demographic in the world.
This will continue in perpetuity.
It is a world trend.
Thank God.

Soja

The word "atheism" is a misnomer.
It isn't an ism at all.
It is simply a disbelief of your outlandish assertion.
I am only an atheist when confronted by an assertion of God.
At all other times, the word "atheist" describes nothing about me.
At all other times, I'm just a free thinker.
Atheism doesn't play at all in my day to day life.
It has zero positive effect.
More importantly, it has zero negative effect.
It is benign. It causes nothing.
Unlike religion.

The positive effect of religion is the same as the positive effect of denial.
The negative effect of religion has millennia of blood and suffering and corruption on it's hands.

You will deny this.
So will MU.
You are both wrong.

PLEASE NOTE:

In the studies that have been conducted to assess the positive effect of religious practice, there is mounting scientific evidence that religion is GOOD for human beings.

I wonder where the data for the positive effect of atheism is coming from. Perhaps the atheists can elaborate and provide some reliable facts and figures.

Disclaimer: I wish to emphasize that my comments above regarding scientific views are based purely on the opinions expressed on this thread. I'm fully aware that 40% of scientists are believers, and as such are not likely to share the view of atheists on this thread. It may well be that the opinions expressed on this thread echo the views of Sam Harris alone and does not speak for any other scientist.

Can we still be going around in circles?

Mention the word culture and suddenly the discussion shifts to slavery and "blind adherence".

Mention the word faith and the most bizarre caricatures emerge that bear no resemblance to reality.

For instance, Scott, are you suggesting that a Christian of at least average intelligence approaches his faith any differently than as your quote from the Buddha advises? Do you actually imagine that ordinary people approach their faith without questioning? I just find such a perception astonishing and incomprehensible (I won't waste energy being insulted by it).

I do think this may be the nexus of our mutual incomprehension.

Bernie (Ref post 9 Feb 2007 8:15 PM):

Due to technical reasons it was not possible to post on this thread for a couple of days at least. Navigating this thread seems to have become somewhat of a challenge too because of the number of posts. Besides, I took it that this thread had died of natural causes. Hence the delay in responding.

So now Bernie: I’m so very pleased by your gesture to post your selection of Scottish poetic gems again! Thanks indeed! The International Edinburgh Festival sounds cool. And to the Scottish acquaintance with the other world, very profound indeed. As a believer I have plenty of reason to believe in a spiritual world that exists between man and God, a spiritual world thickly populated with spirits of all kinds – angels (good and bad), spirits (good and bad), powers and principalities etc. (The Catholic church has in fact a whole area of specialty dedicated to studying the spirits, and it is called “Discernment of the Spirits.”) In addition to that world I believe that there is a world of febrile imaginations, both Scottish and otherwise, and the worst cases are attended to by psychiatrists. Your poem however seems to point only to harmless spirits of both types (not a case for the priest or psychiatrist), although I am not a specialist to express expert opinion on the matter.

And as for the Scottish language, while I appreciate and enjoy what you write on this thread, I wonder if many would be as keen to learn it as the Scots are, or read it with such enjoyment as I do. I wonder too if the Scots would learn Scottish themselves if they weren’t born with it, considering that in this day and age, it makes more sense to learn Chinese and Hindi (BTW knowledge of Hindi is quite useless in South India, so knowledge of Scottish might be more useful in South India).

And forget the discussion about the Holocaust! Do you know how many thousand books have been written on the topic and the zillion discussions about it? Nobody, absolutely no one has been able to come up with an answer to the evil manifested in that one. Human free will choosing evil, abuse of power, anti-Semitism born of envy, are some of the plausible explanations. But before you rush off into your characteristic anti-Christian tirade: The Nazi religion was NOT Christianity. It was German nationalism. The “Hakenkreuz” (hooked cross) is a Hindu symbol called the Swastika. The direction of the Hakenkreuz is however different from that of the Hindu symbol, much like the symbol of a cross upside down. The Nazis chose the Hakenkreuz to represent the Aryan concept represented in their philosophy. Some believe that some Nazis might have indulged in some form of occult practice. Reliable information on such matters would be hard to come by and such information would add nothing to what is known about the Holocaust. What is vitally important now is to know is that in Germany, it is not only politically incorrect to express any kind of approval of Nazi atrocities or the Nazi regime; it is also illegal to do so publicly.

And since the topic of atheism seems to be reigniting from the ashes on this thread:

Why is there a need to paint God out of the picture in the name of science, as if belief in God were incompatible with finding out the truth about the universe He created? It is particularly ironic since science developed with a foundation of religion and the separation of the two specialities is quite recent, and nobody seems entirely sure on what basis the separation took place.

Combining atheism and spirituality creates great confusion in my mind. Spirituality is not the domain of science or the rational mind, and it has always been the domain of religions. In tackling spirituality, science is merely attempting to explain with its own vocabulary an area which has remained the specialty of another domain since the beginning of time. Do the sophisticated vocabulary being introduced and the attempt to measure effects of spirituality with advanced technology do anything for the cause of spirituality itself? For the believers it merely reaffirms faith. It may have some bearing on the sceptics who rely entirely on science for their perception of reality and wait for science to tell them what to believe. Science isn't coming up with ideas about how to practise religion but merely measuring the effects of beliefs and spiritual practises perfected by religious traditions over thousands of years. But what of reality science may never be able to explain, as Dawkins “humbly” admits may well be case no matter how much science advances? Am I to accept the worldview as science understood it five hundred years ago, or is likely to understand five hundred years from now? See the difficulty in depending entirely on science for one’s worldview? Does my belief in God make my belief in science disappear? Not at all. For me belief in God gives science a greater purpose. Why should science not seek to discover God’s universe and understand it better each day, and why should not man use the brain God created to create a better world for fellow human beings? Self transcendence and selfless service are all integral to religious beliefs from the earliest times. So I'm genuinely puzzled if what science is trying to do is nullying the achievement of religions by taking over the area as if it were the invention of science. Scientific discoveries, as truth about the physical universe which God created, are as much a revelation of God as Scripture is. If science chooses to reinvent the wheel regarding the achievement of religions, of course it is free to do so, but it should give religions due credit for getting there by different methods a long long time ago. Clothing religious ideas in scientific terms and devising methods to measure effects of religious ideas and spiritual practice isn't the same as scientific invention. I express this as one who is passionately interested in the ethics of scientific practice.

If spirituality can be explained in terms of atheism, then surely God being an extension of spirituality should make perfect sense to the atheist.

There are some interesting lectures conducted by The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Lectures.php

Prof. Davies: “The intuition that many people have had down the centuries that an intelligent mind behind a universe in which intelligent life has appeared is a satisfying, and reasonable, primary cause, especially when otherwise we are left simply with a chain of secondary causes which have no ultimate explanation.”

The first use of the word atheism in the Oxford English Dictionary is from Francis Bacon in the 17 th Century, “A little superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline the mind of man to atheism.”

Ernest Lucas (Lecture God and the World):

“The parable: It was a warm summer evening. Two people were walking along the beach listening to the gentle lapping of the waves and looking at the star-studded sky. They both spotted a light flashing out at sea. One of them was a professor of physics, the kind of scientist who thought of nothing but his work. Science was his life. He rushed to his car where, being the sort of person he was, he kept all kinds of scientific equipment. He got out a stopwatch and timed the flashes. He got out a photometer and measured the brightness of the flashes. He set up a spectrometer and recorded their spectrum. He noted the position of the light against the background stars. As he drove home along the coast road he stopped a couple of times and noted its position again as it appeared to move against the background stars, and did some triangulation calculations on his laptop. When he got home his wife said, 'You look excited dear, did you see something interesting tonight?' 'Yes,' he said, 'I saw what I deduced was a heated tungsten filament, enclosed in a silica envelope, emitting a regular pattern of flashes of visible radiation at an intensity of 2,500 lumens from a distance of about 850 metres offshore.' The other person on the beach that night was a teenager going home from Sea Scouts. When she got home her mother said, 'You look excited dear, did you see something interesting tonight?' 'Yes,' she said, 'I saw a boat signalling SOS. I phoned the Coastguard, and they sent out the lifeboat.'

This 'parable' illustrates the fact that the same event may have more than one level of explanation. Science, by the very methods which it uses, is restricted to the study of material things - matter and energy - and so its explanations are always expressed in materialistic terms. As a result it explains the mechanisms of nature - in the parable, how the flashing light was produced. It cannot answer questions about meaning and ¬purpose - in the parable, why someone was shining the light and the message it carried. The scientific explanation could only go as far back as the tungsten lamp (the secondary cause). It couldn't get back behind it to the mind of the person using it (the primary cause).”

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

From Scott's post:
"Do not accept anything by mere tradition"

Bingo.
Exactly. The word "tradition" has mostly a negative connotation to it for me because it implies to follow blindly because "it's tradition".
"If it was good enough for my dad, that's all I need to know." type of thing.

"Culture" can be taken like tradition if it is treasured too much."
Slavery was a cultural thing.
Misogyny is often a cultural thing.
The caste system is a cultural thing.

These things were, and still are, perpetuated by a blind respect for culture, just because "it's our culture".

The melting pot takes the best of all of the cultures, and discards the "just because" bad stuff. We are all enriched by all of the cultures of the world. But only with open eyes. Not by blind adherence.

MU wrote: "Harris is of course right to suggest that truth is not culturally contingent. Yet for most of us the reality is that real lives are lived primarily in a particular culture. And most of us believe that culture is to be cherished, not obliterated. Christians come from every corner of the globe and every culture."

Culture can be preserved and even cherished, without being practiced or accepted as reality. Unless you live in a culture where it's dangerous to question it's beliefs, continuing to observe a particular culture without reflection on it's merit is not what I would call living.

Perhaps my drive to question culture and religion stems from the fact that I don't see myself as playing a clear role as defined by God. If you've already got it figured out, why question it? Perhaps this is what Dawkins was referring to when he said Christianity offers "cut-and-dried answers."

MU wrote: "Indeed, as is often noted Christianity is growing fastest outside the West. Conversely many Westerners see no impediment to adopting Buddhism."

The fact that Christianity is growing faster outside well established Christian regions should not surprising. After all, the West is already predominantly Christian.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html

Personally, I view Buddhism a philosophy, not a religion. (although not everyone shares my view.) The Buddha himself indicated you should not believe any of his teachings just because he taught them, but to test them for yourself.

"Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But when you know for yourselves — these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness — then do you live acting accordingly."

Based on this view, I think It's quite possible to extract empirical part of Buddhism from it's faith.

Anonymous: Yuck and double yuck. I wish you well in your banal, meaningless, deracinated and dehumanized utopia, but you can have it. Count my family and me out. Thanks but no thanks.

Unbalanced says:
"Actually we prefer to call such hearsay "testimony".

The key words here are, "we prefer".

Thank you for making my point for me.

Then unbalanced says:
"And while there isn't "evidence" in the sense of conclusive empirical proof, there is the powerful testimony of the prophets of Israel, the Apostles, and the lives of the saints."

Only if you consider ancient hearsay to be powerful testimony.
Ergo: Gullible.

Unbalanced says:
"And most of us believe that culture is to be cherished, not obliterated."

This is, thankfully, a fleeting attitude. Overly cherished culture breads segregation.
I am an anti nationalist. Melting pot, not mosaic.

"Imagine there's no countries,
I wonder if you can,
Nothing to kill or die for,
A brotherhood of man."

One day we'll get there.
"And no religion too"

Unbalanced:

The way I read it (reading Dawkins now), I don't see Dawkins saying so much about validity of the bible itself (besides the obvious inconsistencies if one is to read the bible literally). For instance, when Dawkins writes about the OT, he is just saying that the OT reflects the norms and customs of the day and perhaps are not appropriate for direct application to our daily lives in the 21st century, or that much effort is needed to interpret the true meaning.

I did not say that religion causes anything. All I am saying is that people use religion to validate or defend "bad" behavior. Other ideologies, theories, etc. do that too. However, religion deals with absolutes (not always well-grounded in empirical support) and may be difficult to change if necessary.

I think Dennett makes a persuasive case for the "we are not allowed to criticize religion" statement. Religious beliefs are given deference compared to almost everything else.

Anonymous says, "Because there is not a scrap of evidence for such outlandish claims. Just ancient hearsay." Actually we prefer to call such hearsay "testimony". And while there isn't "evidence" in the sense of conclusive empirical proof, there is the powerful testimony of the prophets of Israel, the Apostles, and the lives of the saints.

It's quite amusing to find Harris proselytizing with such zeal for his own brand of faith. As a missionary he has much to learn. He is unlikely to persuade anyone through insults. When he refers to the "carcass of Christianity" he merely demonstrates yet again his abject ignorance. The Body of Christ is alive—fully and eternally alive—nothing at all like a carcass (was his use of that particular term intended as a double insult?) How can Harris even presume to understand the experience of a mature faith lived in a communion that transcends time and space? He just has no idea what he's talking about.

Harris is of course right to suggest that truth is not culturally contingent. Yet for most of us the reality is that real lives are lived primarily in a particular culture. And most of us believe that culture is to be cherished, not obliterated. Christians come from every corner of the globe and every culture. Indeed, as is often noted Christianity is growing fastest outside the West. Conversely many Westerners see no impediment to adopting Buddhism.

Harris goes on to extol the rapid advance of scientific knowledge, without explaining why or how such knowledge magically becomes unavailable if one belongs to a faith community. (It doesn't.)

Believing in the idea of God is wishful to be sure.
It is also harmless, perhaps even helpful and life enriching.
Nothing wrong with it. Nothing delusional about it.

Taking the "idea of God", and getting as specific about "him" as do the Abrahamic religions, goes beyond wishful, to desperate. It is either delusional, or purposely lying to one's self for life. Because there is not a scrap of evidence for such outlandish claims. Just ancient hearsay.

The idea of God is comforting.
For me it becomes the very opposite of comforting to put all of your eggs into one particular group's God basket. For these people, there should be a mirror beside the word "gullible" in the dictionary.

On "the idea of God" (spirituality) vs "the one true God"
Sam Harris speaks eloquently in his debate with Sullivan.

"... let me make it clear that I do not consider religious moderates to be “mere enablers of fundamentalist intolerance.” They are worse. My biggest criticism of religious moderation is that it represents precisely the sort of thinking that will prevent a fully reasonable and nondenominational spirituality from ever emerging in our world. Your determination to have your emotional and spiritual needs met within the tradition of Catholicism has kept you from discovering that there is a mode of spiritual and ethical inquiry that is not contingent upon culture in the way that all religions are. As I wrote in The End of Faith, whatever is true about us, spiritually and ethically, must be discoverable now. It makes no sense at all to have one’s spiritual life pegged to rumors of ancient events, however miraculous. What if, tomorrow, a blue-ribbon panel of archaeologists and biblical scholars demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Gospels were ancient forgeries and that Jesus never existed? Would this steal the ground out from under your spiritual life? It would be a shame if it would. And if it wouldn’t, in what sense is your spirituality really predicated upon the historical Jesus?

I’m asking you to imagine a world in which children are taught to investigate reality for themselves, not in conformity to the religious dogmatism of their parents, but by the lights of truly honest, fearless inquiry. Imagine a discourse about ethics and mystical experience that is as contingency-free as the discourse of science already is. Science really does transcend the vagaries of culture: there is no such thing as “Japanese” as opposed to “French” science; we don’t speak of “Hindu biology” and “Jewish chemistry.” Imagine a world that has transcended its tribalism—racism and nationalism, yes, but religious tribalism especially—in which we could have a truly open-ended conversation about our place in the universe and about the possibilities of deepening our experience of love and compassion for one another. Ethics and spirituality do not require faith. One can even achieve utter mystical absorption in the primordial mystery of the present moment without believing anything on insufficient evidence.

You might want to say that every religion offers a guide to doing this. Yes, but they are provisional guides at best. Rather than pick over the carcass of Christianity (or any other traditional faith) looking for a few, uncontaminated morsels of wisdom, why not take a proper seat at the banquet of human understanding in the present? There are already many very refined courses on offer. For those interested in the origins of the universe, there is the real science of cosmology. For those who want to know about the evolution of life on this planet, biology, chemistry and their subspecialties offer real nourishment. (Knowledge in most scientific domains is now doubling about every five years. How fast is it growing in religion?) And if ethics and spirituality are what concern you, there are now scientists making serious efforts to understand these features of our experience—both by studying the brain function of advanced contemplatives and by practicing meditation and other (non-faith-based) spiritual disciplines themselves. Even when it comes to compassion and self-transcendence, there is new wine (slowly) being poured. Why not catch it with a clean glass?"

Puzzled: Dawkins and Harris (in particular Dawkins' letter that Bernie quoted above) certainly are concerned in the first instance with the validity of truth claims, insisting that we reject everything that is not verifiable by empirical means. The supposed ill effects of religion follow from irrational beliefs. In any case, it's impossible to talk about religion and not talk about truth, since religion is a search for truth (as presumably is science).

We've probably discussed this before, but I have to object again to the notion that "we are not allowed to criticize religion". Contradictory evidence is all around you.

Mentally Unbalanced:

People like Sam Harris and Dawkins criticize religion because religion is often used to justify "bad" things (good things, too) AND we are not allowed to criticize religion; a bad combination. Discussion about what is "true" or not is more a distraction than anything since it's not an issue that is going to be resolved any time soon.

Willis Elliott:

I don't know what is the basis for the statement that "women want men to lead in return for protection"? Perhaps in the past, when physical strength was important, it was difficult for women to be economically independent. But as women eventually gain economic independence in modern times, that "protection" does not have to be provided by men, possibly leading to different norms and behavior.

As for religious organizations not being as capable of self-correction as secular organizations, my experience has been that religious organizations have a hard time doing that (but I never said ALL religious organizations were bad at taking self-corrective actions). The "evidence" is just anecdotal, so perhaps there are religious organizations that do well in rejuvenating themselves. But then again, if argument and questioning are suppressed and believing unconditionally is considered a virtue, I find it hard to believe that a majority of religious organizations do a good job at self-correction.

Bernie, I hate to oblige, but...

The above excerpt from Dawkins, a fair précis of his views, demonstrates the man's appalling ignorance once he ventures outside his self-made prison of scientific absolutism.

He says, "I and other scientists are humble enough to say we don’t know." Well, that's admirable and refreshing, but it is hardly the point of differentiation that he wishes it to be (and hardly is in evidence when Dawkins discusses religion).

Dawkins finds Christianity's truth claims deficient not only because they're unprovable but also because he imagines (perversely) that they're too specific.

He says the Creator is "a very particular supernatural intelligence". Now, we shouldn't be surprised that the Creator, if there be one, is outside nature, should we? As for the Creator being "very particular", yes, Christians believe there is at most one creator. That hardly seems an outlandish claim, once you decide to believe in a creator in the first place.

Dawkins objects to the doctrine of the Trinity because it holds there are exactly three (no more or fewer) Persons in the Godhead. It's true we can't have fewer, because we know that God made us, redeemed us, and lives in us. But could God reveal additional Divine Persons? That's up to God.

Dawkins claims that Christianity offers "cut-and-dried answers". This of course is sheer nonsense. First of all, the atheists in this discussion delight in pointing out the staggering number of Christianity's branches. That in itself shows the answers hardly are "cut-and-dried". The fact that in former times it was deemed necessary to employ violence to suppress heresy belies the premise of "cut-and-dried" answers. In truth the big issues have been pondered, prodded, examined, researched, prayed over and debated for millennia. The answers are anything but "cut-and-dried".

Dawkins thinks Christians should be troubled by the existence of non-Christian, especially pagan, belief systems. He says, "McGrath presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs." This is Dawkins' adorable "athorist" argument—that everyone is an atheist with regard to the beliefs of others. Again, this is an astoundingly simple-minded analysis for someone of Dr. Dawkins' reputed genius. Truth claims are either valid or not. If there are at least some elements of truth in the Greek or Viking myths (and undoubtedly there are, or we would have forgotten them) so what?

You'd think Dawkins might actually try to learn something about the object of his disdain—if he were rational, that is.

Well, well WELL! It’s great tae see there’s still a bit o’ life left here yet! And I must say it felt like a loss when it looked like it had all ended. My immunity system had even built up an adequate resistance tae Father Numpty SJ tae sich an extent I even missed him too!
And not only that but there is sich ignorance o’ the Scots language in here it seemed like it was a call from God tae enlighten you lot! Well I mean none o’ ye would know that Scots was the official language o’ Royalty! And the odds are you would all be speaking Scots if it hadnae been for that guy Tyndale’s translation o’ the Bible and later updated as the Authorised Version (authorised by who!) Bet none o’ you know Shakespeare had a hand in writing up the majestic English of that Bible! Something I’ll set you all tae thinking about later on if this great meetin’ place continues.

In the meantime it looks like Willis never saw Richard Dawkins’ prompt riposte to the abysmal McGrath article on the very next day in that same journal (London Times newspaper)

Here it is:

Alister McGrath has now published two books with my name in the title. If I seem “grumpy”, could it be because a professor of theology is building a career riding on my back? It is tempting to quote Yeats (“Was there ever dog tha praised his fleas?”) and leave it at that. I will, however, dignify his article with a brief reply.

McGrath imagines that I would disagree with my hero Sir Peter Medawar on ‘The Limits of Science’. On the contrary. I never tire of emphasising how much we don’t know. ‘The God Delusion’ ends in just such a theme. Where do the laws of physics come from? How did the universe begin? Scientists are working on these deep problems, honestly and patiently. Eventually they may be solved. Or they may be insoluble. We don’t know.

But whereas I and other scientists are humble enough to say we don’t know, what of theologians like McGrath? He knows. He’s signed up to the Nicene Creed. The universe was created by a very particular supernatural intelligence that is actually three in one. Not four, not two, but three. Christian doctrine is remarkably specific: not only with cut-and-dried answers to the deep problems of the universe and life, but about the divinity of Jesus, about sin and redemption, heaven and hell, prayer and absolute morality. And yet McGrath has the almighty gall to accuse me of a “glossy”, “quick fix”, naïve faith that science has all the answers.

Other theologies contradict the Christian creed while matching it for brash overconfidence based on the same zero evidence. McGrath presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Is McGrath an “ideological fanatic” because he doesn’t believe in Thor’s hammer? Of course not. Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because I see no reason to believe in the particular God whose existence he, lacking both evidence and humility, positively asserts?
RICHARD DAWKINS FRS
Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science
University of Oxford.

Thank you, Dr. Willis! Godspeed!

This thread has slimmed down to a drag, so this is my last post on it. I'll respond (by date & time) to some questions I've been asked, but first I'd like to suggest a few readings + one quotation:

1----Type "The Dawkins Delusion" into Google to see a fellow Oxford professor's attack on Dawkins' "atheist fundamentalism." Alister McGrath is a biochemist & eminent theologian.
2----Francis S. Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), THE LANGUAGE OF GOD: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press/06).
3----Huston Smith (eminent MIT philosopher), THE SOUL OF CHRISTIANITY: Restoring the Great Tradition (HarperSanFrancisco/05). You may remember "The Wisdom of Huston Smith," Bill Moyers' series of five PBS interviews.

Here's the quotation, from the great scientist Stephen Hawking's A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME (Bantam/98): "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way [viz., the Big Bang] except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Now, a few comments on Sam Harris'"10 myths--and 10 Truths About Atheism," LOS ANGELES TIMES 12.24.06: "Evolution is a culmination of chance mutuation and natural selection." (My comment: "chance" is mathematical nonsense; & while evolution is science, "natural selection" is as much unscientific poetry as is "intelligent design": both smuggle in the personal (unscienfic) element--a "selector" or a "designer." Harris coops "spiritual" from religion for his nonreligious purpose: he describes "spiritual experience" not as experience of the divine but only as "love, ecstasy, rapture and awe." In this sentence he commits the fallacy of the false dilemma, an unread either/or: "Which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it, and will punish you for not doing it?" (My comment: Most help for the poor comes from those who put "and" where Harris put "or.") Says Harris, we don't need religion to sanction morality, because "moral intuitions are...hard-wired within us." (My comment: The bulk of psychosocial evidence sees evil as well as good in human nature as we know it, neither more "hard-wired" than the other.)

2.7.05/4:50am--"God has no {material] body or brain, so God's mind and will are somehow 'other' than ours." True, & the Bible says it in a number of ways. But are you implying that since God is nonphysical, he doesn't exist? Of course there's no physical evidence for the metaphysical (what's on the other side from the physical); but the absence of (material) evidence of transcendence is not evidence of the absence of the (nonmaterial) transcendent. To see the effect of the Big Bang on all this, see the powerful cumulative pro-God argument of William Lane Craig, "The Untimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe" (leadershipu.com)

10:37am----"Creation is NOT good!....Who made the fallen angels and the fallen people....an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent Supreme Being....[The Supreme Being should be able, with
freedom, to] think up something better than the misery and suffering...." My comment: They say we may be able to make computers smarter than we are: maybe God has made you smarter than he is? You are correct that in Is.45.7, God says "I create evil {Hebrew, "ra")"--i.e., what from our human perspective we judge evil. But God's mind is not just ours written big: rather, "my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55.8-9; Abraham Lincoln had a keen sense of this). The suggestion that we cut the divine down to fit our notions of good/evil is, upon analysis, a suggestion that we eliminate God & divinize ethics (as we conceive good/bad, right/wrong).

1:33pm----"the extreme importance you seem to place on generic paternity....freedom for both women and men is more important....[before DNA] neither parent knew that the child was another man's son....why do you define 'cuckold' to refer to jilted men and not to jilted women?" My comment: According to Richard Dawkins' THE SELFISH GENE, a man is the servant of his genes & serves them poorly if he has no children: doesn't it follow that mores & laws (i.e., social constructions) should serve this natural concern? /My comnment: What's your authority for overriding nature in saying "freedom for both women and men is more important"? / Your assertion that "neither parent knew" does not factor in the social constructions (e.g.,in Islam, the harem & the bloody marriage-night [proof that the bride was a virgin]) designed to prevent cuckoldry. No, I don't support either of those womb-control social constructions--but it's fatuous to assume that any society without any womb-controls would be viable; yet radical feminism, unrealistically, condemns all such controls as "sexist" & "oppressive to women" (so, e.g., radfems condemn the Bible for what actually is human [e.g., monogamy is unnatural but human]). / You need to look up "cuckold": it hasn't anything to do with jilting. Google-Wikipedia: "A cuckold is a married man whose wife has sex with other men."
Now, notice how monogramy disadvantages the male genes, allowing them (e.g., in Utah law) access to only one womb. Before monogamy, Abraham's genes were getting nowhere with Sarah's womb, so she gave him her slave to have sex with, & that's how the world got the Arabs. It's a trade-off: do women want a more human (monogamous) mate, on condition of their own monogamy (i.e., self-limitation to one penus)? Does monogamy (as the Bible & I think) correlate with a higher view of & status for women? If so, how can it best be socially constructed (mores/ethics/laws + both-spouses' personal sexual discipline)? (The notion that sex needs no social construction is an early-puberty fantasy which "the sexual revolution" extended into immature adulthood.)

4:59pm----Not religion but "people (men) have created a patriarchal social order....religion has been USED to sustain the [male]dominance....religious dogma is by definition rigid and therefore difficult to change as societal norms are changing....People are using religion to validate and defend their 'bad' behavior." Your first assertion presumes a falsity, viz. that women do not want men to lead: the facts are that women want to control interpersonal relationships (& are naturally better at it than are men) while having, from men, protection & leadership. That men (without women) "created" patriarchy is feministic ideology contradicted by social psychology, anthropology,& history. // Yes, "religion has been used to sustain [male] dominance"--a misuse of religion, which is for male leadership & against male dominance. But getting rid of religion (were it possible, which is isn't, religion being natural [one aspect of human nature]) would not get rid of male leadership (which is an aspect of our species). Female leadership? As good as male! I hope I get to vote for Hillary! / Unlike religious organizations, "secular" have "self-correcting mechanisms." Not my experience of religious organizations. Organizations, secular & religious, are self-correcting to the degree that the participants are autonomous (self-ruling). / One of religion's social function is honoring the past (tradition) as lore (funded wisdom), thus protecting society from excessive change of "norms" (such as occurred, many sociologists are now saying, in 1960s America). / Yes, religion gets used to "validate and defend...'bad' [as well as good] behavior." Far from dodging religion's problems vis-a-vis society, my attacks on bad religion are more pertient (because more knowledgeable) than the attacks of oursiders. But on this washingtonpost thread, I'm defending religion against malicious/ignorant/unfair attacks by atheists & agnostics.

2.8.07/1:18am----"what kind of truth and freedom" originates in the Bible? / "why counldn't he [the Christian God] have communicated it [his message] in a clearer fashion?" / On cuckoldry, my husband & I don't need "the Bible's imperfect [social] constructions": "My husband does not worry: we love and trust each other." / Quoting me: "There can be no 'objective evidence' of any form of transcendence." / I should not say "'you materialists': some of us grant transcendental experiences." // America's "truth and freedom" founding documents, beginning with the Mayflower Compact (1620), are (with the exception of the Constitution & Bill of Rights) explicitly biblical in language--the Constitution & Bill of Rights, implicitly so. Liberation is a major theme of the Bible: freeing of slaves from Egypt, freeing of exiles from Babylon, freeing of sinners through divine & human forgiveness, even freeing of mortals from death (in the power of Jesus' resurrection). / I agree: if I were God, I could have done a better job. But since I'm not God & must work with my severely limited resources (in comparison's with God's), I must assume that the job I would have done would have been worse even though clearer. / The Bible says laws (including social constructions) are made by people who need
them: you & your huband are not in need of anti-cuckoldry social constructions. Congratulation; thank God! / "Objective" evidence is within the sphere of "objects," the sphere of immanence: the sphere of transcendence has its own
appropriate evidencing (again, Pascal's "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know."). Atheists often commit the logical fallacy of assuming that "the absence of [objective] evidence" = sufficient "evidence of absence [of God, of transcendence]." / By "you materialists" I meant (& should have said) "you materialists among those on this thead."

6:35am----"Let's assume that God had no idea what would happen when he created us or gave us free will. Does that absolve him from making these decisions?....Perhaps the real issue here is sovereignty....there is no rhyme or reason to our existence." // You have stated what is a formal debate within theism, viz. whether God can know the future. The "open theists" say he cannot, so he was indeed taking a chance on us, & we disappointed him. But if (as I believe) he does know the future, the eschaton (the final event of history) will show him not to have needed absolution for his sovereign decisions. / Yes, "sovereignty," lordship. In the OT, God's personal name is "Yahweh" (rendered as "Lord"); in the NT & at the heart of the Christian creeds, "Jesus is Lord"--in the earliest Christian Bible, which was in Greek, "Kyrios" (Lord) is the bridge name of God between the Testaments (Old Testament & New Testament). / I regret that at present you lack the resources to make sense of existence, yours or that of anybody or anything else. May you reconsider & open yourself to reality.

12:50pm----"The only [personal] standard for assessing the credibility of scripture is whether the struggles and longings and conundrums [in scripture] resonate with you on any level." To say yes to your statement, I had to add the word "personal." If one opens the Bible with the determination (the pre-judice) to be deaf to any such resonances, the experience will be of little or no profit. But if simultaneously you open both the Bible & your mind/heart, what glorious music you may hear! Or to put in in terms of sight instead of hearing: If you open the Bible with both the desire to see & the courage to be looked at (by God), what will happen will confirm in you a reason why the Bible continues to be the world's #1 best seller.

2.9.07/12:07am----"We're not an 'image' of an omnipotent being....We're the results of millions of years of natural selection." Your statement shows why it's impossible to believe in both God & evolution-by-natural-selection (though I believe, as do almost all theologians, in both God & evolution). "Selection" in "natural selection" smuggles into science a personal element (a selector), corrupting science into "scientism" & setting up a rival for God. (See the article, above, by Craig.) A Pew survey showed that more Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus than in "evolution." A double tragedy: Americans need to love Jesus (God) & also love science (if we are to techno-compete with, especially, China & India). How stupid not to love & promote science! How stupid to love & promote scientism (evolution poetically mixed with, polluted by, personalism)! How wonderful to love God, Creator (as the Bible's first verse says)of "the heavens and the earth" (i.e., the universe)!

I close this last post of mine on this thread with a quotation I've adapted from Thomas Aquinas.
It ends with how I see my dying, which can't be far off (as I'm in my 90th year): "The road that stretches before our feet is a challenge to our hearts long before it tests the strength of our legs. Our destiny is to run to the edge of the world and beyond, off into the darkness: sure in spite if all our blindness, secure in spite of all our helplessness, strong in spite of all our weakness, joyfully in love in spite of all the pressures on our hearts. In that darkness beyond the world, we can begin to know the world and ourselves--and to understand that we were not made to pace out our lives behind prison walls but to walk into the arms of God."

Phil,

MU really isn't being condescending, he's asking questions that are designed to clarity my views. As I mentioned in my post, he was successful in this goal.

If we're going to have a dialog about religion, it's important that we can ask each other "tough questions" without offending each other.

testing

Mentally Unbalanced-I am so tired of your condescending responses to any statements that profess to know that there is no God. Particularly your response to Scott on February 2nd at 12:35am.

You start by thanking Scott for his sincere comments. You then go on to make fun of his entire post with your pseudo intellectual babble.

In his post at 12:07am, Scott described his "experience of feeling one with nature". In your response you asked, "How is a feeling of being one with nature, not fundamentally irrational"?

You really shot yourself in the foot with that one. I want you to substitute the word "God" for the word "nature" into your question and tell me whether that changes the meaning of your question?

Please take your holier than thou attitude and go back to your cave. Your vomitus is getting really old.

MU wrote: "Hard to see how an unnoticed blip of existence matters. Can you walk me through that? How is it anything other than wishful thinking?"

I did not claim that my life was unimportant. I said the span of an average human life is but a moment when compared to the millions of years we've evolved as a species. Only within the last few centuries have we been able to expand our view beyond this brief window of time and see this.

It's my opinion that our world-view has yet to integrate this fact into it's reality. Our role in evolution is, for the most part, unknown by the population in general. This limits our ability to see how our actions can effects humanity as a whole. How we could destroy the fragile balance of life on our planet.

MU wrote: "How is "a feeling of [being] one with nature" not fundamentally irrational?"

How is it not rational? I am part of nature. It's incredibly easy to loose sight of this in today's world. I'm made of the same atomic building blocks as the stars, trees and rocks. All of us are. A feeling of being one with nature is simply allowing ourselves to be open to reality, instead of being lost in conceptualizations we use to categorize and quantify our world.

MU wrote: "You say, "...I don't see how we'll survive as a species." Okay, but who the heck cares—and why?"

Why do I go on living? As Puzzled indicated, much of our motivation is based on biology and practicality. If I am hungry, should I not eat? If I am cold, should l not seek shelter? If I am curious, should I not seek knowledge? I continue to live because it appears to be the best choice given the situation I find myself in. As I'm fond of saying, "entropy sucks" and I'd like to leave this world in a better state than I found it.

Enjoyment does not require some divine origin. We know that sexual attraction is based on our genetic directive to reproduce. Does this make sex less enjoyable? If science finds a biological source for the emotion of love (which I think it eventually will), would it make the feelings we experience less real? Would we stop falling in love? I think not. However, understanding why we behave the way we do gives us valuable insight into our relationships and our behavior.

MU wrote:"What natural phenomenon are you referring to by the "clutch that we can use to temporarily disconnect ourselves from our thoughts and our instincts"?"

When we experience something, we label and categorize it. One thing makes us happy while another makes us angry or sad. What you may attribute to God, I may attribute to nature. These events simply "are", yet we give them significance based on our culture, political views, personal and religious beliefs and our genetic instructions. We can step back and see this process. We can question our beliefs and our response to the world around us.

Yes, some events result in better outcomes than others. We need to conceptualize our world so we can drive cars, build machines and perform our jobs, but if we mistake these concepts for reality we are simply fooling ourselves.

I do not claim to always act in a rational manner. I am only human. Yet, somehow, we have evolved into conscious beings. We can see our irrationality. We can no longer hide behind tradition, ignorance or destructive biological instincts. To do so, in my opinion, is irresponsible and even dangerous. Based on this process, I can no longer say that I believe in God.

I know that I was raised as a Christian because I was born the midwest of the United States. Had I been born in Iran, I would have likely been raised to be a Muslim. Had I been born a few miles from either side of the Israeli-Palestinian border, I would have been raised to think that *my* people were the chosen children of Abraham and that my neighbor was my enemy. My culture's religion would be correct and everyone else's would be wrong. This sort of thinking is dogmatic and can have devastating effects.

I'd like to add that I find this discussion very enlightening at a personal level. It's so easy to get wrapped up in your daily life and loose track of one's core beliefs.

It looks like Sam’s pages have hit the buffers! And how can that be with sich a lot tae discuss! Fri’nstance why the early Cristyins thought up that bit about “Crucify him! His blood be upon us and our children and children’s children, etc, etc!” Turns out to be no more than a fraudulent interpolation added on tae assure the Romans that the Cristyin target wasn’t them but other Jews!
But with what devastating repercussions all down the centuries that saw Jewish folk condemned and persecuted as god killers culminating in the Holocaust!
Since it was the Jewish folk that Jesus was exclusively concerned for how on earth the cristyins can justify the horrible treatment dished out to those folk, not to mention the rest of the horrors cristyins got up to surely still has tae be told!
At least here's hoping it keeps the page alive!

The following is for Soja’s delectation only! So here’s hoping Sam doesn’t put out a fatwa on me for what might look like a takeover o’ his page!
It’s jist that the powers that be here decided on plays an the poetry o’ sich as Moliere, Brecht, and sich like tae the total exclusion of our own home bred talent!. Can ye blame us for what follows (a very mild protest when ye think on it!)

Oh nivir mind! This is fur you Soja and any others that appreciate real talent unlike them that are sae quick tae come on here just tae say it is the maist appalling rubbish they’ve ever heard!

THE EDINBURGH FESTIVAL

Hail to the International Festival at Edinburgh,
As it goes on ploughing its noble furrow
Presenting famous works of the Scot and even the foreigner
Which is something very out of the ordinar.
For I don’t see why we should rely on a Hun or a Gaul,
When we have great Scottish writers like poet McGonagall,
Who, with humility of true greatness once said:
“I bow the knee to Shakespeare, but to no other poet living or dead!”
For he could write poetry as fast as any man on Terra Firma,
And was dubbed Knight of the White Elephant by the King of Burma.
But yet, oh Edinburgh Festival, may your glory never fail,
Also your floodlights on the Castle and Calton Jail;
As folk from many lands swarm to plays and concerts,
Which are all very well sponsored.
Then they all feel light and fey, and buy shortbread and tartan
And feel very melancholy at partin.
For their hearts are sad and heavy, and tears their cheeks do stain
As they dash off smartly to catch their train.

And yes Soja, us Scots are very well acquainted with other worlds as ye can see here for yerself!

FOLK FAE ANOTHER WORLD?

Man, when I get thinkin
that some o' the moon's fungus
might be jinkin
here and there among us—
Or maybe wierder urchins like Mercurians or Martians,
or folk fae Venus, who I suppose are called Venerians,
have conquered gravitational pu'
and are cruisin space for new experience—
it near gives me the grue…(fever)
Yet what such worthies would be seekin,
rovin around here and keekin, (peeping)
I cannae rightly conster. (understand)
Faith! If we can stand our Loch Ness Monster,
our warlocks, trolls and the witches
that Tam o' Shanter saw loupin on crutches, (loupin=leaping)
I think we can e'en welcome thae other yins. (yins = ones)
Let the English Southrons
quail, that are so dainty nurtured,
they scarce will cross a churchyard
when the moon is high and owls are wakit, (awake)
for fear they meet the wolves o' Hecate.
We, that hae hobnobbed wi' the Quality
o’ the nether world, can face reality
fae outer spheres
without unco fears. (unco = unknown)
And Rabbie himself, had he thought we'd be meeting
fellow things fae the outer universe,
would, I'm sure, have quickly hewn a verse
of warm and couthie greeting, (couthie= warm, sociable)
with a charity
of widest solidarity
Though o'er the warld the tempests lour, (frown, rhymes wae sour)
He wad proclaim the law that (wad = would)
ilk thing to thing the Cosmos ower (ilk = all, everybody)
should brithers be for all that!

Belief without hard evidence is not necessarily irrational. Belief in the face of hard evidence to the contrary is irrational. In this vein, "feeling one with nature" is not necessarily irrational since we interact with nature in ways we do not completely understand (taking a walk in the park may have beneficial effects, i.e., it "feels good" for both physiological and psychological reasons, much of which may be only imperfectly understood with the current state of scientific knowledge).

Apparently, if you're religious, the ONLY reason to live is to please god. Perhaps "god" wants us to discover the purpose of life on our own without assuming there is the ONE answer that is unchanging? Or perhaps there are many versions of that answer?

Maybe it is OK to NOT know if the world we live in is without some (pre-determined) "purpose." But just because we do not know, why does that unknown have to be called "god's will"? Not only is all that we do not know supposedly rolled into "god's will," but that "god's will" is described in detail (contradictions and all) in the collection of writings we call the Bible (not some other book, say Tao Te Ching?).

Lastly, to paraphrase, "why don't those people kill themselves?" I know Unbalanced did not really mean this but was trying to be provocative, to make a point. I will try to be equally provocative (for the sake of being provocative, and perhaps to make a point, too): If we're sinners and it is inevitable that we will sin even if we confess our sins and surrender to god, then why don't we confess to god and beg for mercy (and when we hear him forgive us for our sins during prayer), AT THAT POINT, AND ONLY THEN, kill ourselves, thereby guaranteeing salvation? (Why live any longer if we know we have salvation?)

Thank you for your sincere comments, Scott.

You say the fact that your life is a "tiny blip" makes it "all the more precious." I'm sure you can appreciate that your finding significance in insignificance sounds pretty counterintuitive. Hard to see how an unnoticed blip of existence matters. Can you walk me through that? How is it anything other than wishful thinking?

How is "a feeling of [being] one with nature" not fundamentally irrational?

What natural phenomenon are you referring to by the "clutch that we can use to temporarily disconnect ourselves from our thoughts and our instincts"?

You say, "...I don't see how we'll survive as a species." Okay, but who the heck cares—and why?

Mentally Unbalanced, Let us consult good old Merriam-Webster:
Enjoy: “to take pleasure or satisfaction in”
Living: “having life”
Does that clear anything up for you?

- Enjoying living does not need to have any reality outside my perceptions – it is a subjective phenomenon (though probably well-based in biology). The criteria are mine alone – what makes life good for me may be somebody else’s idea of hell on earth.
- You certainly don’t have to take my word for it. Perhaps you don’t have any experience of enjoying life - you poor, poor thing.
- I have no need to justify my existence to myself or anyone else. I am here just as the birds that paddle around in the lake in front of my house are here. Somehow the ducks and I ended up in this strange, mysterious, and interesting universe; thus, we live. I find life wonderful enough that I want to make room so that others may have the same opportunity for life that I have, so I try to minimize my footprint on this earth and I donate to charities that help the less fortunate. But I have no need to justify my consumption of resources to anyone any more than a bear needs to justify its consumption of fish.
- Yes, I am very fortunate (though not particularly oblivious). I cannot speak for why less fortunate people go on living – I would imagine that most of them derive some satisfaction from their existence. Some people do choose to kill themselves. Why do most animals not commit suicide? We animals have strong self-preservation instincts. And face it, humans are animals.
- If I ever come to the point that I no longer enjoy living, if I have no expectations of enjoying living in the future, and if there is nobody who would suffer as a result of my absence, I very well might end my life.

As for the rest of your questions, if you make a claim, you need to provide evidence or reasoning that supports that claim. If you claim that these answers are irrational or based on faith, then support those statements. When prosecuting a case, a prosecutor doesn’t provide as his sole argument: “he can’t prove that he hasn’t murdered anybody, therefore he’s a murderer” – he would be laughed out of the court. If you don’t want to be a laughingstock in this “court,” support your case.

Puzzled is correct.

My belief is that we weren't "put here" for some specific reason. We exist. Period. There is no God that is sovereign over the universe and everything in it. I don't have make God's will fit my reality.

I see humanity as moment in time. The process of millions of years of evolution. We are not designed by a higher-power. We are not a unchanging, sharp-edged piece of a puzzle that only fits in one place. We are a work in progress.

If we appear to be "complete", it is only because it takes millions of years for us to change. If we see ourselves as pieces in a puzzle, it is because we surround ourselves with puzzles of our own creation.

I believe we're here on this earth for a very short time - then we'll flicker out of existence. In fact, my life is a tiny blip compared to millions of years before me (and, assuming we don't all destroy ourselves first, the millions of years ahead of me.) And that makes my life all the more precious.

I too am in awe of the world. I experience love, fear, a feeling of one with nature; but I do not need to attribute these experiences to a supreme being. The fact that we have evolved from simple life forms into human beings is truly amazing. We're not an "image" of an omnipotent being created in a single day, we're the results of millions of years of natural selection.

Many have speculated we've only become aware of our thoughts (become conscious), in the last 3,000 years. We, as conscious beings, have a clutch that we can use to temporarily disconnect ourselves from our thoughts and our instincts. While our traditions and genes may have served us well in the past, we can - and must - take an active role of directing our evolution though consciousness. If we do not, I don't see how we'll survive as a species.

What the devil does "enjoy living" mean? What are the criteria? Does "enjoy living" have any reality outside your imagination? Do I have to take your word for it—just because you say so? Why isn't "enjoy living" just wishful thinking, since there's not the least guarantee that the past is prologue? How does "enjoy living" justify your polluting the air others breathe and consuming many times your share of resources and putting innocent people at risk when you drive? How can you say no justification is required—just because you say so? You do realize that 99% of humanity is not lucky enough to enjoy the kind of charmed and oblivious existence that you do—why do you think they go on living? Do you promise to end your meaningless existence the moment "enjoy living" stops? If not, just how long would you prolong it in the absence of "enjoy living", and what would then be your justification for doing so? How did you arrive at any of these answers solely through the use of reason? In what sense are they not irrational? In what sense are they not stories you tell yourself? In what sense are they not faith?

I know. Just because.

Sorry, that last Anonymous was me.

Maybe you could explain how "because I enjoy living" is equal to "just because." Or maybe not. Because there is no explanation.

Right. Whoever you are, Anonymous, I'll put you down for "just because".

Mentally Unbalanced, if you don't care about number 4, then what is the point of 1 - 3? How is it relevant to the topics at hand (religion and its effects on the treatment of women)?

Re: "The stories a person tells herself to justify continued existence are no more rational than anybody else's stories. They amount to faith, or are indistinguishable from it."
What nonsense. I have no need to tell myself any stories to continue existing. I enjoy living, therefore I continue to live. No stories required. No justification required. No faith required. No irrationality involved.

Re: "I'd love to be proved wrong. Just remember, merely asserting that you "don't need no stinkin' God" is unresponsive to the question, and an answer that reduces to "just because" is equivalent to all of the previous unsatisfactory answers."
Saying that I continue to live because I enjoy life is completely responsive to the question of why I continue my life – it is a very direct answer. Nowhere did I say that I continue to live because I “don’t need no stinking God,” as you so eloquently put it. People’s imaginary friends are irrelevant to whether or not I choose to continue living. Nowhere did I say “just because,” either. Let me reiterate for the short of memory: I continue my life because I enjoy living (not just because). Really, you need to work on your memory and reading comprehension skills. Come back when they’ve improved and maybe we can have a real conversation.

P.S. Just remember, however few deities you believe in, there are many deities in the Greek Pantheon, and if anything is, they are.

wm, Numbers 1 through 3 are correct. I don't care about number 4.

The stories a person tells herself to justify continued existence are no more rational than anybody else's stories. They amount to faith, or are indistinguishable from it.

I'd love to be proved wrong. Just remember, merely asserting that you "don't need no stinkin' God" is unresponsive to the question, and an answer that reduces to "just because" is equivalent to all of the previous unsatisfactory answers.

P.S. However many "deities" you disbelieve, there is only one God, and if anything is, God is.

"Tonio, those claims are unprovable, so what else is there to go on but resonance?"

What I'm suggesting is that maybe religion shouldn't be about personified deities or afterlives. Maybe, as Puzzled mentioned, is that it's up to the individual to decide or create his or her own purpose in life. If the teachings of Jesus or Buddha can help someone in that journey, then why concern ourselves with any claims about the divinity of either man?

Re “WM, as you well know, no one has been able to answer the question without resorting to irrational claims.”
No, I don’t “well know” this – I don’t even know it. Perhaps you could spell it out for me. What part of continuing to live because you enjoy living and have no reason to kill yourself is irrational? Be specific.

Re “Contrary to your misstatement, the question has nothing whatever to do with God.”
Really? Then what is the point of your “suicide” questions? Isn’t the point that you are trying to make that:
1: It is irrational to not kill yourself
2: The atheists posting her have obviously not killed themselves
3: 1 + 2 show that atheists are irrational
4: Irrational atheists cannot make a rational case against your God (yes, your God, people worship many Gods on this deity-infested planet).
If this is not the case you are trying to make, please clearly describe your argument – I would hate to waste energy in swatting over a straw man.

I think what Scott intended to say was that there isn't necessarily some big purpose to our existence that has been given to us (e.g., by god). That is, what he seems to be saying (and I am more in agreement with that) is that our purpose in life is what we make it to be. Just because we're making it up as we go along does not mean that we should not be doing anything.

WM, as you well know, no one has been able to answer the question without resorting to irrational claims. I honestly would like to know if anyone can, so I have invited Scott and the Bard. We'll see if they offer anything better, or anything at all.

Contrary to your misstatement, the question has nothing whatever to do with God. But nor can the answer have anything to do with the presence or absence of God.

P.S. God is not "my" God any more than God is "your" God. God is God.

Tonio, those claims are unprovable, so what else is there to go on but resonance?

Unbalanced, your standard for assessing scripture's credibility is a good one. I would probably replace the word "credibility" with "value." Scripture's personal resonance has nothing to do with the accuracy of its claims about deity and the afterlife. I would argue that even a hardcore atheist can find resonance in scripture.

Perhaps Mentally Unbalanced should consult a dictionary more often - he seems to have trouble understanding the meanings of words that most 6 year olds would grasp (such as deity).

Perhaps he should also work on improving his memory; if he remembered any of his previous posts it would be obvious why a reader of this thread would think that he is trying to convince people that life is meaningless without his God, so why not kill yourself?

While he's at it, perhaps he could work on his reading comprehension skills. Maybe then he would understand the perfectly rational reasons that many people have already given him for not killing themselves despite not believing in his God.

Perhaps I should stop killing time and go find something more constructive to do than laughing at a numpty.

Care to take a crack at it then, O Bard?

The only standard for assessing the credibility of scripture is whether the struggles and longings and conundrums they dramatize resonate with you on any level.

Aye, a perfectly fair and self-evident question -- but only tae a numpty!

Scott is the one who volunteered that his existence is meaningless (or at least "there is no rhyme or reason"). Nobody said anything about a "deity" (whatever that is). And nobody's trying to convince anyone of anything. Just asking a perfectly fair and self-evident question.

Wow, there goes "Mentally Unbalanced" again, trying to convince people to commit suicide because they don't believe in his favorite deity ... what a good, loving person he is! So Christian!

It's a nice, quiet morning for splitting a few hairs ... so, re Tonio's last post: "I suggest that the authorship would render as suspect a strict literal reading of the Bible."

I would tend to view the Bible as more credible (not less) because it has multiple authors if a few conditions were met:
1) Each author claimed to have had experiences relating to the same God and these experiences were strikingly similar (less likely to have been invented by the authors).
2) The identities of the authors of the various books were confirmed through research (there was good reason to believe that the books weren't ghostwritten by people with their own reasons for wanting people to believe in this deity).
3) The authors were demonstrably ignorant of others' experiences with the same deity.

If these conditions were met, then I think that the Bible would be more credible because of its authorship than a book written by a single person who claimed that God was speaking solely through him when he penned his holy sci-fi.

Of course, there are many other problems with a literal reading of the bible that have nothing to do with the number of contributing authors. I hope that knowledgeable Christians of good conscience are able to spread the word to the "literalists!"

"I think that pretty much everyone here recognizes that many people authored the individual chapters in the book at different points in history. I don’t think that anybody is saying that this renders the content suspect."

I agree in part. I suggest that the authorship would render as suspect a strict literal reading of the Bible. Although most Christians do not follow such a reading, the ones who do tend to be vocal and influential, as we have seen with creationism issues in public schools.

Scott, if "there is no rhyme or reason to our existence," why prolong it? What purely rational basis can there be for you, having reached this conclusion, not immediately ending your pointless existence?

Wills wrote: "My New York judge father often shorted the lens-barrel to widen the visual field: "Consider the alternative." Would you personally want to live in a world (indeed, a universe) without freedom?"'

Wills, I don't believe that there is a God that created and controls the universe. Therefor, I'm not limited to this sort of dualist thinking. However, since you do believe in God, you must somehow reconcile God's will to our freedom of choice.

Personally, I'm incapable of making such reconciliation.

MU wrote: "Consciousness and omniscience, at least within the limits of our language, imply a brain. God has no brain and could not possibly have a brain. As for omnipotence, we're again trapped by human concepts of what it means to be powerful (and boxed in by things the Almighty paradoxically "can't" do)."

For the sake of discussion, let's leave omniscience and omnipotence out of the equation. Lets assume that God had no idea what would happen when he created us or gave us free will. Does this absolve him from making these decisions?

Does this change the results of my analogy? The hardware designers certainly were not omniscient or omnipotent. Nor were the software developers or the end user. Yet, the results are the same.

Perhaps the real issue here is sovereignty.

I believe the universe *is*. That there is no rhyme or reason to our existence. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow and die without knowing him, I will be punished eternally for my lack of faith. If you believe in God, you must concede that these facts are somehow in line with the sovereignty of God.

PS Bernie:

As to the contradictions in the Bible, remember if Bible scholars, (considering hundreds of them, including many monks and priests over the centuries, have devoted their whole lives to the study of the texts)had wanted to produce a document with correct historical details, no contradictions whatsoever and perfectly knit like a novel, they could have done that. But they didn't. You should count it in favour of the Bible rather than against it.

Human beings are like unique prisms (call it unique conditioning, gifts and personalities if you like)which reflect the light of God differently although God is the same. It is like water that takes the shape of the container. That accounts for inconsistencies, that accounts for different languages and expressions used in different cultures to describe God and God experiences. Remember God is infinite, and He can be described in countless ways. To illustrate the point, there is a story about six blind who try to describe an elephant. They touch only one part of the elephant, different parts though, and jump into two conclusions: 1. They are confident that they know what the whole elephant is like, 2. That their version of the elephant alone is the whole "truth." So to the one who feels the leg, the elephant it is like a pillar, to the one who feels only the trunk, it is something and so on.

No other religion, except Christianity, has a founder who claimed to be the Son of God. Read John's Gospel, chapters 14-17 if you are curious.

Bernie (Ref post 6 Feb 07 8:32 PM)

This thread seems to have run its long course, so I presume you’d not be posting your poetic gems anymore. I did genuinely enjoy your sense of humour and reading the Scotch (is that what the Scottish dialect is called?) was fun.

Thank you for your kind words too. But, you say I brought you down to earth with a thud. How that? I didn’t get the impression you were flying in the sky at all, just febrile sometimes. I take it that you are a nice person despite your energetic condemnation of anything related to religion. In my opinion, religious hypocrisy is worse than condemning religion!

It’s good to know that the hot-toady (? toad soup) your sister-in-law concocted helped you get better without any help from the Jesuit martyrs. The Jesuit martyrs could have used the time to intercede for somebody else who didn't have anyone to give them a hot-toady (there are millions of them as you know).

On a final note on this topic: 1. The Celts, I was told by an Anglican priest from London I met in 1992, are deeply spiritual people, and have a wonderfully profound Christian spirituality. So you must have some of the deeply spiritual type in your family too. 2. Jesus Christ is the only person in the history of mankind who claimed to be the Son of God and one with God. He came two thousand years ago to give us a first hand experience of God’s heart. And yet you cling desperately to certain images of God as portrayed in the Old Testament. Surely, two thousand years is time enough to give up the bogey man image of God? Surely there are other images of God possible between a bully and a wimp?

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

I wrote this post in the few minutes that I could scrounge up here and there before I saw all of the other posts responding to Willis Elliott's February 1, 2007 6:00 PM post. Sorry for any repetitiveness (and for the delay in the response – it has been a busy week).

I think that the most important thing that he wrote was: “Of course I agree that "Christians and Muslims of conscience (should) stand up and bring reform to religions from within." We all--in culture, government, whatever--need to clean up our acts.” It’s good to hear that he recognizes the need for change – I hope that he is actively attempting to affect necessary change from within the churches.

Addressing a few of his points:
(WE) “1----Erroneously, some of you refer to the Bible as a "book."”
(WE) ”2----So how can I be a "Bible believer," seeing that the Bible is not a book but an evolutionary archive?”
(WM) The Bible is certainly a book in the sense that you can flop onto the bed in pretty much any hotel room in the U.S., pull open the bureau drawer, and pull out a bound collection of pages with “Holy Bible” stamped on the front. I think that pretty much everyone here recognizes that many people authored the individual chapters in the book at different points in history. I don’t think that anybody is saying that this renders the content suspect. (Anyone who disagrees, please speak up)

(WE)”3----freedom: as the Bible (& that U.Chicago Divinity School Chapel arch) puts it, "The truth shall make you free." But, one of you said, even if the Bible correlates with truth & freedom, that doesn't prove the existence of God. "Prove," no.
"Evidence," yes:”
(WM) I would need to see some evidence of this lauded “truth and freedom” that is associated with the bible to pay any serious attention to this. What kind of truth (that originated in the Bible)? What kind of freedom (again, that originated in the Bible)?

(WE)”4---- And God, who gave them freedom to investigate & create, wasn't about to prevent their occasionally getting it wrong; & even misunderstanding/misrepresenting God's intention. …… (Several of you have brought to my face a sad smile, in your childlike question: If God had written the Bible, wouldn't he have made it easier to understand?}”
(WM) It’s too bad that more Christians don’t agree with Willis Elliot’s first point, I wish him great success in spreading the word!
I think that this version of the question about the confusing nature of the Bible is oversimplified. The question for me in this area is: if the Christian God exists and he WANTS his message to be understood, then why wouldn’t he have communicated it in a clearer fashion, rather than inviting misunderstanding? Or is his message of so little importance that it wasn’t worth communicating clearly? Apparently, if he exists, he isn’t terribly concerned with ensuring that people understand his message – it must not be that important – at least it must not be that important that people catch on sooner rather than later. Did he really want his followers splitting up into endless “red-hat” vs. “blue-hat” factions and bickering about issues of faith and doctrine? This just seems perverse.

(WE)”5----None of you (to my knowledge) has addressed the problem I've challenged Sam Harris' naive
"women's equality" with, viz. CUCKOLDRY.
(WM) Perhaps Willis Elliott missed Pam’s post which addressed this on February 1, 2007 4:38 PM. She not only criticized the Bible’s imperfect constructions, she proposed a better one: encouraging men and women to build loving, trusting, faithful relationships with their spouses. My husband does not worry about whether or not our daughter has his DNA – this is because we love and trust each other. If someone is concerned about the paternity of his children, then I don’t think that his religion is doing much to improve the health of his interpersonal relationships.

(WE) “6----At 1:39 this morning, one of you said "faith + doubt = hope, not faith." That's a false either/or. Hope is the futuric form of faith. We walk on two legs: the courage of faith (i.e., the courage to believe) & the courage of doubt. Some get stuck in intellectual adolescence, not taking the next step., viz. doubting their doubts. In that condition, reason stifles imagination, which doubt can free into "the second naivete." (For a masterful-mature exposition of this, see FIDES ET RATIO.) Without this re-juvenation, the Bible will read like nonsense. (Jesus' way of putting it: "Unless you become like little children, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.")”
(WM) I’m working my way through FIDES ET RATIO, but I have to question the maturity of this exposition (despite its revered author). It is based on assertions that are riddled with holes so large that the document seems more a net for catching unicorns than an illuminating masterpiece. Too much imagination, maybe! In order for this document to be enlightening with respect to the relationship between faith and reason, I think one would have to already be a believer (but it is a long document – maybe I will be yet be enlightened). I did find the following excerpt from section 15 interesting: “This text finds an echo in the famous dictum of the holy philosopher and theologian Augustine: “Do not wander far and wide but return into yourself. Deep within man there dwells the truth.”” I am inclined to agree with this statement. I think that any genuine insights about “spiritual” matters are most likely to be found in quiet contemplation or meditation. I don’t see how having faith in a deity is likely to add much to these insights. It seems more likely that this faith would tend to distort genuine spiritual experiences and insights than enhance them – cause the mind to try to cram these experiences into a suit of beliefs whether or not the suit actually fits.

(WE) “7----At 3:06 this morning, somebody asked me about the first word in "cumulative evidence." Of course there can be no "objective evidence" of any form of transcendence: ”
(WM) This is good to know; I can now stop searching for the objective evidence. (I was pretty sure that this was the case, given the flimsy excuses for evidence already offered by other believers). I think that if such a learned man admits this, then there is no point in looking further!

(WE) “10-- Not strange to me that as transcendence-deniers, you materialists have so much need of "nothing but" & its synonyms.”
(WM) I think that Willis Elliott must not be paying much attention to the diverse crowd of non-believers we have here to say this (maybe he refers to only some of us when he writes “you materialists?”). There are quite a few atheists who have been posting here (including Sam Harris!) who acknowledge the occurrence of transcendental experiences. I am one of them. I just don’t look for easy answers from deities who have been pre-packaged for my convenience. And I don't think that most of the "nothing but" atheists are such because they NEED there to be "nothing but" - most of them just SEE "nothing but" and don't need to imagine anything more than that which they see.

I'd like to know at least where Bernie will be posting his doggerel henceforth.

Puzzled-Excellent post at 4:59pm today! I think no one has posted in 7 hours because you pretty much summed up the entire topic and everything that came after. There is not much more that can be said.

I think that religion and how religion has treated women is the topic, and therefore we should try to stick to how religion has treated women (and others; the poor, less privileged, etc.). But I see Willis Elliott's point that these things are difficult to separate out since the focus is not so much on personal faith but on the impact of religion on various aspects of society.

Granted, it is not religion per se that has treated women in such a way that Sam Harris describes. Religion is not a thing or a person, or even a group of people. We have religious people, and religious organizations, etc. It is people (men) who have created a patriarchal social order. The main point is that religion has been USED to sustain this dominance. Even in predominantly Confucianist countries, I think such an asymmetry between the sexes exists, so the asymmetry cannot be laid at the doorsteps of religion, Christianity and Islam, for instance.

The crux of the problem arises from the fact that religious dogma is by definition rigid, and therefore difficult to change, even as societal norms are changing. As sophomoric as Sam Harris' column may sound to some, it nevertheless raises important issues. It raises awareness and forces us to confront these issues. By dismissing it as silliness misses the bigger picture; a very uncomfortable picture. People are using religion to validate and defend their "bad" behavior.

If we could get away from who is right and wrong about whether "god exists" or some variation of the sort (a fruitless debate since everyone has one's own opinion and will be disinclined to budge), a more fruitful debate would be to discuss how to get people to not use religion for their own private purposes. Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and others are not necessarily attacking personal faith (at least that is how I see it), but religion and it impact on society, in particular on public policy and education.

This gets back to reforming religion, and at the heart of the matter is for the true believers to become more critical, about their own faith and about the church (or temple, or mosque, etc.) they worship in. If this is not done, then we will always have charlatans who come to exploit and make money off such willful ignorance and refusal to face reality. We as a society need to raise our awareness. People like Willis Elliott on this thread are quick to defend their faith but seemingly are content to only pay lip service to the problems that their religious organizations have right now. Perhaps it is futile?

The reason I place the onus on religious organizations is because most other secular organizations have self-correcting mechanisms, even if some of the transgressions seem especially egregious at times (e.g., recent scandals at WorldCom and Enron) but corrective measures are being taken, and very quickly too. We can debate about the effectiveness of new regulations and issues along that line, but we can all agree that there is a problem, and effort is being made. I think this kind of effort is much more difficult in religious organizations.

"All religions have a cultural face, and one must distinguish between the spiritual essence of the religion and the cultural elements that get integrated into the practice of it."

Soja, very good point. What I'm saying is that when believers claim that a certain religious practice is mandated by deity, that claim blurs the line between the religion's spiritual essence and its cultural elements.

"You failed to distinguish between a man's WILLINGLY raising another man's children (by marrying a woman with children) & a cuckold legally (by marriage) TRAPPED into raising another man's child/ren. Then, in substance, you tell cuckolds to get used it. Then you rub it in by accusing the victim of 'pure selfishness' in wanting have his own genetic children to support!"

I thought I had made it clear that I was playing devil's advocate. I certainly don't urge women to deliberately deceive men about the paternity of children. I simply question the extreme importance that you seem to place on genetic paternity. I happen to believe that freedom for both women and men is more important. We have seen in Afghanistan what a society looks like when it restricts women's freedom.

Besides, before genetics was discovered, there were probably many, many cases where neither parent knew that the child was another man's son. By "pure selfishness," I pictured a father ignoring or even beating children who are not his. I've read about cultures where that was tolerated.

Also, why do you define "cuckold" to refer to jilted men and not to jilted women?

Spot on, Bernie! Very well and elegantly stated! You earn the 100% Grade A Father Numpty SJ Seal of Approval and Kiss of Death!

Willis, first off, can you tell us why you altered the quote:
“I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

To

"I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7

Did the former sound a wee bit too crude, to near the knuckle for you?

It’s truly astounding the way you Christians keep chopping and changing the contents of your working manual; a perfect example in fact of a non-stop process that has been there from the start, and the reason why nobody can be certain of the claims made for what Jesus said or taught or if he even existed.

Another of your quotes:
“God & creation are good (as the Bible says), but evil intruded into creation (by "fallen" angels-& -people); besides, the mystery of evil is no greater than the mystery of good; the choice of evil is inherent in God's gift of freedom; natural disasters are cosmic-evolutionary; (2) God created good & evil but is himself "beyond good & evil"

Willis, creation is NOT good! The evidence is all around you, all over the world, why don’t you look?
Who made the ‘fallen angels and fallen people’?

The concept of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent Supreme Being and the fact that evil exists is a contradiction, it is impossible.
As you say a world without ‘free will’ would be a world without evil. So that is one possible world without evil and with a bit of thought surely such a fantastic being could think up something better than the misery and suffering on such a colossal scale we see almost everywhere we look?

Willis, don’t you feel a wee bit uneasy that all your posts are so enthusiastically welcomed by Father Numpty SJ?
Approval by such a one is nothing less than the kiss o’ death if ye ask me!

Dr. Elliott, thank you for staying up late to share your hard-earned wisdom.

I beg to clarify one point of mine, which you paraphrase as, "Since 'God has no brain,' he can't have a mind or a will." Actually, the words that I found problematic, because of the limits of our science-dominated language, were consciousness and omniscience.

Certainly God wills to be everything that is.

Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between the ways in which we are made in God's image, versus an inclination to construe God as made in ours. We have mind and will because we are in God's image. However, in our earthly life those qualities depend upon brain functioning. God has no body or brain, so God's mind and will somehow are "other" than ours. The mind of God, source of all, somehow seems "other" than what is commonly connoted by "consciousness".

Comments since my 12:21am today:

3:12am----For this "Sam Harris" thread, I don't agree that "the agreed upon topic is religion." Sam's topic was the abuse of women (by "religion"), & thrice I have tried to call y'all back to the topic. "Religion" is so integral to "society" that some sociologists question whether "religion" even exists. As for your concerns about "an enlightened sense of what it is to have faith" & "reforming the church," I heartily agree with you that institutions tend toward "perverse incentives" & one tool toward their improvement is "systems thinking." But to Sam, religion is bad & bad is to be dispensed with, improvement of bad being an oxymoron.

5:47am----In affirming my marriage, you say "A lifelong marriage founded on deep love is the closest one comes to experiencing the kind of love we are expected to have with God--a relationship of free choice, a love that matures with time. I never tire of hearing of such love." My heart is a love-elipse with God & Loree as the foci. Here is the dedication in my 1995 Eerdmans book, FLOW OF FLESH, REACH OF SPIRIT: "LOREE GANGWISH ELLIOTT, Chaplain and Director of Pastoral Services, Hospice of Cape Cod, and, for a half century, my beloved wife, partner, companion, on whom I have never looked without joy."

9:54am----Somebody else has adequately answered your question to me (in response to my saying that Jesus didn't worship himself, so was not a Christian), "Was Luther a Lutheran? Did he worship himself?" Lutheranism is a family within Christianity, & Luther as Christian worshiped only Christ. The metaphor is important: there are only a few hundred (not thousands!) of denominational families (or, to use the tree-metaphor, branches) of Christianity, though within those collective family there are many thousands of congregational families.

10:27am----You failed to distinguish between a man's WILLINGLY raising another man's children (by marrying a woman with children) & a cuckold legally (by marriage) TRAPPED into raising another man's child/ren. Then, in substance, you tell cuckolds to get used it. Then you rub it in by accusing the victim of "pure selfishness" in wanting have his own genetic children to support! But how about seeing it from the evolutionary POV, specifically from the male's genes POV, as in Richard Dawkins' THE SELFISH GENE (1976)--in which this atheist takes the gene-centric view of evolution & says that human organisms (i.e., people) are only "vehicles" for these genes that are "selfish" because they don't think of anybody but themselves. (No, Dawkins isn't really godless, as Mary Midgley shows of him in her EVOLUTION AS A RELIGION.)

4:45pm----"How can a loving God punish us for being his creation...? If God deserves the glory for all of creation, why is he not responsible for it as well?" Every world-paradigm (world-view) gives an account of evil, which remains a mystery to the extent that each account is (as all are) inadequate. I believe the Christian account is the least inadequate, but the account is necessarily too complex to state while standing on one leg (or in this venue). OPTIONS: (1) God & creation are good (as the Bible says), but evil intruded into creation (by "fallen" angels-& -people); besides, the mystery of evil is no greater than the mystery of good; the choice of evil is inherent in God's gift of freedom; natural disasters are cosmic-evolutionary; (2) God created good & evil but is himself "beyond good & evil" (Nietzsche, in substance); (3) A good deity (Ahura Mazda) created good & in evil deity (Ahriman) created evil (the Zoroastrian solution); (4) Good & evil were not created but are natural evolutionary emergents (the atheist solution). My New York judge father often shorted the lens-barrel to widen the visual field: "Consider the alternative." Would you personally want to live in a world (indeed, a universe) without freedom?

4:57pm----Here's a chillike reified anthropomorphism: Since "God has no brain," he can't have a mind or a will. The premise, of course, is materialist: everything real is material, & immaterial terms (e.g., "mind" & "will") express functionings of matter (e.g., "brain"). One of the permanent conumdrums of philosophy is the question whether matter derives from mind or mind from matter. The two Biblical peoples (Jews & Christians) believe the former: matter is a creation from the mind of God.

9:06pm----God in Exodus (the Bible's second book) as "bully": "What kind of morality is that! It seems to me a crime to teach such stuff to children as a literal truth!" I repeat: an archive is not to be read as a book (the Bible is "66 books"). Again, a rationalist like you has a harder time suspending disbelief (as one must do to enter "the world of the Bible") than does a child. And again, the Bible sees everything that exists & everything that happens as under "providence," God's presence & guidance within the limits of creaturely freedom. For the Biblical (Jewish & Christian) mind, the category of the impersonal does not exist: "we live and move and have our being in God." Now, for "reason" & "science" (i.e., the scientific method), the category of the personal (in God or people) does not exist. But we live/reason/love/hope as persons, & impersonal criteria are secondary to our lives in interpersonal relations, religion, art, music, drama, poetry. Even many irreligious people reject the primacy of reason & objective truth. In short, the Bible sees history (human events) from above, & God as producer & protagonist of the history-drama. Within this theistic paradigm, some texts (e.g., the Book of Job) state God's ultimate responsibility for what happens as though he did it all: "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7) The providential point is that Somebody's in charge of everything, yet so as to allow for creaturely freedom. As for rational literalism, the inability (or unwillingness) to enter the poetic dimension, I must see it as entrapment in the prosaic dimension--as Plato's cave-prisoners seeing only shadows on the cave's back wall.

After supper this evening & before writing this post, I wrote the introduction to WISDOMLIFE (the work of a Manhattan dramatist) & a review of EDEN'S GARDEN: Rethinking Sin and Evil in an Era of Scientific Promise (by the author of COMPETING TRUTHS: Theology and Science as Sibling Rivals). After doing my necessary evening work, you guys keep me up too late!

God, man and women are all equals and only in this equality can there truly be communication amoung us, this I think is Sam's message.

I'll be starting a new thread where I shall be available for hearing confessions online.

My blessing on his noble form,
And on his lofty head,
May all good angels guard him while living,
And hereafter when he's dead.

p.s. show respect—to you it's father numpty

Well Numpty, that sample spotlighting an entity even more evil than Saddam, Adolf, Stalin, Pol Pot etc, etc combined, with its crazy commandments was jist a lead in tae show that since evil exists, a benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing God is an impossibility!

Bernie—you come from a line that produced and thrust upon the broad innocent world what is universally acclaimed to be the most appalling doggerel ever, AND YET you get your kilt bunched up over a little overwrought Jewish mythology? Get over it!

Well Willis I was the one said God was the biggest bully of all. But that is because you don’t have to look far in the Bible to see why!
Just one example of many: The Ten Commandments come in Exodus xx. They are issued by a deity who not long before, in Exodus xii, killed huge numbers of Egyptian children and who not long after, in Exodus xxiii, promises to “blot out” the people of six inconvenient nations.
The First Commandment requires worship of him and him alone. The second shows him ready to punish offences by punishing the offenders' children, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
In Exodus xxii it is made clear that people who offend against the First Commandment shall be “utterly destroyed” which probably means that their spouses and children, and maybe their servants and animals too, must be stoned to death alongside the offenders themselves.

Now I ask you what kind of morality is that! It seems to me a crime to teach such stuff to children as the literal truth!

Thank you Soja for your kind words. I just know you are a lovely person (despite yer beliefs!) but alas you've brought me down to earth with a thud!
I'm def'nitly no Catholic, so for sure I see now it has to be the hot-toady my sister-in-law concocted for me that did the trick and not any Jesuits!

I'm glad you enjoyed the 'poetic gems' which were intended to lighten things up a wee bit; something I'm always prone to do when folk get too serious as you'll agree, they often do in here.

There's more to come, and believe me, you're in for a few pleasant surprises. As they say, 'Ye ain't seen nuthin' yet!'
But all in due time.

Andy Ross:

Your reference to the Hindu concept of God from Deepak Chopra’s book: I can’t know what exactly Chopra meant by the passage you quoted because I would have to read the whole book to understand his interpretation of it. However I wish to add that the “I’m God” concept in Hinduism is grossly misunderstood by many. The understanding of non-duality is distorted by the false ego to mean that a human being is literally God. But in truth, the concept is no different from what Paul meant when he said “I'm crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” It can also be equated with what Jesus said “Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us…” Chopra’s dismissal of Abrahamic faiths, if it is true, stems from his ignorance rather than the superiority of the “I’m God” concept of Hinduism as he interprets it. When the false ego is crucified it feels a union with God, but that is not the same as being God.

Theology is an academic discipline which has its place in religion, although the knowledge is not essential to the ordinary man to have a relationship with God. The ordinary person doesn't need to know quantum physics either although it is a valid academic discipline and has its role in understanding the physical world. I’m a lay person who happens not to be interested in theology. I’m not interested in archaeology either. I’m not God, my mind is finite, there are only twenty four hours in the day and there is only so much my little mind can be interested in.

Tonio:

Re your reference to female genital mutilation in Muslim culture: India has a Muslim population of 138 million and genital mutilation has never been practised among Indian Muslims in its entire history. All religions have a cultural face, and one must distinguish between the spiritual essence of the religion and the cultural elements that get integrated into the practice of it.

Bernie:

I’m glad to hear that you are now strong enough to doubt strongly again. However your improved state must be the effect of intercession from Jesuit Martyrs, at the request of “He who calls himself Mentally Unbalanced” and has nothing to do with the 223 words I put in. The words I put in were to you, on post 4 February 2007 5:47 PM, but you don’t seem to have needed any of it because you were healed by the effective intercession of Jesuit martyrs. However one way to keep your annual bout of flu in check is to take special care of your health all year round, without depending entirely on the intercession of Jesuit martyrs. It is the same principle as: "Pray to God, but lock your car if you don't want it to be stolen." The prayer simply ensures that the thief may break the lock of another car.

As to the eternal question of evil which has dogged believers since the beginning of time, nobody has a complete answer. The human free will explains much, but it does not explain everything. We ask “Why can’t God stop it?” when we should really be asking “Why can’t man stop it?” Evil after all is always perpetrated by human hands, and is first born in the human mind and heart. Jesus told a parable about the fate of weeds that were sown among good crop and how God lets them all grow together until harvest time. Maybe that gives a clue. A Jewish Rabbi wrote, “Believers only have to account for the presence of evil, but atheists have to account for the existence of everything else.”

As a Catholic I’m sure you are aware of the role of the Devil’s advocate in the selection of a Catholic for sainthood, the practice that was abolished in 1983. So evil does serve one purpose, indirectly - to purify - like gold is purified with fire, although all evil cannot be explained away that easily. Re your reference to tsunami: Believers agree that free will definitely does not explain natural disasters which kill thousands of innocents. Religious leaders who promptly talk about God’s punishment don’t serve the cause of God because there is evil everywhere and by that logic there should be worldwide tsunami. But increasingly manmade global warming can explain many natural disasters, and the potential to wipe out mankind itself is very real.

Just like scientists do not lose faith in science, in spite of hundreds of failed attempts in their search for truth of the physical world and look upon those failed attempts as a source of learning, and never stop their quest for truth, so also believers do not lose faith in God, in spite of the fact we do not have all the answers. We believe that the infinite God we believe in has all the answers to the universe He created, and as finite human beings we can know only so much. Even with imperfect knowledge about the workings of God, believers can love Him and have a relationship with Him.

BTW, I do genuinely enjoy reading your poetic gems. I get so carried away that it takes me a while to reconnect with the reality of the discussion in this thread which is about “proving” God’s non-existence. If the Celtic temperament questions the aspects and essence of things, you should have no problem discovering God at all, for He is the essence of things. I can see that you haven’t questioned the aspects of things deep enough, and your mind is stuck in the rut of good-bashing if good happens to be even remotely connected to religion.

As for the Scottish accent, when I first heard it I concluded rightly that English must be their second language. I agree it is cute, and the Scottish male in the classes I attended, kept us in stitches with his humour. I couldn’t help thinking though, “And they make so much fun of the Indian accent!” Your written dialect I like particularly for the challenge it presents in understanding it, and it is as much fun as trying to solve a puzzle.

Be a good Scot and question the aspect and essence of things, but remember to remember that you are only reinventing the wheel with regard to questions about the existence of God and the meaning of life. Scientists (don't know about Scots) as a rule not only read up the work done by scientists before them, but seriously consider both sides of the argument in an attempt to find the truth. But from the discussion on this forum I get the impression that atheists are confident about their conclusion that God doesn’t exist. Although the explanation that something can come out of nothing, something can happen by sheer accident or chance, something can come into being by zillions of perfect accidents at that, would be considered impossible and such a logic would be considered absolute lunacy in any area man-made scientific achievement, I'm amazed how the explanation is used with gay abandon in matters concerning the origin of everything in a mind boggling complex universe which is fine-tuned beyond human imagination.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

PS: My two cents have run out.

Correction to my above post..

In the case of human beings, God effectively designed us, manufactured us (and created the method and means that we currently reproduce), programmed us and created / controls our environment. If evil exists, he created it and allows us to be influenced by it.

I think I overlooked Phil Tripp's request to clarify an earlier post about ascribing consciousness, omniscience and omnipotence to God. The point I was trying to make is that those attributes are excessively anthropomorphic—they are essentially human qualities taken to the max. Consciousness and omniscience, at least within the limits of our language, imply a brain. God has no brain and could not possibly have a brain. As for omnipotence, we're again trapped by human concepts of what it means to be powerful (and boxed in by things the Almighty paradoxically "can't" do).

Those traits are useful for the anthropomorphized mythological character in the Hebrew scriptures. They're much less useful outside that context.

"So, you would prefer a totalitarian deity who forces everybody to be good (as communism believed it could force everybody to be a "comrade")?

Our reality includes suffering and death. People die who do not know God personally. This is indisputable. If you believe in God, and that God is omnipotent and omniscient, then you must somehow reconcile his will with our reality.

Personally this is not something I can do without creating a paradox.

If God created the universe, then he has either given us minds to think with or he created the seeds for our minds to grow and, due to his omniscience, would have know the results. He create the sun and the rain and the nutrients in the soil for our minds to grow. They could have come from no where else but God. If these seeds are afflicted by insects or disease, they are ultimately of his creation and he allows this affliction to occur.

We are not God. We can not be anything else but what God created us to be or has allowed us to become. My very thoughts at this moment were known to God before he even created the universe.

This is the paradox I'm referring to. How can a loving God punish us for being his creation?

To use an analogy, if your computer calculated your taxes incorrectly, is it really *your* computers fault? No, it's not. Either...

01. The hardware has a design flaw or was manufactured incorrectly

02. The software engineers did not check their work and left one or more bugs in the application or operating system.

03. The software received incorrect information from it's environment (you mistyped your income, etc.)

In the case of human beings, God effectively manufactured us, programmed us and created / controls our environment. If evil exists, he created it and allows us to be influenced by it.

If God deserves the glory for all of creation, why is he not responsible for it as well?

Scott,

I'll take your question at face value.

The best answer is your number 03. As far as any human can possibly know, God has never appeared on earth in physical form (except, Christians believe, in the person of Yeshua of Nazareth, in which case we're talking not about an apparition but about imputing a divine nature to a putatively historical person).

The apparitions of YHWH in the Hebrew scriptures are presumably mythological (which is not to say false).

Bernie Bee BA wrote: "It's true Scott, that we're no closer to resolving this issue than when we started. Nevertheless I've learned a lot from the many posters in here that I would never have found anywhere else."

Yes, I agree. I've found this discussion very interesting.

MU,

Thanks for your reply..

In my first question, I was wondering why God no longer personally makes himself known in a way that's indisputable as he did in the Bible? Wouldn't this sort of appearance clear up any question regarding his existence?

Clearly this could be interpreted in different ways. None of which can be proven.

01. God has decided that, for whatever reason, he has stopped making personal appearances.

02. God's physical presence was either created to describe natural phenomenon or invented for the sake of teaching, creating / fulfilling prophecy.

03. God's presence has always been limited to the level you describe his presence with us today.

Of course, there could be many more interpretations. I've just given a few off the top of my head.

Don't you go insulting my ancestor as the worst writer now that we've seen your efforts!
William was the Best worst and still is!
Aye, no matter what the philistines say William is rememered all over the world so def'nitly an immortal!

But it is time to get back to disputing what Willis had to say and hope to be back in later tonight

According to mcgonagall-online.org.uk, "William Topaz McGonagall, poet and tragedian of Dundee, has been widely hailed as the writer of the worst poetry in the English language." Now, THAT is an unprovable (though indisputably probable) assertion.

Brilliant!!! Thank you for sharing. Not sure what to make of the quadrupedal fantasies, though.

So Numpty, you dismiss those poetic gems as doggerel eh! Well as you will see on the Belief in Unseen page Andy Ross recognises true talent when he sees it and is much more appreciative than philistines such as you! Why don’t you go into Google and read in full ‘The Tay Bridge Disaster’? It is a bit lengthy otherwise I would have posted it here.

In the meantime though, and to celebrate being raised from near enough the dead I’ll post a few more samples of magical word manipulation that I suppose only the truly appreciative in here (even if only one) will relish.

So let me just say that the Celtic temperament questions the aspect and essence of things, and dissects with philosophic insight what the English accept without criticism. In the following pieces, ‘The Nose’, ‘The Hands’, and ‘The Spine’, the McGonagallite man of independent mind challenges the common attributes of mankind, while other poems (of which more later) illustrate the breadth and up-to-dateness of his interests.

THE NOSE

The human nose, be it noted, is a most curious joint.
It sticks out from the face like Ardnamurchan point;
But not like the nose of the lion or its cub,
Which comes out and stays out to form the noble gub
For after jutting it comes back to where the mouth is jined,
As if it couldn't make up its mind.
And this makes it look lonely and half-hearted,
And that is why so many jokes are started.
For many rude people, and even genteel dames,
Are apt to make a mock of it and call it names
Such as neb, or bean, or bozo or proboscis,
And names even worse than those is.
All of which would have been avoided, I have nae doot,
If the nose, having gone oot, had had the sense to stay oot.

THE HANDS

It's funny how folk don't know what to do with their hands.
You get them twiddling buttons or playing with rubber bands,
Or else a man will stick them in his pockets
Because nature hasn't given him better sockets,
Such as, be it noted, the wings of the burdies,
Which when it isn't flying are tucked nice and neat above its hurdies. (legs)
And when I see this I think to myself: Fegs, (expression eg My Goodness!)
It's a pity our arms wernae just two more legs
(As once they were, many scientists agrees,
When long ago we were climbing up trees).
For then we mightn't busy our hands with smokin' cigs and pechan, (gasping)
Or sailin' off to foreign parts for wickedness and fechan, (fighting)
Including lifting tumblers of beer and wine in glasses,
Which, Shakespeare tells us, takes away men's brains and makes them asses,
And gives them unco notions about the lasses.
So wouldn't it be better if we used each arm for a leg,
Except that if we came in on all fours we'd give our women folk a fleg. (fright)
Which is a thing, I believe, many husbands widnae daur, (dare)
So all things considered mibby we'd best leave things as they are.

THE SPINE

Most beasties have a spine that's horizontal.
It serves as a kind of rack for the viscery to hang on till,
Such as the lungs, thairms, heart and kidney (thairms = bowels)
(Which latter would be much more apt to float if it didnae).
Even the hen that scrapes among the graivel,
Although it stands up on two legs has a spine that's level,
But man's four-footed ancestor gets the notion for verticality,
So he ups and jangles all the organs, leading to many a malady.
Thinks he'll carry everything on one pair o' hurdies,
Like he was Samson, or Atlas or some o' they worthies.
For even the grizzly bear, though it stands on its hindquarters,
Drops back on all fours when it gets marching orders.
And so in middle age a man's shanks will get used up,
And the veins conk oot or get fused up,
Making fat wifies to turn varicosy,
And face a future that's far from rosy.
Nae doot we cannae go back and be quadrupedial,
But instinct makes a wheen o’ bodies try something remedial, (wheen = a lot)
Such as swimming about in the sea or the lochs
(unless they're rich and possess palatial swimming troughs).
There's others climb on all fours up some ben or clairty brae, (mire, muddy hill)
Which I dare say helps to invigorate their vertebrae.
Then they come hame healthy and tired, and sleep sound on their pilla;
Which, after all, is better than trying to go back to bein’ a gorilla.

Ad majorem Dei gloriam!

Bernie has been healed through the intercession of the Jesuit martyrs, at my request. Praise be!

Soja, I havtae tell ye something very strange, at least for me.
Well every year about this time I am regularly struck down with the severest form of flu for which all medication including biotics are of no avail and the debilitating condition can last upwards of a month or more.

The first symptoms are sore throat then exhausting fits of coughing and streaming fluid from nose. It gets so bad that at times I'd even welcome the call "Come in number 7 yer time is up!)

But lo and behold the same day ye put in a word for me the symptoms completely disappeared!
I don't know if it is just coincidence or if it would have happened anyway but it did set me to wonder.
Then I thought of how all the churches were filled on Christmas Day in celebration of His birthday only for him tae let loose the tsunami the very next day! Which ye havtae admit was verry discourteous tae say the least! Not very nice at all.
So now I'm back to full strength doubting again especially now I see Numpty claimed he prayed for me! So it could be Auld Nick had a hand in banishing that awful flu if Numpty is involved!
So it is safest to believe it MUST be jist coincidence after all!
But thanks anyway Soja, for the fact is I am well now.

"The anthropological truth is that SOCIETIES, by "social constructions," place those limits (religion being only one strand of the sanctional bundle, & in some instances a very thin strand)."

Valid point, Willis. What I'm criticizing is the claim by religions that any such limits come from a deity authority figure. "Because God says so" discourages people from examining the logic behind those limits. Theoretically, anyone can make any claim about what deity wants from humans.

"The female requiring no social construction to assure the passing on of her genes. Fairness to the male (i.e., equality of genes-transmission) does require a social construction involving (yes) 'limits on women.'"

To play devil's advocate, what is the importance to society of individual genes-transmission? Is it vitally important that every man knows that the children he is raising are in fact his genetic offspring, or is that pure selfishness? What about men who marry women who have children from previous relationships and deliberately choose to raise other men's genetic offspring? I would argue that those men value providing children with a stable upbringing as more important that their own genes.

Bernie, I trust you've overcome both the flu and sobriety and are back to your old self now (we've been praying for ye). Would you grace us with some doggerel, as promised?

(I assume the irony was intended, but just in case...) Christians worship Christ. Lutherans do not worship Luther.

Willis: “to be a Christian, Jesus would have to worship himself!”

Was Luther a Lutheran? Did he worship himself?

To Willis Elliot (Ref post 5 February 2007 7:10 AM)

Dear Willis

Thank you for the kind words in your post. I feel totally humbled.

I'm impressed with what you have done in your life - confronting 500 Nazis etc.

The fact that you are ninety years old and you have remained married to the very first woman in your life is awesome. You should write about it (if you haven't already done so) for two reasons: 1. We live in an age when it is considered proper to have a different life partner for every stage of life, for some, one partner for every aspect of their personality simultaneously, and for others remaining faithful to one partner seems as difficult as celibacy. 2. A lifelong marriage founded on deep love is the closest one comes to experiencing the kind of love we are expected to have with God - a relationship of free choice, a love that matures with time. I never tire of hearing of such love.

I'm a lay person whose spiritual journey did not involve studying theology or learning the Scriptures in a formal sense. So I'm thankful when you address the questions that may be raised in response to my posts.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Willis Elliott says "Why don't you pick on somebody your own size?" How true!

I think most people here understand the need to change so much in our society in general. You deflect questions away from religion, but the agreed upon topic is religion. If we want to expand the discussion to society in general or questions of ethics in business or in politics, etc., then perhaps we should agree to do so in a different forum?

It seems the key question has two aspects: how can we (if we so choose) have a more enlightened sense of what it is to have faith, and the organizational question of reforming the church. More specifically,

(1) Is there any validity to religious fervor being misdirected toward "bad" behavior? And if so, how can reforms be implemented to deal with this? Many earnest members of clergy acknowledge and understand the need for reforms. Reforms are hard for many reasons, but one practical reason I can think of is that being a member of clergy is a calling, but it is also a job. Growing the church (in numbers) may not necessarily be what the church should be interested in, but that can become an important goal, and can lead to what economists call "perverse incentives."

(2) How do those who are affiliated with religious organizations solve the problem of managing the organization to better reflect the true values and ideals of their respective religious teachings? This requires systems thinking: understanding the motivations of churchgoers, the economics of managing the organization, the legitimacy concerns, the politicking, etc. But as I alluded to in a previous posting above, step 1 is acknowledging that the organizational challenge requires an organizational response; i.e., proper checks and balances are necessary, even in a religious organization.

Bernie

Loving couples from the beginning of time (I exclude couples who merely mate and reproduce) have produced children who resemble them closely, without ever getting the child’s permission. Such loving parents continue to love their children, even when the children reject them. (You wrote, “she claims we were made in her God’s image (without our permission too!)…” In order to understand God's love, you only have to think of the most loving parents you know. That love is only a faint reflection of God's love for human beings.

You wrote: “At the start Paul was castigating Peter, publicly at that, for being mistaken about what Jesus intended. But you only get Paul’s side of the story! This from a character who never even met Jesus! As the biblical scholar Willis will confirm that Paul never refers to any of Jesus’ teaching.”

In his second letter Peter writes: “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

You wrote: “And it is Paul who is the founder of Christianity not Jesus.”

Your flu must be getting worse.

You wrote rightly Bernie, “Jesus was not a Christian.”

He is the Christ!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Bernie,

You wrote: “Put in a word for me please Soja or am done for. I'll promise tae jine forces an we'll gang up on them irreligious buffoons! It's that bad!” (Posted 4 February 2007 5:46 AM)

I put in not one word but 223 (excluding the numbers), and look at the result! On 5 Feb 07 8:12 AM, you write febrile comments such as this: “Willis, what Jesus said about loving even your enemies is a lovely thought (although in this world surely impractical?) But how can you reconcile such compassion, gentleness and kindliness with Soja’s cruel God who’s got it in most of us when we conk out? All but a tiny fraction of us (if that!) are headed for the equivalent of Joe Stalin’s gulag system by the sound of Soja! And all because she claims we were made in her God’s image (without our permission too!) we’re going to be punished for a myriad of imperfections (not just bullying) for ever after. What satisfaction will Soja’s God get from that? Surely Soja’s God is the biggest bully of em all? And the further we are away from that critter the better?”

1. I strongly advice you to take your lungs to the doctor to have it examined. The broken glass in your throat doesn’t sound good, and you might not get around taking antibiotics. BTW you could use the warm camomile + sage infusion as a gargle, whether or not you take antibiotics. It will soothe some of the broken glass.

2. Read the book by C S Lewis first before letting your imagination run away with you. But read it after your flu has let up a bit - to avoid any febrile interpretation. It is a little book and you can read it in no time.

3. My God is merciful and gave His life for the forgiveness of ALL human beings. I don’t expect to get to Heaven on my merit either, although I have tried to be as good a girl as I could possibly be all my life and haven’t gotten very far with my self effort. Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation for that reason you know. But they also believe that grace or the mercy of God could break the cycle of endless births and deaths. The only difference is that they don’t have a God who died for them, whose righteousness they could claim.

4. So, my God is a bully because He intends to protect the victims of bullies and won’t let the bullies get a hold of them on the other side of eternity? And God wouldn’t be a critter if He allowed the bullies access to their victims for all eternity?

5. Always consider what you pray for, for your prayers will be answered. That is what C S Lewis is trying to say. God will grant the atheist his wish to be far away from God.

6. Who stops you from believing in a God of mercy, if you are that afraid of Stalin’s eternal gulag?

7. I make no claim that I know what is going to happen after death, or by what criteria God is going to judge every human being after death. My knowledge is restricted to what is written in the Bible. I leave all judgement to God, and I don't spend time worrying about afterlife. There is plenty to worry about on this side of eternity. If I take care of this end, I believe the other end will take of itself. But when I see evil triumph and many powerful people everywhere get away with atrocities all their lives, then my heart cries out to God for justice on behalf of the helpless victims.

From your country cousin Shakespeare:

“May one be pardoned and retain the offence?
In the corrupted currents of this world
Offence’s glided hand may shove by justice,
And oft ‘tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law. But ‘tis not so above.
There is no shuffling, there the action lies
In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults
To give in evidence. What then? What rests?
Try what repentance can. What can it not?
Yet what can it when one cannot repent?
O wretched state, O bosom black as death,
O lime’d soul that, struggling to be free,
Art more engaged! Help, angels! Make assay.
Bow stubborn knees; and heart with strings of steel,
Be soft as sinews of the new-born babe.
All may be well.” -------- Hamlet

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Have you noticed a mellowing in our conversation? A willingness to concede some values to religion & some weaknesses in Sam Harris' triumphalist irreligion? A number of you have responded to my
7:10 post this morning, some with direction questions.

8:20am----The biblical God "is the biggest bully of them all." The Bible assumes that this is a moral universe & that there are +/- consequences (in personal terms, "rewards"/"punishments") from human decisions & actions here & hereafter. Far from bullying (overpowering the weak), God encourages moral behavior by the +/- ("promises"/"threats") rhetoric of parenthood (not a rhetoric of cosmic damnation). A typical instance is 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is patient; he doesn't want anybody to be lost, but that all should come to repentance" (behavioral change from immoral to moral). The rhetoric is interpersonal, & the motive is clear: "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16). (Isn't "bully" about as far as you can get from "love"?) But the Bible's Semitic rhetoric is high-decibel & colorful, easily overread by those who haven't entered into "the world of the Bible."

8:56am----"When religions place more limits on women than on men, those limitations have almost nothing to do with biological differences between the sexes." Notice the Sam-Harris-like spin: the anthropological truth is that SOCIETIES, by "social constructions," place those limits (religion being only one strand of the sanctional bundle, & in some instances a very thin strand).
As I've detailed twice in my posts, the female's position vis-a-vis parenthood (the passing on of genes)is superior to the male's position, the female requiring no social construction to assure the passing on of her genes. Fairness to the male (i.e., equality of genes-transmission) does require a social construction involving (yes) "limits on women." Preaching no "limitations on women" is anthropological & biological nonsense. Of course we should all oppose any biologically unnecessary limitations on the freedom of women: all historic social construction against cuckoldry are imperfect! Is there a condition rendering such social construction unnecessary? Yes: by SELF-discipline, the female dies viriginal except to her husband. (I can hear the objection "How about applying that virginal stuff to the male, too?" That's genetically unnecessary but morally desirable. (My wife & I married as virgins & intend to die as virgins except to each other: it's the Christian ideal & the least painful sex-trip.

2:33pm----"How do we do away with bad religion....reform religion?" The poster admits (1) to being a (freethinking) church-goer & (2) to rejecting Sam Harris' moralistic rejection of all religion instead of only bad religion (or, to put it in his mode, rejection of all religion as bad).
Garbage in, garbage out: get the question straight, or be prepared for a crooked answer. The categorial question is "How do we improve humanity (& the subcategory, religion)?" And the prior question is "Can we improve humanity?" The old Enlightenment question "Can we perfect humanity?" is dead, but "hope springs eternal" for improving humanity if we begin with "us" rather than with "them". In almost every state in the US I've led seminars in "continuing education for clergy": increasingly, religion leaders believe in LLL (life-long-learning for themselves & for the people they are responsible for leading).

3:01pm----"Paul never refers to any of Jesus' teachings. And it is Paul who is the founder of Christianity not Jesus. Jesus was not a Christian!" The first two sentences are ignorant & the last is laughable: to be a Christian, Jesus would have to worship himself! Jesus's teachings are pervasive in Paul. And Christianity, with its central conviction that "Jesus is Lord," was well established before Paul became a Christian (e.g., l Corinthians 15:3: "I handed on to you what I in turn had received.").

4:32pm----"it's probably how many of us were taught in Sunday school growing up." How true! Many of your posts are grown-up attacks on childhood religion, unwittingly displaying your ignorance of grown-up religion. Sunday schools began in 18th-c. London for child-laborers who were getting no other schooling. Sunday schools always have been taught by volunteers most of whom have themselves had no religious ed except Sunday school. They do the best they can, God bless 'em.
But how unfair & foolish to criticize them from the coign of vantage of adults on higher rungs of the cultural ladder! The schoolyard question is appropriate: "Why don't you pick on somebody your own size?" The high-culture press (e.g., NYT, NYRV, Harper's)has given the anti-religious puffings of Richard Dawkins & Sam Harris low reviews, accusing them of ignorance of up-to-speed high-culture religion.

9:04pm----"evil exists....whatever your god is it [sic] cannot be benevolent or loving." So, you would prefer a totalitarian deity who forces everybody to be good (as communism believed it could force everybody to be a "comrade")? All thinkers must give an account of evil v. good, false v. true, ugly v. beautiful, demonic v. saintly--& in all instances, the accounts are captive to the thinker's paradigm. Milton said that his classics were "to justify the ways of God to men" (a process technically known as theodicy).
Your choice. I believe the Christian faith gives the best accounts, as does the inventer of "On Faith," Jon Meacham (whose personal testimony in "On Faith" none of you atheists or agnostics have as yet attacked, though three of you have here wondered why not).

DW/MU/...:

I think your response to Phil and Scott was well-worded, and I found little to quibble with. However I would still ask one thing. From the way you describe god's love and power, I don't think god has to actually exist for many of the "miracles" to come true? For instance, I think of prayer as a deep reflection on the past (good and bad) and a renewed commitment toward the future (hope). Such activities are likely to yield good outcomes in our day-to-day lives because we're trying to be thoughtful about the choices we are to make. So does it really matter if god exists or not (reminds me of the Grand Inquisitor was telling Him in "The Brothers Karamazov") since it is we who are making it up as we go along? And even if there is no god, if we live AS IF GOD DOES EXIST, then does that kind of life nevertheless hold some "truth"? But if so, then I would think that we can accept and benefit from the collective wisdom of Christianity and other religions of the world without engaging in worship. Or is the act of "worship" essential to understanding this "truth"?

DW/MU/..:

If there is "truth" in the myth, then we can learn from it. Just like we can learn and be inspired from reading works of fiction like "War and Peace" and "Brothers Karamazov" the bible can be a source of wisdom. In that regard, I agree with what you say.

If most Christians were to hold such an enlightened view, then I don't think we'd be having a lot of conversations about religion in our society (especially religion in the public arena), which would be a good thing. Let's leave religion in the private sphere.

OK Father SJ (Now that you're out of the closet I'll address you more respectfully)

If evil exists there can be no god, at least not a benevolent, caring, loving one.
It is either or. It is impossible for both to exist.

Soja,

Thanks for your post.

But I'm still left with unanswered questions. You've explained the "how" we become separated from God, but not the "why."

For example...

"According to [C S Lewis'] understanding of hell, it is separation from God. Remember how vast the universe is which God created. It doesn't take Him much trouble to find human beings a place where He would seem far away. We feel God is non-existent simply by shutting Him out of minds."

Why did God create a universe so vast that we could escape his presence? Why did he give us the ability to shut him out of our minds? Wouldn't an all knowing and all seeing God realize that this would lead to our suffering?

"But after death, human beings can no longer deny His existence. There may be atheists in foxholes, but there are no atheists on the other side of eternity. All truth will be evident to them as clear as day. "

Why does God obscure the truth from us when we are alive, yet reveal it clearly after we die? Isn't that like withholding evidence until "after" the trial?

"..human beings will judge themselves when their lives are flashed before their eyes. If they have lived a bad life, they will run from the presence of a loving God, because they will feel like trash before His holiness. Our intelligence will feel like foolish before the infinite knowledge of God. "

Where do humans get this shame and inadequate intelligence you describe? Since nothing exists without being created by God, would he not have given it to us or made it accessible for us to acquire? Or did we somehow created our own shame and intelligence which was inadequate compared to God's?

"...So that is what [hell] is supposed to be - separation from the love of God when truth is laid bare, all self deception is gone and we see ourselves as God sees us"

Hell is seeing ourselves as God created us? How could we exist any other way?

Again, I understand the concept of being separated from God, but I fail to see why a God with infinite knowledge would give us this ability without realizing the consequences. If this wasn't a "gift" from God then did create our own ability to separate ourselves from God and why would we want to do so?

As you know better than I, dear poet, libraries are full of speculation about the problem of evil, authored by far greater minds than ours. Evil exists. Surely evil exists without God; but can it exist with God? Beats me. But what possible advantage can there be in rejecting God because of evil? Would evil somehow be easier to face?

A major problem as per usual is clumsy anthropomorphism. God is love, but does it follow that God is "loving", with all the connotational baggage of that word? Or if loving, "omniscient" and "omnipotent"—whatever they possibly could mean? Clearly if God were all three God would have smashed the ovens.

We just don't know. Does it follow we're better off without God?

P.S. Since you called me out I went ahead and appended the S.J. to the moniker.

Your Jesuit training sure comes through loud and clear Father Numpty!
But how do you get round the fact that since evil exists it can only do so by your all powerful, all knowing god's allowance? So with those attributes, whatever your god is it cannot be benevolent or loving.

Puzzled says, "And it is one thing to say that there is a supernatural creator of the universe (I can concede this is hard to say one way or the other), but it is a completely different thing to say His (or Her, or Its) name is YHWH...why is it that all those other 'myths' are myths and there is one (the one that you happen to believe in) that is not a myth" — Just because you stand within the YHWH/Yeshua stream of myths does not necessarily mean that you hold all other myths to be false. If there are elements of truth in them, then there are elements of truth in them.

If a myth is an epic multi-generational story about things of ultimate import (who we are, why we're here, where we came from, where we're going), then myth is not at all a synonym for falsity, and indeed you find that myths are substantially true, or contain elements of truth. That of course is not the same as saying they should be understood literally. Nor are they necessarily mere metaphor or allegory. They are a particular language and vocabulary for transmitting truths in an accessible communal form. Many myth systems can be true simultaneously, just as the same idea can be expresed in many natural languages. Presumably intelligent self-reflective life forms elsewhere in the universe have radically different myths for the same God-reality.

Phil and Scott ask a response to the following:

"why God no longer chooses to reveal himself as he did over 2,000 years ago" — God does continue to reveal Godself. For Christians, the Church is Christ's Mystical Body, a visible sign of Christ's continued presence in our midst. God continues to reveal truths through scripture (though not if one approaches it literally). God continues to reveal Godself through the application of human reason to new problems and social developments. And as I said earlier, in our day God forcefully reveals Godself through the advancement of scientific knowledge.

"we hear answers such as 'God exists outside of science or physical reality'" — Well, sure. There is no empirical evidence for God. It is not a testable hypothesis. God's presumed attributes are not the "stuff" of science and sometimes elude philosophy. Meacham on his post puts it well: "Forty years ago, Rabbi Abraham Heschel observed that 'There are no final proofs for the existence of God, Father and Creator of all. There are only witnesses. Supreme among them are the prophets of Israel.' And, I would add, the apostles who experienced the living Jesus and who preserved the story of he whom the author of the Gospel of St. John called 'the Word made flesh, full of grace, and truth.'"

"why God sometimes does not answer prayers, such as a father asking for his child to be healed" — Reason tells us it's unlikely that God literally busies Godself micromanaging the weather on this dust speck of a planet (or our health or finances or sporting outcomes). God intervenes in the world through the thoughts and actions of human beings. Prayers for a sick child are answered if the child and the family experience more deeply the love that unites and binds and nourishes them, and if they take heart from that. Since the source of that love is God, who is Love itself, then God truly has answered the prayer, irrespective of the medical outcome. If the depth of the family's love somehow inspires medical personnel to redouble their efforts or consult one more specialist or try one more procedure, then maybe there is an actual impact on the outcome for which we should praise God.

"why God allows suffering, torture and death" — Why did God allow the Holocaust? Not even the Pope knows—he cried out at Auschwitz: "Where was God in those days? Why was he silent? How could he permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil?" Nobody knows. Does that mean we're better off without God? Each person must answer for himself.

As for contradicting well-established and essentially irrefutable scientific understanding because of a hyperliteral reading of scripture, that's just stupid. It mocks the intellectual gifts the Creator gave us and intends for us to use, and denies the love for truth that the Creator inscribed in our hearts. It also shows a contempt for what scripture is.

It's true Scott, that we're no closer to resolving this issue than when we started. Nevertheless I've learned a lot from the many posters in here that I would never have found anywhere else.

Duckphup alone has been a real find. Aye, great stuff!

Anonymous wrote: "Answer: Start reading from the top of the forum and work your way down."

Yet, after over 3mb of posts, what have we achieved?

Theists have made it clear their beliefs are immune to validation outside of their religious convictions and scripture. Yet many do not share the same convictions, nor do their religious texts agree on what is the true word of God. In nearly all cases, these theists accept that the suffering and death of innocent people are somehow part of Gods plan.

When others who, due to their lack of a position, see this conflict and point it out, they are told it is impossible for them to understand since they are not open to receive the truth.

We are no closers to resolving this issue then when we started. Clearly, is not a subject that is open for rational discussion.

With even more coming into the fray as Anonymous just where are we?
It was Father Numpty that started this multiple ID thing for his ain neferious purpose now see where it has got us!

I have my answer

Bernie, you might have something there about MU being a Priest. His answers are very polished. Almost like he's been doing this a real long time. There is no reason that a Priest can't join in the fun but his professional credentials in a discipline, related to the topic, should be forthcoming. Andy Ross has certainly done that and his posts reflect his level of knowledge.

If you have indeed asked him the question 5 times and he has avoided answering it 5 times you have your answer.

I agree with DW's (or is it MU?) point that the existence of god is not a testable hypothesis. But the reason for it is because it is set up as such, with ready-made "get-out-of-jail-free cards" handy which conveniently allows one to dodge difficult questions (or allows one to not admit that no one really knows). It can be frustrating (some may recall going back and forth with Jason) because there is no answer in sight (unless you consider going around in circles a series of answers):

Question: Why did [fill in your favorite inexplicable event here] god do this (allow this)?
Answer: It is god's will.
Question: What good can possibly come out of [...]?
Answer: God knows, but we mere mortals cannot.
Question: Then how do you know it's god's will to begin with?
Answer: It has to be since god is god (i.e., god is ominscient, omnipotent, etc.). You will feel his presence when you truly believe.

I don't mean to be ironic but the iron's in my blood, and I don't want to draw a caricature, but this is the kind of conversation that atheists and agnostics are confronted with (and it's probably how many of us were taught in Sunday school growing up).

And it is one thing to say that there is a supernatural creator of the universe (I can concede this is hard to say one way or the other), but it is a completely different thing to say His (or Her, or Its) name is YHWH or something like that (conveniently meaning "I am who I am," not unlike Popeye).

If we are hardwired for some kind of religion, consistent perhaps with the (casual) observation that every civilization in history had a creation myth of some sort, then why is it that all those other "myths" are myths and there is one (the one that you happen to believe in) that is not a myth?

Or can we just say it is a widely-held (but unsubstantiated) opinion and move on?

i didn't write

"Father Numpty sounds even better"

WHO ARE YOU?

OK. Father Numpty it is.

Father Numpty sounds even better.

No Numpty, I'm not in the least sufferin' fae poets block. It is just that you're the oany one claimin merit in that long speil meant for a laff while everybody else has apparently been stunned senseless that makes me suspicious of yer true motives in askin for more.

Ye still havnae answered the question.
For the fifth time...are you a priest.
Until ye answer truthfully I'll refer tae ye fae noo on as Father O'Bubblegum.
Wid ye prefer that tae Numpty?

"While there may be absolutely impersonal standards in science, such is not the case in other areas of human activity like art, music, poetry, drama. In those realms we take from granted that there are widely divergent views about what is meaningful, valuable, beautiful and true...That said, the whole point of faith is to seek what is ultimately and universally true."

Unbalanced, what definition are you using for "true"? I've always understood the word to be a synonym for "factual." But your post suggests that there is a different or more subtle meaning. When it comes to those human activities you named, I think "true" might refer to some kind of deep relevance. Is that what you had in mind?

I'm uncomfortable with "universally true" when talking about religion. Why? Because religions make exclusive claims to truth, and much blood has been shed over that concept of exclusivity throughout human history. Even Christians can't agree on whether salvation depends on good works or faith alone.

Our Scottish bard (currently suffering from poet's block brought on by a rare bout of sobriety) levels the following utterly despicable charge at this writer: "...ye deliberately attempt tae belittle folk by twistin whit they say..."

I do not. If I misunderstand what others have said, I apologize for my limitations. I have not knowingly or deliberately miscast what anyone has said.

I do wonder why the Scot is so obsessed with discrediting me. Would that not be unnecessary and redundant, if I bring discredit upon myself as he so obsessively insists?

Scott-I can relate to your post above at 12:31PM. I suggested to MU a similar assertion, on my post, February 3rd at 6:31pm. I referred to the common Christian answers, to very tough questions, as the best "get out of jail card" of all time. You posed a couple of good questions above that I think beg for the "get out of jail card".

MU's exact answer to my question was "I hear that you've had that experience but I'm not sure it comports with my own experience. I guess I need to know more about the context of the specific questions".

Well, MU, Scott has proposed a couple of excellent questions in his post at 12:31pm that have been asked many times over the past four thousand or so years.

Care to have a crack at those questions? Perhaps you have a different answer other than what Scott proposes is the "typical" Christian answer. I am dying to hear it.

MU-In the same response to me as noted above, you asked me if I was referring to the Theological or Mythological understanding of God. I have no clue what the difference is. Please tell me what the main differences are. I really need to know the basic idea of how God is viewed by you to have any chance of understanding your position.

PUZZLED, the only way to go about reforming religion, even good religion, is for those who preach it to come clean and admit it is all fabrication based on imaginary beings same as in Homer.
Until they do you can be sure all such preachers are untruthful and would not accept the truth no matter how clear it was made for them. Sort of do themselves out of a job and they'll allow that!

Also it is hardly unexpected that the leaders in your church are antagonistic towards each other since right at the start Paul was castigating Peter, publicly at that, for be mistaken about what Jesus intended. But you only get Paul's side of the story! This from a character who never even met Jesus!
As the biblical scholar Willis will confirm that Paul never refers to any of Jesus' teachings.
And it is Paul who is the founder of Christianity not Jesus.
Jesus was not a Christian!

An unholy trinity:

1. The book "Many Worlds in One" by respected cosmologist Alex Vilenkin proposed that this universe is but a bubble in a fathomless ocean of higher dimensions. Eventually, other bubbles in the ocean will meet ours and a phase boundary will sweep through our universe as fast as inflation in the first yoctosecond. The entire vacuum will erupt into blinding energy. Forget the slooow ripples of light speed - the universe will pop into an utterly alien state of being. Maybe.

2. In 1665, Sabbatai Zevi proclaimed himself the new Meschiach to great acclaim in the Jewish community. In 1666, he traveled to Istanbul, met various potentates and converted to Islam. Is this a sign and a portent?

3. This page is too long.

Well Numpty, because o' personal experience, it wid be merr accurate tae describe whit I feel for sich as you and the way ye deliberately attempt tae belittle folk by twistin whit they say, is a phobia.
It is scary the way ye keep saying much the same things RC priests say in their attempts tae put up a smoke screen hoping tae bamboozle those who try to question them.

I've asked ye four times now...are you a priest?
Well are ye?

My thanks to Willis Elliott for his apology. And point well taken about the response to bad religion being good religion. Yes. The response does not necessarily mean we do away with it (as if that were possible!). However, regardless of how you view Sam Harris (I agree he places too much at the doorstep of religion), the question still remains: how do we do away with bad religion?

A confession first: I still go to church, mostly out of habit. Also family pressure, especially from my wife (who is not devout, but believes in the innate goodness of Jesus' teachings).

I go to church and what is so interesting is that there is often tension amongst the church leaders (e.g., amongst the elders, between the pastor and some elders, etc.). And when there was a meeting on the annual budget recently, a couple of the elders really went at it with one another. What is interesting to me is that the church is an organization like any other. Companies codify rules to ensure "ethical behavior" but at church, whenever such issues come up, the pastor or one of the elders would say something like "let's pray for forgiveness" and maybe there would be some fuss made over how we have to "become better Christians," "learn to forgive," etc.

My point is this: my impression is that churchgoers really don't like to admit that the church is an organization just like any other and it requires not only rules but also the vigilance and the critical eye of the individual members of the congregation in making sure that the church leaders do what is "right." However, this implies distrust of the church leaders (although it really should not). Perhaps this reflects the submissive attitude on the part of many that everything is given to us by god (faith, the church I attend, etc.). But even if god give us our faith (so far eluding me), we also need to understand that we have to make it what it is. Just as we make our society what it is (even if we concede that the ability to do so is god-given), the same applies to the church.

So, for argument's sake, I will not argue with you and some others that Sam Harris is too far to the other end of the spectrum, and is not realistic. But then I would ask Willis Elliott (or anyone else): how do we go about reforming religion? In response to criticism about religion, you respond that the better way is to find good religion. But how, if the church itself does not admit it has problems?

Just like any other business (and yes, church is a kind of business), when things are going well, people don't ask tough questions. Many churches are doing well these days, and religions have an increasingly strong voice in the public arena (just look at all those mega-churches, the candidates falling over each other to profess their faith in the presidential race, etc.). So few ask the tough questions, while the church is taken in directions that the faithful see as problematic.

I'm not a chancer, a numpty or a bampot, nor am I developmentally disabled.

Bernie, I'm flattered by your obsession with me, but please don't spread falsehoods.

While I concur with the Anonymous post, I had nothing to do with it.

Now, what about the verse? And are we all invited, or not?

And there he is back with his adopted moniker, the more appropriate one and Numpty thinks we don't notice the last two posts in reply to Scott are baith frae him!
Numpty must believe we'er all as mentally retarded as he is!

That's Numpty back as Anonymous again replyin tae Scott.
What a chancer!

Scott,

Sorry for neglecting to respond.

I guess my point was narrower than you suggest. I simply meant that nothing prevents anyone from raising the kinds of objections that you do—indeed it is a constitutionally protected right. Everyone hearing your criticism then is entirely free to accept or reject it. There is hardly a shortage of critics of religion.

You ask, "How do these views allow for rational criticism? If these beliefs are immune from logic, universal truth or even human suffering, how can we quantify their validity?"

On one level I think you just have to make allowance for differences in people's perceptions. While there may be absolutely impersonal standards in science, such is not the case in other areas of human activity like art, music, poetry, drama. In those realms we take from granted that there are widely divergent views about what is meaningful, valuable, beautiful and true. (Indeed, these days it is unfashionable even to suggest the possibility of impersonal criteria in those fields. And there are plenty of completely irreligious people who reject the primacy of reason and objective truth.)

That said, the whole point of faith is to seek what is ultimately and universally true. While science and faith are "non-overlapping magisteria", the person making truth claims from a faith perspective cannot pretend to describe a different universe than the one all human beings inhabit. And for anyone with a mature faith, reason is a very important corrective, and in our time science undeniably is a source of revelation.

It's one thing to say, without empirical evidence, that God is. It's not a testable hypothesis (notwithstanding Dawkins' assertion otherwise). It's something else entirely to claim that the earth is 6,000 years old, in direct contradiction of all evidence.

scott wrote

"How do these views allow for rational criticism? If these beliefs are immune from logic, universal truth or even human suffering, how can we quantify their validity?"

Answer: Start reading from the top of the forum and work your way down.

MU wrote: "Harris' boneheadedness is pretty amazing—until you realize that he's just a Coulteresque performance artist who's laughing all the way to the bank."

You still haven't addressed my earlier question regarding your claim that religious beliefs are not immune from criticism. I'm reposting the relevant section here for your convenience.

---

When asked why God no longer chooses to reveal himself as he did over 2,000 years ago, we get answers that can be boiled down to "God doesn't do personal appearances any more."

When we ask for proof of God, we hear answers such as "God exists outside of science or physical reality."

When we ask why God sometimes does not answer prayers, such as a father asking for his child to be healed, we hear answers such as "It was not Gods will".

When we ask why God allows suffering, torture and death, we hear answers such as "We can not understand the will of God."

--

Adding...

When we give overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution or point to far away galaxies that had to exist tens of millions of years ago for their light to reach earth, we hear "your evidence is not sufficient."

How do these views allow for rational criticism? If these beliefs are immune from logic, universal truth or even human suffering, how can we quantify their validity?

"Do any of you recall that this thread began with Sam Harris' assertion that religion is bad news for women..."

Willis, in my view, all claims about what deity wants for and from humans are almost certainly created by humans for their own purposes. Many, many of those claims are about what deity wants for women. When religions place more limitations on women than on men, those limitations have almost nothing to do with biological differences between the genders. To me, it doesn't matter whether those ideas have any origin in scripture or in culture, because the effect on women (and men) is the same.

Here's an example - scholars of Islam have rightly pointed out that female genital mutilation is not found in the Qu'ran. Still, the people who carry out the horrid practice believe that God has commanded it. The practice seems aimed at preventing women from enjoying sex. Other religious practices have that same goal. I cannot think of a rational reason for that goal. As far as I can tell, that goal is really about controlling women in general.

But Bernie you promised to smite the pious in verse from now on!? Don't disappoint, eh?

"I was speaking as an aspiring follower of Jesus."

Understood. I was using "you" in the generic sense. I was arguing against the idea that any religion has a monopoly on truth.

"Some make that interpretation, but reason militates against it, beginning with the fact that there are many people who for various reasons lack the opportunity or the freedom to accept Christ."

Good point about reason. My point was that many people base their actions toward others on that interpretation. We can argue that the interpretation is not reasonable, but that would not change those actions.

Willis, what Jesus said about loving even your enemies is a lovely thought (although in this world surely impractical?) But how can you reconcile such compassion, gentleness and kindliness with Soja’s cruel god who’s got it in for most of us when we conk out? All but a tiny fraction of us (if that!) are headed for the equivalent of Joe Stalin’s gulag system by the sound of Soja! And all because she claims we were made in her god’s image (without our permission too!) we’re going to be punished for a myriad of imperfections (not just bullying) for ever after. What satisfaction will Soja’s god get from that?
Surely Soja’s god is the biggest bully of em all? And the further we are away from that critter better?

Dr. Elliott,

Thank you again for your insights and for your lifetime of service.

Harris' boneheadedness is pretty amazing—until you realize that he's just a Coulteresque performance artist who's laughing all the way to the bank.

1----Do any of you recall that this thread began with Sam Harris' assertion that religion is bad news for women & gender equality would liberate women? In several posts I laid out the patent stupidity of this one-sided remark. No recognition of the fact that women generally are more enthusiastic about religion than are men. No recognition of the difference between equality & equity (the latter as justice considerate of the differing functions & dis/advantages of the sexes--e.g., the cuckoldry problem of male-genes continuation). No distinction between religion & culture.

2----In the 1.25.07 BookTV/C-Span 2 "Debate on Religion & Reason," Sam was exposed as one so hateful of religion, & especially of religious language, that he cannot see straight to make rational distinctions. He pulls the religion thread out of a stinking garment & gleefully announces that it was the religion that was making the garment stink! When he condemned the State of Israel for its religion, the moderator pointed out to him that that state was begun by atheist Zionists. When he said "We no longer have a right to our religious provincialism" & so should eliminate religious language, he opponent Reza Aslan pointed to the plain fact that human beings naturally have words for the transcendent, & you can't fight mother nature. And when Sam said "My main gripe with religion is that you can't change it," he was confronted with the plain fact that religions evolve. But Sam persisted, with this sophomorism: "There is no room for religious language." Finally, Reza Aslan, having enough of Sam's irrational negatives, nailed Sam's reasoning as "unscientific."

3----By my 90th year, I've had long & continents-wide experience of Sam's monomaniacal type of mind, the "let's-get-rid-of" type. I confronted 500 screaming Nazis, denouncing them for their let's-get-rid-of-Jews mentality. How stupid & evil to think that Germany's (or the world's) problems would disappear in one "final solution," the elimination of Jews! Sam is preaching the elimination of religious people not by killing them but by eliminating their religion by eliminating their religious language. To this old scholar, Sam seems not just childish but infantile. And dangerous. All single-solution-by-elmination thinkers are dangerous. Parading themselves as rational, they are fanatic enemies of reason. Infatuated with what he calls science but is really scientism, Sam presents "objective facts" as a sufficient basis for human life, rejecting as delusional all other ways of knowing (accesses to truth) than the scientific method.

4----Of course there's bad religion! There's bad everything that's human! But the answer to bad is good, not nothing. The answer to bad religion is good religion....as the answer to bad sex is not no sex but good sex. Sam's "final solution" by eliminating religion is as irrational as was the Nazi "final solution"--both driven not by reason but by hate.

5----Thank God for the theists who've injected some reason into this conversation. Especially Soja, who reminded us of "You have made us for yourself, O God, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You" (Augustine's CONFESSIONS); & who said (2.4/9:21pm) "I enjoy all things that an atheist does, only it has more meaning and eternal value."

6----Every natural-therefore-necessary human concern (area of expertise) exists on the rungs of a sophistication-ladder. A particular human being will be at various levels vis-a-vis various concerns. Most of the posters on this "Sam Harris" thread are rather low-rung in religion. Sam is somewhere among the middle rungs. I am low-rung in many concerns, middling in some, & high in religion. The higher one is on a particular ladder, the easier to look down on those below. I apologize if I've done that to any of you. (My Lord Jesus Christ tells me to love even my enemies; i.e., not to be an enemy, though sometimes I must be an opponent.)

I thought I had bowed out, but here I am again! :) ;)

The book "The Great Divorce" by C S Lewis is a great eye opener on the topic of hell. I recommend it to anyone grappling with the idea of free will, heaven and a loving God. I mentioned the book on another thread. It is written in prose but very much along the lines of Dante's "The Divine Comedy. BTW, All of C S Lewis' books are fantastic. He was an atheist himself, so he knows all the arguments and lines of thought of the atheist. He has presented Christianity in as rational a fashion as one can possibly present it.

According to his understanding of hell, it is separation from God. Remember how vast the universe is which God created. It doesn't take Him much trouble to find human beings a place where He would seem far away. We feel God is non-existent simply by shutting Him out of minds. But after death, human beings can no longer deny His existence. There may be atheists in foxholes, but there are no atheists on the other side of eternity. All truth will be evident to them as clear as day. Read of people having their entire lives flashed before their eyes in a fraction of a second close to death?

So in C S Lewis' view (surely shared by many other Christian writers), human beings will judge themselves when their lives are flashed before their eyes. If they have lived a bad life, they will run from the presence of a loving God, because they will feel like trash before His holiness. Our intelligence will feel like foolish before the infinite knowledge of God. Think of how many scientists have been at trying to figure out the universe He created and are clueless for the most part. The separation from God's Love is what hell is about. All those who have experienced great love in this life know how wonderful it is. Just imagine how the love of God must feel like, He who is the author of all the love of all the human beings since the beginning of time. That must be awesome indeed! Has anyone ever been madly in love and been separated from him or her? Doesn't it feel like hell? So that is what it is supposed to be - separation from the love of God when truth is laid bare, all self deception is gone and we see ourselves as God sees us.

(I have my own pet vision of heaven and hell, and I will share it here, since someone I shared it with thought it was really cool. On the other side of eternity, everyone will be put together with people like themselves. That will mean heaven for some and hell for others. For example: Imagine all the bullies being stuck together for eternity, with no one to bully. That must feel like hell! Every bully will know the tactics of the other bullies, but will have no one to deceive or bully. All all their victims will be safely under God's protection and the bully can't get anywhere near them!)

I'm trying to write from what I remember of what C S Lewis wrote, with my own interpretation of it. I read most of his books nearly 23 years ago. So please excuse the inaccuracies in my portrayal of his ideas.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

MU Wrote: "The whole idea of punishment may be problematic (and some Christians reject it just as strenuously as others insist on it). But since we seem to have free will (and must have free will if we really are made in God's image), it would seem to follow that we ought to have some kind of say in the matter (otherwise we would not be free), and therefore there must be some kind of alternative to being with God."

The concept of being punished by an omnipotent, omniscient God who gave me free will truly puzzles me.

If there was nothing before God created the universe and everything the universe is God's creation, then God must have created this "alternative to being with God" or, at the very least, created us with the ability to choose it.

Since at least one person in the last 2000 years has died in this "alternate state without God", wouldn't God have known free will would result in eternal suffering of at least one person? Does this not mean that God is willing to let people suffer eternal punishment just so he can know if we truly love and believe in him?

Why, no, Bernie, rhyme cannae be any more of an issue than the dialect, now can it?

Aye but, d'ye think Mr Meacham or the devout in there might take it amiss if some of my posts used rhyme to the same extent to argue the case for non-believers?

Timmy (ref post 4 February 2007 4:35 AM),

I cannot speak much for the science vs. religion conflict in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I belong to the group of Christians in Kerala, who were converted by Apostle Thomas in 52 AD. Only in 1599 did one group agree to come under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church, and came to be known as Syro-Malabar Catholics (and I belong to such a family). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Diamper Until Vasco da Gama came to Kerala in 1498 (fourteen and a half centuries alter Apostle Thomas!), Christians in Kerala had nothing to do with the Catholic Church in Rome. The early Christians in Kerala were Hindu in culture and Syro-Judaeic in worship. Francis Xavier, the first missionary of the Roman Catholic Church, who is credited with mass scale conversions of the lower castes and the poor, because he chose to identify with them like Jesus would, (Arundathi Roy refers to them as “rice Christians” in her book) came to Kerala in 1542, nearly fifteen centuries after Apostle Thomas.

So culturally and historically, I’m not familiar with the tradition of science vs. religion conflict. In the Hindu tradition of India, the Brahmins were not only priests, but were also scholars in other fields of knowledge. They did not have a religion vs. science conflict because they perceived all knowledge (scientific and otherwise) and wisdom as revelation of God. In the mind of a Hindu such a conflict doesn’t exist. This is an awareness I have inherited, so the whole atheistic argument that I could not possibly be a believer if I believed in the scientific method and science is completely foreign and nonsensical to me. The scientist does not study the DNA with a Hubble Space telescope or the stars with an electron microscope. So the ways to know God are simply different from the ways to know the physical universe as a scientist does.

Not being exposed to the European history of the Roman Catholic Church, I read about the bad things that happened in Europe in connection with the Church for the first time in Fr Bede Griffiths’ autobiography, “The Golden String” in 1984. He explains in his book that it is not what the Church did to Christianity but what Christians did to the Church. Human beings get corrupted by power and misuse it for their own personal ends. Religious leaders end up playing politics, politicians end up using religion as a political tool. It is the fallible human nature at fault, not religion. Remember the concept of free will is basic to the Abrahamic faiths. While bad acts by Christians taints the reputation of Christianity, it does not reduce the value of the teachings of Jesus Christ. There are many in the Catholic Church who has done wonderful things for the good reputation of the Church. Some of them are elevated to the status of saints so that they may serve as role models of how to practise Christianity in the right way.In times of political conflict and instability, the Catholic Church served as guardians of knowledge and the European culture. Read about the Benedictine order for more details. The Jesuits have always been soldiers for Christ and excelled in knowledge at the same time. To this day, Jesuits are intellectuals by tradition, and run many excellent educational institutions around the world. There are many other examples, but I won't go into them. It is a pity if one develops a myopic vision that shuts out the good, and picks out only the worst and focuses entirely on it.

Just as I would not like to take responsibility for the things somebody may do in my name contrary to what I believe or hold as valuable, so also Jesus Christ or the Christian religion He founded cannot be held responsible for what human beings do in His name.

I take responsibility for my own spiritual life and my relationship to my Creator whom I worship in the person of Jesus Christ. My spiritual life is my personal business. Others may be a help or a hindrance, so I do not depend on others. I draw inspiration from those who are good role models of course, but I do not let my faith be affected negatively by a priest or any other Christian I know. I know and have known wonderful Christians. I have also known religious hypocrites, among the lay and religious. It is up to me to decide whether I want a religious hypocrite to determine my relationship with my God.

I have decided to write a short summary of my spiritual journey on the main thread about prayer, as a kind of personal testimony. It is not dramatic considering I have been a Christian all my life, but it has been a journey involving many different stages of my faith, and I made the journey in answer to an inner call not as a result of coersion from anyone. It is also a journey of keeping the faith when there was nothing but a blind faith to keep me going, when all else around me crumbled. I doubt if atheism would have been/be of any use to me in those circumstances. Now don’t jump into the conclusion that my belief is a crutch for the bad times. I have always been a Christian, remember, even as a child, even in the good times. My life has more meaning and beauty and hope because of my faith. I enjoy all the things that an atheist does, only it has more meaning and eternal value. I hate to think that all the people who have gone ahead of me to eternity don’t exist. I look forward to meeting with them again at a different level of consciousness in which their appearance will be different but they will be recognisable in their essence. There are already quite a number of them I miss. No, I’m not in the twilight of my life awaiting death, and if both my grandmothers are any indication of my life span I have only lived half my life.

O, I'm quite indifferent the fact that I appear a fool in the eyes of an atheist - my feathers are well oiled in that regard.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Delightful, Bernie! Thenk ye! or should I say, Tapadh leat!

If we all come for a tour, will you put us up and show us about?

The Swan o’ the Tay

For many years now fan clubs have been established not only here in Scotland but also in the former Colonies, including America, and even such far flung places as Japan, Argentina and Russia in honour of an ancestor of mine, my great, great, great uncle (on my mother’s side). He was known to his contemporaries as “The Great McGonagall” and was also to become even better known as “The World’s Best Worst Poet”. As with everything else though, you have to have talent, indeed genius, to be best at anything.
And take note he was a devout Christian and among the first to advocate votes for women!

After perusing a little of his musings here plus a couple of my own puny efforts to follow his inimitable style you should check him out on Google to get an idea of his legion of enthusiastic fans and who knows but one or two of you in here may become admirers as well!

Anyways, for me a sign of greatness is the easy manner in which an individual can thrust aside any rule or regulation calculated to hamper his movements: and here Great Uncle William excelled every other singer of sweet song. So great was this poet that he deigned to observe only a few rules—and then only the simplest. In rhymed verse a certain amount of harmony is usually considered necessary. It is one of the elements totally lacking in the writings of this wonderful man.

The better to illustrate what I mean I’ll give a few samples from another well-known Scottish poet. Lord Byron’s poetry is handy, so with your permission (I hope) I’ll open that volume at random;
From “Hours of Idleness”:

“Oh, friends regretted, scenes forever dear,
Remembrance hails you with warmest tear.
Drooping, she bends o’er Fancy’s urn,
To trace the hours that never can return.

Here is a specimen of alternate rhymes:

“Deceit is a stranger as yet to my soul;
I still am unpractised to varnish the truth
Then why should I live in a hateful control?
Why waste upon folly the days of my youth?

Now here are two specimens of our bard’s own:-

From “The Death of Lord and Lady Dalhousie”

“Alas! Lord and Lady Dalhousie are dead, and buried at last,
Which causes many people to feel a little downcast.
And both lie side by side in one grave,
But I hope God in his goodness their souls will save.

A pious thought indeed. (Let us trust the hint was taken).

From “Baldovan Mansion”

“Stately mansion of Baldovan,
Most beautiful to see,
Belonging to Sir John Ogilvie,
Ex-MP of Dundee.
When there the little loch nearby
Whereon can be seen every day
Numerous wild ducks swimming
And quacking to each other in their innocent play.

William positively revelled in scenes of terror, war and shipwreck

“Twas on the 8th September the barque ‘Lynton’ sail’d for Aspinwall,
And the crew on board numbered thirteen in all,
And the weather at the time was really very fine
On the morning that the ill-fated vessel left the Tyne.

“And on the 19th November they hove in sight of Aspinwall,
But little did they think there was going to be a squall;
When all of a sudden the sea came rolling in,
And a sound was heard in the heavens of a rather peculiar din.

And so on for twenty stanzas.

There are twelve stanzas on women’s suffrage but I’ll just quote two so you can see how hard he championed women’s rights in those unenlightened days:

“Yes, the Home Secretary of the present day
Against the working women’s deputations has always said Nay;
Because they haven’t got the Parliamentary franchise
That is the reason why he does them despise.

“And that, in my opinion, is really very unjust,
But the time is not far distant, I most earnestly trust,
When women will have a Parliamentary vote,
And many of them, I hope, will wear a better petticoat.

It is a generous a pious hope; but (poets are often obscure) it is a bit difficult to detect the connections between votes and petticoats. Was William’s sense of propriety disturbed by the character of the garments worn at the time by the lady agitators, or was he simply in need of a rhyme?

From political questions to social problems is a short step, and William took it. “The Sorrows of the Blind” engaged his sympathetic attention. Lost children and foundlings brought if not tears from the eyes, at least ink from his pen.
But in this connection his strongest effort was in the cause of temperance. Here are a few characteristic stanzas from his broadside on “The Demon Drink”

“Oh, thou Demon Drink, thou fell destroyer,
The curse of society and its greatest annoyer,
What hast thou done to society, let me think?
I answer thou hast caused the must ills, thou Demon Drink.

“Thou cause the mother to neglect her child,
Also the father to act as he were wild,
So that he neglects his loving wife and family dear
By spending his earnings foolishly on whisky, rum and beer.

This is certainly most reprehensible, but wait, there’s worse, much worse, further on in the complaint.

“The man that gets drunk is little else than a fool,
And is in the habit, no doubt, of advocating Home Rule,
But the best of Home Rule for him, as far as I can understand
Is the abolition of strong drink from the land.

“And the men that get drunk, in general, wants Home Rule,
But such men, I think, should keep their heads cool.
And try to learn more sense, I most earnestly do pray,
And help to get strong drink abolished without delay.

There you have it! These wicked Home Rulers! Who would have dreamed it, but for the revelation of our inspired one?

Here still further:-

“Alas! Strong drink makes men and women fanatics,
And helps to fill our prisons and lunatics (fill lunatics!?)
And if there was no strong drink such cases wouldn’t be
Which would be a very glad sight for all Christians to see.

Clearly he wasn’t in favour of Home Rule, the demand for which according to him, was due to drink—or was he again just in need of rhymes?

His subjects had to be worthy of his supreme gifts. No common person, no mere friend or acquaintance, could hope to receive his aid to immortality. Princes and Potentates, great Generals, members of the Nobility, and eminent Divines—these and these only would he condescend to sing of when they died; and as surely as they died he sang of them. Such a one, in fact, could no more hope to escape William than they could hope to escape death itself.

In 1882 a disloyal wretch named McLean (he was mad, of course) , with a low regard of exalted station and the value of gunpowder, fired a pistol at Queen Victoria as she rode in her carriage. He was ultimately put away for life, but this punishment did not satisfy William, who proceeded to deal with him as he deserved.
When the culprit later read William’s “The Attempted Assassination of the Queen” he had a nervous breakdown and claimed that if he could have foreseen such a result of his attempt he would have held his hand, and saved the powder and shot—the “poet!”

Another of William’s elegies commemorates the death and burial of Lord Tennyson. Now, this is surprising, for he made no secret of the contempt in which he held almost all other poets. He had once, when being complimented by certain of his admirers, who assured him he had not his equal in the world, modestly admitted the truth of this, but claimed one exception.
“I bow the knee to Shakespeare, but no other poet, living or dead!”

It was seldom that our bard used in his many journeys any other mode of travelling than the good old fashioned one of walking. This was especially the case when he went to Balmoral to visit Queen Victoria. The august lady was “not at home” to Mr McGonagall. So the indefatigable bard trudged back to Dundee and wrote a poem about it.

Our bard suffered from that fell trouble, which in all ages has marked the poet—poverty. In those days, when the cost of commodities and of public service was much lower than nowadays, a steerage passage from Glasgow to New York cost about three pounds. But William seldom had three shillings to call his own. He sold his verses on the streets of Dundee at a penny a sheet (or tuppence signed by the author).
A plan was suggested to him which he hastened to adopt: procuring a penny passbook, he went the rounds of his patrons, explaining his desire and soliciting their aid. The appeal met with a generous response. Among the last to whom he applied was Mr A. C. Lamb, the proprietor of Lamb’s Hotel in Reform Street. This gentleman was more than a hotelkeeper. He had himself a literary turn, and was an enthusiastic collector of rare editions. When he saw the list he added a generous subscription, and then gave his client a piece of advice.

He said, “McGonagall, they are doing this in the hope of getting rid of you. (true, there were lots of folk in Dundee ashamed of him and some still are even to this day!)
“They hope you will not be able to get back.”
To this the poet could reply only with a blank stare, but Mr Lamb assured him, “Never mind, if you don’t get on in America, and you find you would like to come home, write to me, and I’ll see to it that you get home again.”

So William set out on this fresh adventure with a light heart. He sailed from Glasgow in the steerage of the “Circassia” of the Anchor Line. It was a slow boat, taking nineteen days to make the run. As is the custom on these boats, concerts were held by the passengers to while away the time, but our bard took part on the first day only. There was no profit in them. He kept his own company during the greater part of the voyage.

I won’t dilate on this experience; the fruit of it is to be found in his “Jottings of New York”. He had there a greater disappointment than any at home. He was fortunate in finding some friends with whom he lodged during his stay. The Americans simply ignored him, and after a very brief stay he was fain to recall Mr Lamb’s promise.
The promise was promptly and generously redeemed. His genial benefactor not only sent to the Anchor Line Company at New York the amount necessary for a second cabin passage home, but remitted to the poet a sum of money for side expenses. So that our wanderer returned not only richer in experience, but richer in pocket as well.

It was immediately after his return from the American trip that he moved his residence from Paton’s Lane to Step Row. Here he lived for about seven years, turning out his ‘poems’ as new subjects were suggested. Then fining both his practice and his prestige somewhat diminished, he sought a new home in Perth. But the Fair City proved unappreciative of his talents. The area was too circumscribed; the people willing to buy his broadsides too few in number. Poverty now dogged his steps more closely than ever; and in this emergency he was contemplating a return to Dundee, when his native city claimed him.

William’s reputation as a fun provider and “butt” had become known far and wide by this time, and a number of persons, having learned he was not satisfied in Perth, invited him to remove to Edinburgh. He accepted, and the manner of his return to Modern Athens (as Edinburgh is known as) is described very freely in a letter published in a paper of that city.
He was met by a few admirers at the station. On reaching Princes Street, which looked extremely beautiful in the moonlight, one of the party ventured to remind him that if he cared to dip his pen in the poetic well, here was an excellent subject. With a majestic gesture he replied, “I immortalised this scene years ago.”
His opinions regarding Shakespeare and Burns were vastly entertaining. He gravely informed those around the tea table that he considered himself greater than these celebrities.

His entrance into the large room was an occasion for wild cheering. The chairman introduced William and the members of the gathering were in turn presented to the poet. They persuaded him that the Emperor Theebaw of Burma had made him a knight of the Order of the White Elephant with the title of Sir William Topaz McGonagall.
The star turn was soon provided; William came forward and gave ‘Bannockburn’, ‘Stirling Bridge’, and ‘William Wallace.’ A stout cudgel did service instead of a sword for the purpose of slaying imaginary enemies. The weapon proved dangerous all around him. By special request the poet was asked to recite one of his minor poems, and he obliged with ‘The Waters of Leith’. One of the verses ran as follows:
“Oh, waters of Leith! Oh waters of Leith
Where the girls go down to wash their teeth
And o’er the stream there is a house right knackie (ingeniously built)
Of that grand old man, Professor Blackie.

Note: There are doubts to the genuiness of this extract. It has little or no resemblance to the poet’s other works. It was probably the production of one of his baiters.
The fun waxed fast and furious until midnight. Never throughout the entire proceedings was there the semblance of a smile on his sombre countenance. Perhaps he was no fool when he had their guineas in his pocket. Be that as it may, the money so spent was a good investment.
“The Order of the White Elephant” was conferred on William in the University Hotel. After the ceremonial an illuminated address in Latin was presented. Finally a large drawing of the poet as “The Genius of Poetry” was placed on the steps of the throne. I have often wondered what became of these treasures?

It will be seen that the people who interested themselves in him (with few exceptions, like Mr Lamb) were moved by the desire to make gamer of him and amuse themselves with his eccentricities; and it has been suggested that he quite understood this, and ‘fooled them to the top of his bent’ because of the profit attached. That may or may not be true and I do not care here to hazard an opinion on that possibility.
But now that he has long left the earthly stage, and gone on that journey from which there’s no return, I’m inclined to think kindly of this strange forebear; and though in perusing his ‘works’ it is impossible to repress the feelings of hilarity and mockery they inspire, yet it must be granted to have been in his way an extraordinary character and a most interesting study.
In the words of his own favourite poet, we may say:
“Take him for all in all,
“We shall not see his like again.

All the same is talent hereditary? Is it in our genes as Andy and Timmy claim?
Well I’ve been told that I certainly show the same prolific vigour although true McGonagallators deny it is possible anybody will ever attain the heights of the Master’s ‘Rebel Surprise at Tamai’ or ‘The Tay Bridge Disaster’.
Even so some such do concede that I am seldom guilty of the troughs and longuers of The Swan of the Tay in his less felicitous moments.

To make the following quatrain a wee bit clearer you should know or can check on Google that the clans MacDonald and Campbell are deadly foes ever since the Campbells did a bit o’ ethnic cleansing in late 17c.
I have tae confess though that I lack the courage of that brave Uncle of mine and couldn’t bring myself to look for a rhyme to complete as some might think it unforgiveagle.
Anyway to start off here goes:

GLENCOE

Glencoe, Glencoe, for friend or foe
Your great grim pass is grand to show
With a beauty so classic it could hardly be classicker
What a pity you had such a serious disturbance.

GLASGOW

Beautiful city of Glasgow, belonging to Will Fyfe
And all your shipyards humming with loud industrial life
No doubt thou art a credit to the British nation,
With your beautiful statues and also Queen Street station.
Then there’s the Kelvin Hall and the University,
Where students learn the poetry of our glorious Scottish heresy.
And though Birmingham’s population has beat you by a few hundreds,
Everybody knows that Englishmen are just dunderheads
Whereas Scotsmen get clever eating porridge
And therefore I say: Let Glasgow flourish!

The Scot is a keen observer of his native land and loves to range within its boundaries:

LOCH LOMOND AND BEN LOMOND

Loch Lomond and Ben ditto no man can despise,
For each be it known, is of a most respectable size.
The one is made of rock and the other’s made of watter (sic)
And if the one fell in the other it would make an awful splatter.

The next sample is in the style of the Master’s grand manner

THE EAGLE-EYED SCOT ABROAD

PARIS

Oh glittering city of Paris on the banks of the River Seine,
Which can be reached without dismay in a boat or a train
And from notices on the train we can learn real French at the source,
Such as Defense de cracher and Ne pas pincha de horse.

You are a lovely City I ween, both the centre and the corners
Even though you are inhabited almost exclusively by foreigners.
And when tourists see the Eiffel Tower rearing above the street,
They are struck with awe and wonder and cry out “Oh! What a treat!”

Then I’m sure the Luxemburg Gardens are the most beautiful on earth
And nearly as fine to see as the South Inch at Perth
And if you want to go to Versailles you have to take a train
Which is a truly wonderful sight that no man can disdain.

The Arch de Triumph is splendid and not at all revolting,
And there’s a mechanical lift that takes you to the top without jolting
And from the top we can gaze around and see many surprises,
Such as a number of avenues, including Champs Elysees.

The Louvre has many large pictures and Greek statues and armoury;
I’m sure it’s as grand in its way as Dundee Infirmary.
And while we were walking on the Place de la Concorde the taximen kept viewing us
But we did disdain their greedy looks, for we’re told that their prices are ruinous.

Then we climbed up to Sacre Coeur and its shining marble basilica
And I exclaimed, How nice and sublime, to my friend Lachy Milligan
So thence we soon descended to Montmartre and Place Pigalle,
Which is a district of wickedness that makes people from virtue to fall.

But yet in gay Paree there’s very little cause to mourne
For everyone drinks wine with their meal, which is a custom I scorn
I am sure it makes French men and women rather loose in their morals
And if they ate more porridge and smokies there wouldn’t be so many quarrels.

By now you should all have a better insight of us Scots!
Or would you like more of the same?

The buildup is killing us, Bernie! Don't disappoint us!

How lovely to see how concerned you all are over the plight I'm in, especially the helpful advice provided by Soja.
I have developed a heavy cough now the infection is in my chest and have a what feels like a throat full of broken glass. It is very uncomfortable.

Nevertheless, I've struggled through with that opus I promised. It is a bit lengthy I suppose it is possible now that Andy has shown my the way to post it in parts but I'm thinking it will be easier for me just to press the button and send the lot. The long read should at least keep most of you out of mischief.

It is not written in dialect so you can relax on that score although a gloss for full understanding might have been helpful. Just let me say that the best version of the song that goes, 'I belong to Glasgow...but when I've got a couple of drinks on a Saturday night, Glasgow belongs tae me!' is the original one by Will Fyfe who wrote it and the music.

Won't be long till I'm back and believe me none of you who get right through to the end will ever be the same again!
You'll see!

Bernie Bee - try breaking your post into two parts.

Also, to read this thread without the delays, use the "edit with microsoft word" under "page" in the menu bar. the whole discussion then opens in a Word file, which is much easier to manage -- and you can save it as a word document, if you want.

Still hoping to see you on the Meacham thread

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/02/believing_in_things_unseen_is.html#comments

or look under "guest voices" if you can find it.

Bernie

PS: Please consider my check list and tips as coming to you from me in India.

Bernie

Sorry to hear you're down with the flu. I know how nasty it can be. Make sure you are not forgetting to take care of yourself, in the excitement of responding to everyone on this thread and your disappointment that your computer is not working as it should.

Here a checklist and tips:

Apart from your anti-fever medication,

1. Is your room now kept warmer than it was before you came down with the flu? (How easily one can forget such a thing!)

2. Are you dressed warmer than you did before you came down with the flu - protecting your neck? (Just as easy to forget the obvious.)

3. Drink plenty of fluids.

4. Get a high dose vitamin C supplement - 1 gm.

5. Inhale with a cammomile+sage tea infusion several times a day (at least four times). In case you haven't tried it: Boil water, add cammomile flowers and sage leaves. Take the pan/pot off the fire and with the lid closed leave it for 30 minutes. Your infusion is now ready. Put the pot/pan back on low heat, so that the steam begins to rise again, and inhale after removing from the fire, with a towel over your head to catch as much steam as possible. (Sorry about the poor quality of the how-to-do description, but I hope you understand what I mean.)

6. Taking extra care to eat healthy food, and taking a multi-vitamin supplement helps in any case to boost your immune system.

7. Be patient. With medication your flu should last a week, but without it you are likely to be sick for seven days. The point is to take precautionary measures so that it doesn't last longer then seven days.

I don't know if you have developed a cough. If there is no lung infection, you know you don't need antibiotics. Just take care to avoid that complication.

Get well soon!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Bernie, funny you should ask about what's outside our bubble. I just happened to read a brilliant wee book by a US prof called Alex Vilenkin called "Many Worlds in One" that answers your question - our bubble expands in a fathomless ocean of higher dimensions that contains countless zillions of other bubbles. One day the bubbles will all start joining up and the phase boundaries will rip though our universe at the speed of light and destroy everything in their path!

That would have put the kibosh on my Xmas, so I read a big history book by Niall Ferguson called "The War of the World" about how many millions of innocents Hitler and Stalin killed between them. That cheered me up again, since I wrote him a nice review and he kindly thanked me.

As for your IT travails, do Cntrl+A and Cntrl+C in the browser window to copy the entire source code for the page, then straight into Notepad and do Cntrl+V and you see just the text - all the pictures and silly bits get lost! You have to delete a few words at top and bottom, but that's all. Or you can copy into Word to keep the style and edit to your heart's content ...

As long as you've kept us waiting, it better be as good as you've promised, Bernie!

Deny what? What ye on about Numpty?

So Bernie ye don' deny it, then! I knew it!

By the bye Andy, when I press Ctrl A and Ctrl C the whole page is highlighted!
And when I click on the page I'm getting the message 'AOL is not running'

It has got me biting lumps out of the carpet but I still intend to keep trying to edit the post that should have gone off last night.

Andy, here's something that really puzzles me.
Right from the Big Bang the Universe has been expanding. What is it expanding into? More space?
Someone tried to explain this to me a good while back but all I could make out was that the Universe is not expanding into anything! It is just expanding!

Numpty, ye havtae admit I made a shrewd guess a wee while back that you could be an RC priest. Now I know for certain! Well, I mean a large part of RC priestly training covers all known perversions so the priest is never surprised what he hears in confession. Only that type of mentality could ask the questions that you have. It is why they are obsessed with anything to do with sex. Got it on the brain (worst place to have it) and the reason why they should never be allowed anywhere near children under any circs whatsoever!

Whoops - forgot inflation (sorry, Alan Guth!).

When the universe was one nanosecond old, inflation had already blown it up exponentially by a factor 10^50 or more, so the entire universe was already pretty big! But the part we can see now was indeed only a foot across (less, in fact, but the details border on pedantry).

As you see, cosmology is not for the faint-hearted.

Translation Manual, Vol. 1

Spacetime = space and time
If you don't have much of one, you don't have much of the other either, since x = ct for a spatial dimension x and time dimension t, where c = the speed of light.
For example, at universe age t = 1 nanosecond, each spatial dimension was just a foot long.

For us = For everyone in this universe, out to the light horizon quite a few bilion light-years in all directions.
We all live in a big bubble that is now some 42 billion light-years across. For details, read Brian Greene, who has the gift of explaining this stuff quite well.

No before = no before. Stephen Hawking imagines that "imaginary time" enables the universe to round off smoothly in the neighborhood of the big bang, but others don't understand and some don't believe Stephen understands either.
Imaginary time t' is obtained from time t by the transformation t' = it, where i is the square root of minus 1.

Hasidism = Branch of ultra-orthodox Judaism developed in the Pale of Settlement a few centuries ago.

Sabbatianism = Messianic heresy within Judaism led by Sabbatai Zevi in 1666. He converted to Islam, went to Istanbul and proclaimed himself the Messiah.

Shtetl = Little town (German "Städt'le") in the Pale of Settlement, the region in Eastern Europe, roughly between Poland and Russia, in which Jews were allowed to live until the 1940s.

YHWH = Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament

Tetragrammaton = Greek for four-letter word

The Nazis were bad, the Holocaust was a crime, the Jews were innocent.

I trust this suffices for Vol. 1.

Are ye feelin' better, then, Bernie? Since ye're in a sharing mood, a bit o' follow-up to the big bang post: Male or female? And if I may put this delicately, was any livestock harmed?

Timmy, for me at any rate, the Big Bang occurred behind a haystack in Brig-o-Weir when I was sweet 17.
No doubt Andy will go one (or even two)better!

Andy, may I respectfully suggest you explain your Nazi comment in plain English before it causes a furor (assuming such was not your intent)?

Also, I wonder if you would consider having all of your posts translated into English? Thank you.

Andy,

It's the term "for us" in your answer that still leaves me with questions.
I'm not sure. Did you answer my question about where the big bang occurred?

Hello World,
The guest voice on faith posted yesterday included this nice thought:

The rebbe of Kotzk, a Hasidic master from eastern Poland, commented on the Yishtabach blessing from the Jewish prayer book as follows ... that is all the proof that is needed to show that this was indeed a genuine experience. ... When a person is filled with illusory sensations, he loses the ability to identify a genuine sensation ... to experience an authentic sensation, he must actively work to give up any false emotions that he has.
(from Prayer and Self-Delusion by Rabbi Adin Steinsalz)

Any atheist despairing of understanding all the babble about gods that fills these pages can repudiate the falsehoods in good conscience. True revelation if such there be, will leave its trace, and all the better in the clear space prepared by that repudiation.

To get away from the Jesus babble, one could discuss Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer, the Baal Shem Tov who founded Hasidism, or maybe the mystic crypto-Sabbatian Hasidic prophet Rabbi Adam Baal Shem. But all that stuff is for the historians. That whole tradition from the shtetls in the Pale of Settlement was pretty much lost in the Shoah.

To translate, Baal Shem is Hebrew for "master of the [holy four-letter] name" YHWH [the Tetragrammaton].

I am a great fan of cleanouts and new starts but the Nazis overdid it.
Shalom, Andy

Bernie:
Press control + A then control + C. It's orders of magnitude faster than selecting a single line.
Ach, und gute Besserung!

Timmy:
Spacetime was created with the big bang. Spacetime and momenergy are a mutually dependent pair. John Archibald Wheeler (thesis supervisor to Dick Feynman, inventor of the term "black hole," Unitarian Christian and now an old man) coined the term "momenergy" to name the momentum-energy four-vector that most of us know (still harking back to the now too obvious to mention E = mc^2) as mass-energy. On this view, there was no before the big bang. For us, that moment was/is eternal, all around us, just 300 thousand light-years beyond the microwave background surface of last scattering.

God bless ye, Bernie. Yes, we'll pray for ye (an' ye'll eventually recover, I'll wager...)

Well Andy one guess at what was before the Big Bang is this very same Universe which had contracted to the size of that pinhead then expanded and will contract again. The Big Crush they call it and Not on Farrah Fawcet (ya durty bugger!)

And as for you, Smart Pants Andy, how do I copy into Notebook when I cannae even highlight a single line tae copy! You n yer superconvenience!

Now to top everything I've been pole-axed wae the flu (an act o' God?) Put in a word for me please Soja or am done for. I'll promise tae jine forces an we'll gang up on them irreligious buffoons! It's that bad!

Andy, being accused of a tangled knot of illogic is bad enough, but to have Deepak Chopra thrown back at you into the bargain is beyond humiliating!

Or not.

Andy,

I hope you don't think I question the big bang.
When I ask, "has it always been here?", I'm talking about before the big bang. Where did the big bang occur? Did the place where the big bang happened not exist before the big bang? What form was our universe in before the big bang? I know that it was a concentration of matter the size of a pin head a fraction of a second after the big bang. But what before that?

Soja,

What do you make of the long period of time when science and the church not only did not coexist in harmony, but scientists needed to be afraid of what they might discover next for fear that it might contradict with the Bible. And then what? Forget you ever discovered it? Or come out with your findings and risk being thrown in jail. You know, Galileo and all that.

Is it not highly suspicious to you that the church you now follow, at one time claimed that the Bible knew all of the things about the universe that science has now proven wrong. And now the church conveniently takes this new position of coexistence with science? When at one time, they threw scientists in jail.

So much back pedaling. So much justifying, and weaseling out of previous assertions of certainty. How many times does the church need to be caught in a lie before they lose credibility. It's no wonder that Christians elected George Bush twice. No matter how many times you get caught in a bald faced lie, Christians will look the other way. I just don't get it. How can you not feel like a dupe? Why would you still believe anything these people say? They lied about certain knowledge to gain moral authority.

You have to ask yourself honestly. What are your experiences of revelation that specifically confirm that the Bible is the word of God? Why do you give your spirituality to these convicted frauds?

Said Timmy:
On the scrolling problems ... I have no problems with my little laptop Mac no matter how big the page gets ... Was it always here or does it have a beginning?
(February 3, 2007 6:50 PM)

It's not the Mac, it's the browser. Evidently the Microsoft browser page cache is too small and the refresh rate too low. But who cares? It works if you have patience. By the way, my earlier techie comment was evidently in error: the input filter on this site, if any, failed to stop a dot-com link or a four-letter word that tripped off the Scottish tongue.

As for the question of whether the universe was always here or had a beginning, this has been debated from St Augustine through Immanuel Kant to the 1960s, when steady state cosmologists debated big bangers. Then they discovered that the microwave signal from a Bell Labs antenna was not from warm pigeon guano but was the echo of the big bang. Now even the Pope agrees with cosmology.

Said don't waste time reading this - i'm mentally unbalanced:
The whole idea of punishment may be problematic ... But since we seem to have free will (and must have free will if we really are made in God's image), it would seem to follow that we ought to have some kind of say in the matter (otherwise we would not be free), and therefore there must be some kind of alternative to being with God.
(February 3, 2007 7:01 PM)

I almost didn't waste my time reading this ... such a tangled knot of illogic requires the healing touch of Ockham's razor. I can treat the wound with my two-heads deconstruction of God as follows.

Each of us lives in a fuzzy state that may be represented roughly as our having two heads, a small one for everyday life and a big one for God. To the extent that we have any clue about God or can say anything meaningful about God, we must relate to an appropriate concept of God. Given the weird attributes of God, the only way to do this is to become God, from inside as it were, by inflating ourselves up to our big heads. This is hard work, and lots of thoughts about free will and so on bubble up to cloud the view, but once you do it, you can throw off the Abrahamic fetish.

By the way, pop guru Deepak Chopra says this clearly in his book "How to Know God". Much of the book is trash, in my humble opinion, but this key insight is a treasure from the Hindu tradition.

Said Bernie Bee:
We will never cease our search for knowledge but even if we lasted all the trillions of years we can never be in possession of all knowledge. It has to be a never ending search.
(February 3, 2007 7:05 PM)

The magic key to all knowledge is supervenience (to use a word I learned from philosopher Colin McGinn), whose Latin root means something like coming out on top. In the philosophical sense, one can say that biology supervenes on physics or that consciousness supervenes on brain processes.

Finding knowledge is not just learning one damned thing after another, or science would be no better than stamp collecting, but finding the patterns or the laws. Once you have a good law, the facts just fall into place, and keep on falling into place. If it made sense to say that God supervenes on everything, then all science would peak in God and God's law. We would enjoy peace unto all eternity.

Said Soja John Thaikattil:
I'm not interested in theology, and what is there to understand about atheism except that an atheist doesn't believe in God, for whatever reason? I'm not an anti-science believer. In fact I have more than a nodding acquaintance of how science is made.
(February 3, 2007 8:23 PM)

I would invite you to reflect on my comments a few lines above on God and supervenience. If the concept of God can be made logically and psychologically clean, we have a winner. If not, all is vanity. Therefore people do theology, as a bet against long odds but for a big prize.

Said Bernie Bee BA (Calcutta failed):
It's just hopeless the way this page is playing up! The bother doesn't affect other pages.
(February 3, 2007 9:11 PM)

Copy the whole page into Notepad and read it there. Edit your replies in Notepad and then copy and paste them en bloc into the comment field.

Said Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia:
Believing is just the beginning of an exciting lifelong journey for believers who take their faith life seriously. No, believers are not bored with God ... any more than scientists are bored with science.
(February 3, 2007 9:16 PM)

If God is a hugely distorted image of the self mirrored in the universe, your approach makes good sense. To see the stars you need good telescopes, and polishing the mirror of the self is worthwhile.

Thank you, peace and love.

Bernie, you couldn't use those lines with someone who believes in God and does science at the same time. Only belief about the existence of God is unchanging but the reality of God as we experience Him is changing all the time because God is infinite. Just as science learns more and more about the physical world God created, believers understand God in deeper ways with time. Belief in God and belief in science coexist in the mind of most believers without any contradiction.

Well Soja, us heathens think it's great that today's science will be superceded by tomorrow's science just as you believers think it's great tae be stick in the muds! Won't budge an inch from rigid belief!

PS: Believing in God is NOT the end of mystery. Ask people or read from those who have dedicated their lives to God, or live with the consciousness of God in their lives, seeking to do His will. Believing is just the beginning of an exciting lifelong journey for believers who take their faith life seriously. No, believers are not bored with God, despite all the unexplained aspects of life and God, any more than scientists are bored with science, despite several failed attempts to make a scientific experiment work; depite the fact that science never has a final answer to anything and today's science constantly supersedes yesterday's science.

It's just hopeless the way this page is playing up!
The bother doesn't affect other pages. I'm trying to edit the post and condense it to at least half the present size but it proving nigh impossible so I'm just gonnae leave it till taemorra. I'm all puchled out!

Timmy as far as I can make out from what I've read the moment of the Big Bang can be approached to fractions of millionths of a second but the actual moment let alone before it is likely to remain unknowable.
But what are we to make of present knowledge where there are cosmic particles so tiny the atoms that make up the earth contain space so vast in comparison these particles pass straight through the whole earth and even the sun as though not there! And the occasional colision is the cause of mutations that has brought about where we've evolved to!
And these aren't even the smallest particles of matter either! A particle has to be made up from something else and when we do get to split beyond the particle it is just strings of vibrations! Empty space! There's nothing there at all! Vibrations only!
And then the scientists today matter of factly talk of millions of parallel universes!
It's anuff tae drive anybody tae drink! So it is!

Phil,

Thanks very much for your thoughts.

I adopted this moniker a few days back in response to requests like yours. I had tried out 01001010100101011110101011010110101010001100101101, but I switched to this out of consideration for Bernie, so he wouldn't have to post a warning every time I posted. Timmy is very brave, but he is alone in using his real identity. (And after all, he's from a tiny, very laid-back country.)

You say, "The idea of eternity is unknowable to me." That's fair, but we started this exchange, remember, when you expressed the opinion that it would be "really boring". Unknowable I can buy, but then you can't proceed to describe it.

"Correct me if I am wrong but the God of both the Old and New Testament is not only conscious (sentient) but also omniscient and omnipotent." I guess I'm unsure whether you refer to a theological understanding of God, or to the way God is represented mythologically. My earlier post assumed the former, in which case my admittedly limited understanding would preclude ascribing attributes like sentience and consciousness, or even omniscience and omnipotence, or describing God as a watchmaker.

"One thing that believers always fall back on for the very hard 'why' questions is either, it is God's will or his motives are unknowable." I hear you that you've had that experience but I'm not sure it comports with my own experience. I guess I'd need to know more about the context or the specific questions.

"One of the things that that bothers me about Christian and all religious guilt is that you are constantly under the gun to please God." Again, I hear you but that is not at all my experience.

bernie, how will we know when it's ready?

Bernie,

Is the question of "why is it all here" not even in your head?
What about, "has it always been", or "is there a beginning."

Do you not at least wonder about these and have a lean, one way or another?

Soja,

Thank you for your response. I was not the one who questioned the history of Christianity in India. To me it is irrelevant. All the history and tradition in the world can not prove the divinity of Jesus. It's all just hearsay. The love and compassion message of Jesus I have already found. His divinity is not necessary for me to feel that message. Indeed he doesn't have to even be a real person for me to feel that message. I find that message in many people, and indeed, in my own heart. It just means that the message touches me, not that Christian Bible God exists.

While I will always wonder "why". It will never consume my life. I do not dedicate my life to that search because I am almost certain there will not be an answer any time in my life. If I put too much importance on finding that answer, I might become susceptible to believing someone who thinks that they have the answer. It's something that I do when I'm walking my dogs, or paddling my canoe, or lying in bed. And it's not really a search, because I don't expect to find it. But I do love to imagine about it.

Peace

To E. FAVOURITE:

I was delighted to read that you attended the anti-war rally in Washington recently. I had voiced my protest in the lead up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, and was in front of Sydney Town Hall along with other protestors as the "shock and awe" started. The shock was so awful, I felt as if the bombs were falling on my head. For days I felt like a frightened child cowering in a corner while bombs were falling all around me.

Why don't I take you up on your invitation to engage in an endless debate "God exists - no, He doesn't?" I have never felt the need to justify my faith in God or my Christian faith to an atheist. In fact although I have known atheists, and still know a couple of them who are really wonderful people and very special to me, I never discussed my belief with any of them. I have developed a philosophy in life to judge people by their fruit, not by their belief or non-belief, and to appreciate the beauty of truth, compassion, love and integrity no matter where I find it.

A long time ago, I spent endless hours in discussion with Westerners of all sizes and shapes in the Christian Ashram of Bede Griffiths. All were on a spiritual search of one kind or another. The discussions were on all possible topics, and they were wonderful. I learnt a lot from hearing opinions, and sharing experiences of people from around the world. But interesting as the discussions were, they lost all appeal for me after a while, and I started to long for solitude and silence. I found a resonance with mystical writing from all religions, but interreligious dialogue involving heavy weight theology, of which there were several being held at the Ashram, usually gave me a headache after about an hour of listening. I happen to have a very low threshold for headache, when it comes to discussions on topics that don't interest me, or that doesn't add to what I already know. I'm not interested in theology, and what is there to understand about atheism except that an atheist doesn't believe in God, for whatever reason? I'm not an anti-science believer. In fact I have more than a nodding acquaintance of how science is made.

I wish you peace and joy always!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Numpty, it has nuthin tae dae wae Robert Burns!
It is about a relative o' mine, well an ancestor more like!
Jist you haud yer wheesht and anticipate (with apprehension for you anyway!)what's on the way with patience and calm (before the storm!)like everybody else in here!

Dear TIMMY

Although I bowed out of this thread, I'm popping back to tell you that I didn't respond to your posts simply because I didn't have anything new to say. I didn't want to bore you or anyone else, or even myself by repeating what I had written several times.

I'm sure I love the song "Imagine" by John Lennon as much as you do. I am convinced that John Lennon does what he is called to do to the best of his ability. For me as a believer, Lennon reflects the glory of God through his life and his work, just as you reflect the glory of God through your life and your work. Yet I do not put John Lennon on the same footing as Jesus Christ - my imagination simply cannot be stretched that far. That is where we must agree to disagree.

I would not be a Christian by conviction if I did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Is Jesus Christ a myth? An analogy: What if I found a flower that was native to my town in Kerala, India, growing in Sydney, Australia, a flower that was completely foreign to the Australian soil? What if a native Australian told me that it was brought to Australia from my home town many centuries ago? Do I need a delusion to believe in the truth of it, even if the native Australian is unable to provide any history book which mentions the arrival of such a flowering plant, but can point to centuries of tradition that proves such a claim? To continue with the analogy, does an Australian native need an Englishman to confirm the history of his land and people? Is the history of the native Australian before the Englishman landed on their shores, irrelevant simply because it is not recorded in an English history textbook? Similarly Christianity is completely foreign to the original Hindu culture and belief of Kerala. How could several groups of people in a whole state, suddenly start to practice a religion that has absolutely no connection to Hinduism (like Buddhism has), and have the same explanation for its arrival in Kerala, passed on as tradition for centuries? Does it really matter to anyone in Kerala whether anyone in the West approves of the history of Christianity in Kerala? People in Kerala practised Christianity without submitting their religious practice for approval to a peer review committee in the West, nor did they prepare documents to satisfy a peer reivew committee in the West two thousand years later.

The real reason I popped in was in response to your one of your recent post - to tell you to keep up your quest for "why." Religions were born because of man's quest to answer that question you know. In the East, thousands of years ago, many, many people were so taken up with that question that they gladly left their homes and loved ones to go in search of an answer to that question. They lived for years, and mostly for the rest of their lives, solitary lives in caves or forests, exposed to natural elements, determined to find an answer. They were no less dedicated than scientists, only more so.

Live the question itself, until one day you live into the answer or the question itself disappears. The important thing is to keep the question alive. You might like to read the post by Francis Collins on this forum (his homily at the Prayer Breakfast on 1 February 2007. He was once an atheist you know.

St Augustine has a very simple explanation: "Our hearts were made for Thee O Lord, and our hearts are restless until it finds its rest in Thee."

http://www.request.org.uk/issues/evidence/evidence.htm

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

bernie, please no long rabbie burns verse, for the love o' haggis

I mean at the present time we know next to nothing of what it's all about.
We will never cease our search for knowledge but even if we lasted all the trillions of years we can never be in possession of all knowledge. It has to be a never ending search.
However, once anything becomes a mystery the search is ended. You've found faith in a god or whatever.

It's very frustrating just now trying to write a wee biography that's turned out a wee bit longer than I thought it would be when I started out.
But it is worth the struggle to see it through and then you will have some idea what I may be about to unleash (without warning!) on that Meacham page!

Timmy asks, "Why would God want to punish anyone..." (Good question, and I do hope I haven't implied that.) God presumably "wants" (the anthropomorphism is hard to avoid) the same thing for all of us—the destiny for which we are created by virtue of our human nature. We are created not for punishment, but quite the opposite—to be like God and with God. The whole idea of punishment may be problematic (and some Christians reject it just as strenuously as others insist on it). But since we seem to have free will (and must have free will if we really are made in God's image), it would seem to follow that we ought to have some kind of say in the matter (otherwise we would not be free), and therefore there must be some kind of alternative to being with God.

The usefulness of this construct is not that I fear punishment, but that I perceive that I have a free choice whether or not to seek to be united forever with God and the whole communion of saints. If that is my choice then I ought to express the sincerity of my desire in the very way I live my life, and the way I love God and my neighbor.

Bernie,

On the scrolling problems. All I can say is, GET A MAC.
I have no problems with my little laptop mac no matter how big the page gets.

re: THERE IS NO MYSTERY there is only lack of knowledge.

I think this is semantics, but I just looked up "mystery" and I take your point on that.

But: "real history is the sum total of all the human, indeed all the organic, activity that makes up life on earth."

I suppose, if that's how you'd like to define it. But what about life on other planets, in other galaxies and perhaps in other universes. What about the universe itself? Can we not speak of that history? We know that human history has a beginning. We know that the dinosaur history has a beginning. What about the universe itself? Are you saying we are not aloud or capable of wondering about that?

"Therefore we should stop inventing mysteries and systems and admit that we know next to nothing."

And stop trying to discover more knowledge?
Are our brains full now?
How do you know that it is not possible for the brain to comprehend totality. We comprehend everything we know so far. When should we stop looking for the next answer and the next answer?

"If our species managed to last that long might begin to learn even then just a little of what it's all about!"

Not if we stop searching as you suggest and just "admit that we know next to nothing."

You've lost me my friend.

Was it always here or does it have a beginning?
Which way to you lean?
Or do you just opt out of the question and bury your head in the sand?

I had trouble just now inding the meacham link - luckily I had copied it here. It seems to be gone from the site, but people are still posting.

Hope to see a poem of yours over there Bernie - and hope others respond too - there's lots that need to be said.

I wonder why they hid it so well??

MU-My bad. I apologize for thinking you are Jason. Your responses and words are indeed not very "Jason like". Some of my post was indeed low class. You called it snarky. That was my animosity towards the Troll coming through. Jason has poisoned this and other sites and I thought I was addressing him. Sorry about that.

It would be appreciated if you pick a moniker and stick to it. On an open forum like this personalities do come out. When you either hide or change your identity, your ulterior motives come into question. How can we engage you if you are hiding or change your identity? If we are going to take aim at you, LOL, we need to have a target. Timmy is a great example. If you live in LA, you can go heckle him when he performs at a comedy club. He is right out there for every one to see. You are very elusive which is the opposite of Timmy.

One thing that separates you from Jason is that you will actually answer a question. I will return the favor.

I would not want to experience the same moment of joy for all eternity as suggested in my metaphor of Yosemite Valley. What makes moments like that so special is just that. They are moments. They are a magic time that breaks the spell of every day life and struggle. You cannot strive for moments like that. They sometimes come when you least expect them and that is what makes them so special. I am referring to the appreciation of anything that one finds beautiful and makes one feel in awe. That emotion would not be special if one experienced it for eternity.

I cannot answer your second question. If life never ended, would I end my life at some point? How can anyone answer that question? I will let you know if I live to be 1,000 years old.

The idea of eternity is unknowable to me. Just as the idea of the entire universe smaller than the size of a sub atomic particle prior to the big bang is unknowable. I was attempting to put the spot light on the idea of spending the rest of eternity in God's Kingdom as described in the good book. That concept is one of many that I have a real problem with. Semantics is a real issue here and I clearly missed my target with you. JWR said it best. Eternity is a trillion years to the trillionth power and then add a few trillion years to that. I mean c'mon, who can possibly deal with that concept.

Regarding semantics, my use of the word sentient implied consciousness, not sensory perception. Look it up. Thanks to Mr. Webster both definitions apply. Once again, my point was missed because of your choice for the definition of Sentient. If I had said a conscious being rather than Sentient, would my paragraph have a different meaning for you?

I think you were a little premature in saying it was a bonehead statement for me to call God a Sentient being. Correct me if I am wrong but the God of both the Old and New Testament is not only conscious (sentient) but also omniscient and omnipotent. It is even laughable to me that God would have senses. Otherwise he might burn his finger when igniting a star. See how semantics and the double meaning of one word can destroy an otherwise good idea.

You turned around my next statement. I asserted that belief in a conscious all powerful God is an innocent and uncomplicated way of looking at existence. I stand by that statement.

One thing that believers always fall back on for the very hard "why" questions is either, it is God's will or his motives are unknowable. Man, I can't think of a more innocent and uncomplicated way to explain all things. Whenever you encounter any tough questions that you can't answer, always fall back on either of the first two above. Kind of like, I know you are but what am I. Very powerful if you are 10 but worthless in the rational world.

If you do not recognize the inherent weakness in that position, you can never hope to be taken seriously by any rational person. It is the perfect "get out of jail card" and works for every argument about religious questions you will ever be asked. With that kind of weapon in your arsenal, what could be more formidable, and dare I say child like in its innocence.

The rest of my post was admittedly a step away from reason and a not nice attempt to lure Jason out of hiding. One of the things that that bothers me about Christian and all religious guilt is that you are constantly under the gun to please God. The Old Testament is pretty scary about what happens if you don't believe. I was only alluding to that.

If God could speak, he might sound like Muhammed Ali after beating Sonny Liston in 1964. I'm a BAD man!

Timmy, history as always understood, is nonsense, because real history is the sum total of all the human, indeed all the organic, activity that makes up life on earth. If it were possible for an individual to comprehend this totality then there would be no mystery, no why. It is not possible. But this only means that what men call mystery is due simply to the mechanical shortcomings of the human brain. THERE IS NO MYSTERY: there is only lack of knowledge. Therefore we should stop inventing mysteries and systems and admit that we know next to nothing.

Homo sapiens is really the new kid on the block. We are still at a very early stage compared with even the dynasaurs who lasted over twenty million years. If our species managed to last that long might begin to learn even then just a little of what it's all about!

Is anyone else having difficulty on this page?
Just scrolling causes my computer to stall for a long time. It is now impossible to select sections to copy. Is it just me affected this way?

MU,

Why would God want to punish anyone for living by their convictions? Indeed why would God (non pointlessness) want, or need, to punish anyone, period?

It's a question, not a statement.

cheers

Tonio says, "Nothing like that was ever mentioned at my Lutheran church when I was growing up."

I don't really know much about Lutheranism, but to my knowledge Luther never rejected the traditional understanding of God as infinite; of one essence and existence; completely actual; and without parts (e.g., body, soul, matter, form). The Augsburg Confession says, "there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness..."

That's not to say that people in everyday discourse don't get carried away with anthropomorphism; undeniably they do.

"Why would you use Christianity as the test, and not some other religion?" I was speaking as an aspiring follower of Jesus.

"Or what about testing the claim against your own personal revelation that may or may not have anything to do with any organized religion?" As one who aspires to follow Jesus, the pertinent test for me would be what Christians going back to the Apostles have believed and testified to. Since the followers of Jesus live and believe as a community, there is no concept of private individual revelation.

"Isn't it an inherent part of Christian doctrine teach that people who do not accept Christ are damned forever, such as in Revelations 21:8?" No. Some make that interpretation, but reason militates against it, beginning with the fact that there are many people who for various reasons lack the opportunity or the freedom to accept Christ. God promised to save the Jews, and could God condemn Muslims who faithfully worship Him? In any event it's presumptuous of us to say whom God in God's mercy will save, or how Christ's saving power might be manifested.

To All,

I am confident that MU is Anony, is (was) Binary.
But I am also confident that he is not Jason. There have been some similarities, but MU has made statements and arguments that Jason would never be caught dead making. Even under a pseudonym.

Phil, thanks for answering my question. I have more questions off of that though.

1. Time either has a beginning or it does not. All of this started at some point, or it has always been. Do you lean one way or another on this?

I find the latter, although possible, really tough to wrap my head around. And the former, equally possible, and ever so slightly easier to wrap my head around. That is because everything I have ever known, has a beginning. If the universe has always been, then "why" disappears for me. However, if the universe does have a beginning, then "how" becomes far less important than "Why". If all of this has a beginning, then the answer to "how" must come with a "why". And I don't know why that "why" has to involve some entity controlling our lives.

2. We have all asked of the believers, why would God give us these enquiring minds if we were not to use them to discover all that we can about his universe? So take God out of that equation, and ask yourself, why would we non believers be on a quest to solve all of the questions we have in our heads about the universe and existence, except for one? "why".

We can not deny that this question is as present in our minds as any other. I'm afraid I have to agree with an MU question here. Why do we choose to opt out of the "why" question. Is this not equally as purposely simplifying of our lives as those who choose to make up an answer to "why"? Is choosing to accept that there is no "why" not an equal cop-out, to choosing to make up an answer?

I don't believe that, if there is a "why", that it necessarily means that there is an entity, (sentient or otherwise) that controls our destiny or our thoughts, or choses to make paper burn or not.

You (all of you) accuse MU and other believers of purposely living a simple existence by answering an unanswerable question. (so far). And MU accuses you of the same thing for choosing to believe that there is no "why" and opting out of the question that is in your head, like it or not.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with..... anyone?..... Hello?..... anyone?

I do not opt out of that omnipresent question, and I do not chose to accept an unsubstantiated answer to it. Am I the only one living a complex life, that all of you think that you are living, and accusing the other of opting out of?

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with...... anyone?........ Hello?....... Anyone?....... Agnostics?........ Anyone?...... Hello?

Oh boy, here it comes. I feel the wrath of Ducky and Pam about to come down on me.

There's definitely something in this ESP! It even seems some o' ye can see right in here!
Well, it's true I'm teetotal and have been ever since I improvised somewhat in boiling a cuppla eggs in a chip-pan full o' cookin oil and all but burnt the house down!
In here a lot o' ye want tae know Why This and Why That? Even more important why don't they have classes in school tae teach boys tae cook as well as lassies? I'm not allowed in the kitchen anymore, not even for a drink o' water!

When I say I'm teetotal I don't mean strictly so although near anuff. But after skimmin through that Meacham page I do need a stiff drink tae steady my nerves! It's mind-bogglin stuff in there.
However, the saving grace (as they say) is that they have wee songs and poems and it will gi'e me a chance tae show aff my talent in there! Oh aye, there's merr tae Bernie than ye'll ever fathom Phil, believe me, as am still trying tae figger oot who I am myself!

Will be back in here wi' a cuppla poetic gems for your perusal and as ye'll see for yersels I havnae wandered from the subject at hand.
See ye in a jiff.

Phil, for the record, I am Anonymous (but not all of them), and I may or may not be Binary, but you could not pay me to be Jason.

In my earlier post I may have taken your use of the word "eternity" too literally. I didn't mean to suggest anything about an afterlife or what it might be like. You made a flat statement about eternity, and knowing you're not an afterlife believer, I simply understood you to mean never-endingness.

So, that said: Would experiencing forever and ever the same feeling that you have while sitting in a green meadow in Yosemite Valley be "really boring", or not? More importantly, if you never aged past maturity and faced the prospect of a never-ending life, at precisely what point do you think you would have to commit suicide in order to avoid the eternal boredom you dread?

Phil says, "Believers profess that ALL 'why' questions can be answered by a belief in the sentient being that created and runs everything." With all respect, Phil, what an utterly boneheaded statement. Nobody (and yes, I'm sure you can dig up some exception to refute the categorical statement, but I'm sticking with it) professes that God is possessed of sensory organs and thus is "sentient". And while many people undoubtedly have an excessively literal understanding that God "runs everything," that is not a defining or even a mainstream belief.

"What an innocent and uncomplicated way of looking at existence!" Funny, that's PRECISELY my reaction when I hear people claim they don't "dwell" on "why" questions.

"Will God be upset with that or will he be glad that you are trying to understand his universe?" God presumably gave us the gifts of reason and intellect with the desire and expectation that we would use those gifts to learn everything we possibly can about everything that is. A mind is a terrible thing to waste (e.g., by opting out of "why" questions). (BTW, God did create us to be like God.)

"I assume your presence on this site is part of your work for God." You know what happens when you do that, Phil...

"I would hate to live with the possibility of failure hanging over my head and an eternity in Hell." (This paragraph starts out too-too-precious and ends up very snarky, but I'll respond with my well-known magnanimity anyway.) I make no apology for expecting to be held to account for the way I live my life and make use of the many gifts I've received. None of us knows when our hour will come, so we may as well strive to live that way. Some atheists in these discussions have assured me they feel no less accountable. But I guess that's not true of them all.

Bernie, "they" moved the link to the very bottom of this page. They are hiding from you.

Hi Bernie. Yes, there is a link at the top of this page. Look at the smiling face on the opposite side of the page from Sam Harris, AKA Ben Stiller. Click on "read the full entry" and be amazed at what you will find. Have fun man.

I have a personal question. Are you in fact a teetotaler? I love your accent but you lose it when you get really serious. It seems to me your drinking persona is just that and not the real Bernie. How am I doing so far? Phil

yes - link on this page, top right -- and here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/02/believing_in_things_unseen_is.html#comments

Timmy- OK, you are correct. You weren't "grinding Pam". Bad choice of words on my part. Many of the posts, that non-believers seem to have here, are arguments related to semantics. Your summation, that you both have very substantial common ground, is probably the key.

I lean towards the idea that there is no why. Why seems to lead towards a sentient being that has a plan and who runs things or, at the very least, set everything into motion. With a sentient being running everything, EVERY event would have a why answer. It would be the creators why but there would be no more mystery. Sort of like the watchmaker argument.

I believe the universe runs on physical laws that we are just beginning to understand. Einstein struggled with the idea that it was all completely random. I believe that an entirely random universe run by physical laws is completely palatable and really precludes that there could ever be a why answer to anything. We may someday comprehend much of the "how" it all works, but never the why.

It is OK for me to just simply accept that there are never going to be answers to that question. There are millions of corollary questions that may never have an answer. JWR covered some possibilities. Why is the speed of light set at its known velocity, why is matter made from atoms and the known sub atomic particles, why is there suffering in the world, why is there happiness in the world? I care, but those answers may never be forthcoming so I don't dwell on them much.

Believers profess that ALL "why" questions can be answered by a belief in the sentient being that created and runs everything. Sweet! How much better can it get than that? What an innocent and uncomplicated way of looking at existence!

If you are a believer, is it wrong to experiment and understand how God does it? I would propose that if you are trying to discover and understand the universe, you are in fact trying to put yourself at the same level as God. Will God be upset with that or will he be glad that you are trying to understand his universe? The Old Testament God would probably be pissed off. What do you think Jason?

We may eventually understand much of how the universe works but I doubt we will ever figure out why.

Jason has never argued that MU and his other monikers are not he. Bobby really protested that he was not Jason, so I assume that Bobby is a different guy.

Jason- Your argument about my eternity post, earlier today, is really interesting. My Yosemite Valley example was more of a metaphor for all things beautiful here on this earth.

Your example of billions of planets and some relation to an afterlife really has me confused. Please describe how you visualize eternity. Are there beautiful sunsets, green meadows with cool running streams and deer grazing in the meadows? Is it perhaps cloud like where there is no corporeal existence? Surely you can't think it has anything to do with the existence of billions of planets and the material universe? Are you content to not know what it is like until you get there?

I assume your presence on this site is part of your work for God. Perhaps it is one of the many behaviors that you feel compelled to do to win a place in heaven. Good for you. Just don't screw it up.

I would hate to live with the possibility of failure hanging over my head and an eternity in Hell. Wow! Talk about a burden that would haunt you night and day. That burden is far greater than whether I am going to make my next mortgage payment or not. May the Lord have mercy on you Jason. I hope that everything works out for you. All the best. Phil

Sounds good for a laff Phil but how d'ye get there?
Is there a link on this page?

Thanks, Phil -- I could comment on many of Meacham's points, but am hoping that others will chime in.

Andy Ross is there, also Soja John and Mentally Unbalanced

Hey Phil,

I'm not going to tell you to shut up. The more the merrier.

But I would like to clarify some things.
First, I haven't been "grinding Pam." Just trying to clarify our differences for clarity sake. Which seem to be quite small in the end.

On the question of why is it all here?
Given the option that there either is a "why" or there isn't a "why".
Pam leans towards, there is no "why"
I lean towards there being an "why"

Beyond that,
We both agree that no one knows if there is a "why"
Therefore, certainly no one knows what "why" is.
And we both agree that we are not likely to get an answer to that question any time soon, so there is no reason to spend your life obsessing or worrying about it.
We both agree that an afterlife is highly improbable and that there is no point in looking forward one. That we need to make the best of this life because it is very likely that it is all that we have.
And certainly we agree on religion.

I don't think that Pam is certain that there is no "why", she just leans heavily in that direction. But she gets accused of being a fundie atheist because she makes statements like "Look, there is no purpose so get used to it." (paraphrase)

Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this Pam.

The only other difference I can see is that I like to spend a little more time imagining what "why" might be. This is partly because I make my living imagining things like that. But the reason I make my living imagining is because I love to imagine. I'm not saying that Pam doesn't also like to imagine. Just not about "why".

Perhaps I am more spiritual and whimsical than Pam. But I assure you that my spirituality is personal, abstract, and does not resemble anything from any religion that I have ever heard of.

I don't think that any of our differences are significant enough to put us in a different category. Both atheists as I see it.

I have a question for you though Phil.
Given the options of: there is a "why" or there is not a "why".
Which one do you lean towards? If in fact you lean at all.

Anyone can answer this question. I'm curious.

Pam says, "Understand, though, that once evolved it can work on non-family members as well, because it isn't a conscious process - the baboon in the example wasn't sitting down and doing a calculation as to the number of her genes that would make it to the next generation." Except that the trait you described and that was selected for involved recognizing other members of one's group. Whether it was transferable to non-members would be entirely accidental. But again, my original post on this topic was in response to a specific claim made by Timmy, and if you're not supporting that claim then I take your point. I certainly acknowledge that social cooperation can take different advantageous forms.

Pam says, "If you can't see the difference between meaning for yourself and your own internalized purpose and higher meaning from an external source (god), then I can't possibly explain it to you."

Ding ding ding! Finally a point of agreement. I completely agree that one can't possibly explain a difference, since there is none. Obviously a person can only discover meaning and purpose for himself, within the limits of his own intellect and the functioning of his own brain. The difference is in how narrowly he chooses to circumscribe reality. You're content with what for me would be an incredibly cramped reality. But I recognize that's your choice.

Phil says, "It is for those people that the afterlife holds such a strong appeal." Ah, yes, the opiate of the masses. What an original insight.

Save your pity. I pity the indifferent. I pity those who claim absolute unthinking contentment with a twinkling of meaningless existence on an obscure dust speck of a planet. I pity one who is satisfied simply that an accident of birth happens to afford him greater material comfort and leisure than his fellow creatures. (Of course, he in turn will be the object of pity and scorn from the even wealthier ones who come after him.)

"How can you possibly top the beauty of a sunset while sitting high in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, or sitting in a green meadow in Yosemite Valley." Oh, I don't know — if there are a billion billion planets, it's not too hard to imagine a few hundred million sights to top those. It's odd to rhapsodize so in one breath, and then in the very next breath to insist that experiencing such pleasures forever would be "really boring".

For those who like Phil claim to be bored with eternity: If/when science eventually eliminates aging, THEN will you commit suicide, since the idea of eternity is unbearable? And what will be your cutoff? 100 earth years? 500? 10,000? Why?

MU says:
"Thanks for the elucidation, but I need help seeing how your examples support Timmy's claim, which was that an individual has an interest not in defense of a related group (per your examples) but in preservation of the species as a whole. If evolution is not about speciation, and any given individual is not thrilled to have descendants of a different and better-adapted species (preferably many), then I definitely would be grateful for further elucidation."

I had no intention of supporting Timmy's claim. I was explaining how natural selection has worked to select altruism. Understand, though, that once evolved it can work on non-family members as well, because it isn't a conscious process - the baboon in the example wasn't sitting down and doing a calculation as to the number of her genes that would make it to the next generation. The net result may be to preserve the species, but selection takes place at the level of the individual.

MU: "And thank you for yet again sharing and restating your personal profession of faith. We still see through your brain-twistingly paradoxical insistence that your non-rational wishful thinking about meaning, purpose and value somehow is the product of pure reason and actually connotes no meaning, purpose or value. Keep the faith!"

You are truly and amazingly asinine. If you can't see the difference between meaning for yourself and your own internalized purpose and higher meaning from an external source (god), then I can't possibly explain it to you.

MU: "In a recent post you stole my line: 'Far be it from me to wish you ill in any way, but realistically, bad things do happen in life. Things with no up side at all. If nothing like that has happened to you yet, you're extraordinarily lucky. What would such a thing do to your faith?' Indeed, what would such a thing do to YOUR faith, Pam? (And yes, kudos for finally being honest enough to admit that there is at least some point at which you'd go ahead at long last and pull a Kevorkian.)"

Since I have no faith, it wouldn't change a thing. I fully expect that adversity will play a part in my life, I understand why it does - I don't blame it on the devil, or God's anger, or my sinfulness, I accept it as just a part of life. It didn't sound to me as though that would work for Bobby, with his pipeline to the great dispenser of treats.

Bad things happening aren't enough to make life not worth living - at least not any that have happened thus far, nor any that are likely to. The only thing that I can imagine making me choose to end my own life would be unrelenting and excruciating pain with no hope of relief.

E Favorite: I see that you have already posted on the Meacham thread. I was heading over here to let every one know that there are comments over there just begging to be hammered. You beat me to it. It's good to see you over there. I hope to see everyone over there including you Jason. Yes Jason, we all love you for your perseverence. We may not like your style but you do have passion. Hitler also had passion but I don't mean it that way.

I really liked the first post under Meacham's article. That guy was awesome. I think that Meacham's article is going to have some legs with respect to the number of posts that it will generate.

I've noticed a fascinating dynamic on this thread. I compare it to watching my five year old daughter playing with friends. At first they are delighted to be together and the energy and enthusiasm is a joy to watch. At some point however, the infighting begins and eventually someone is crying, and all sorts of finger pointing occurs. Someone's feelings are hurt and all the earlier joy evaporates and the session ends. The next time it starts all over again.

Over the last couple of days I read Timmy grinding Pam, Duckphup is grinding Timmy and Bernie is grinding every one. Meanwhile, Jason has multiple identities and now sits back and revels at the all the bickering going on in the choir. The troll is getting the last laugh.

I would ask Jason if he sees the same dynamic on Christian sites? Also, is it the same dynamic that led to 14,000 different Christian sects within the United States? I believe it was WM that alluded to that earlier. Jason generally doesn't answer questions like this but I am throwing it on the table anyway.

You all are all probably going to tell me to "shut the heck up" but this is what I am observing.

Timmy:I love your insights, but Pam is not the only atheist that isn't too concerned with the "why". Why is probably unknowable. I think that is the reason I don't get too hung up on that question. Like you, I spend lots of time wondering about both the "how" and the "why". I wouldn't be surprised if Pam wonders as well. We just don't worry about it too much.

I really liked Pam's slant in her last paragraph on 2/2 and 1:52am. "If you are slogging through this life hoping for another one, then I feel sorry for you. You are really missing out". I couldn't agree with you more Pam.

There are those that are born into abject poverty with little hope of a good life here on earth. It is for those people that the afterlife holds such a strong appeal. I am so fortunate to have been born in the USA as a WASP. On planet earth, it doesn't get much better than that and I know it. I am speaking strictly about the opportunities afforded to those born under that moniker.

I can't explain why Christians, who have such good lives here on earth, still long for the hereafter. How can you possibly top the beauty of a sunset while sitting high in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, or sitting in a green meadow in Yosemite Valley. Eternity sounds really boring. I don't mind fading away right here on planet earth. I have no need for eternity.

DW:

Point well-taken. There may be minor (and some major) differences between the different denominations in Christianity, for instance. But I would still say that the basic tenets are not that different (a matter of degree), and within each sect or denomination, change is difficult. That is why when there is dissonance in church, it often means the church splits rather than those differences being resolved through reasoned debate, etc. Take those churches leaving the Episcopal church recently, for instance. There are so many different interpretations of the bible. Everyone has an opinion and those opinions are rigid and not subject to discussion (with no way to resolve the differences).

Hey, Folks - I suggest you go over to Jon Meacham's essay on prayer - and comment.

Bernie,

Thank you for your candor — amid all these happy-talking ersatz atheists, it's refreshing to encounter godlessness that's authentically bleak and embittered.

Numpty: “If evolution is not about speciation, and given any individual is not thrilled to have descendants of a defferent and better adapted species (preferably many), then I definitely would be grateful for further elucidation.

Well Numpty, ye could try this:

They ph*ck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra just for you.

But they were ph*cked up in their turn
By old style fools in hats and coats
Who half the time were soppy stern
And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf
Get out as quickly as you can
And don’t have any kids yourself.

And that despite it always seeming to be unfair that Phil’s parents never had a chance to reply, so here it is for them:

‘How sharper than a serpent’s tooth
To hear your child make such a fuss.
It isn’t fair—it’s not the truth
He’s ph*cked up, yes, but not by us.’

Although I’ve two beautiful girls myself I’m now convinced the worst thing anyone can do is call children into this frightful world.

The good news on TV tonight is that even Dubya recognises us humans are polluting the environment, even so he’s not prepared to anything about it. And good luck to him. For apart from a huge asteroid striking the planet, global warming should turn out to be as effective in sterilising the place of all forms of life a la the runaway effect on planet Venus. Just think, then there will be no more of the horrible suffering that has been a daily occurrence from the very start. Surely that has to be what the Buddhists call Nirvana?

Timmy as a lapsed kaflic myself I know only too well what Numpty means by his 'PS I'm sure I'm not alone in having reached my quota for reading extraneous personal details in this thread'

Just can't bear the mention o' masturbation! You wouldn't know each kaflick has a guardian angel taking note o' every time ye had a wank. Ye have tae confess tae a priest every occasion ye did that!
Can ye see what a charter that is for paedophile priests all down the centuries!
Can ye imagine Jesus cross questioning a child o' 7 how many times its 'played wi' the Devil's nose' and if it was done alone or with others and so on and so forth as I and countless other children had to describe in excrutiatingly embarrassing detail?
Poor Numpty has suffered and he shows it.

Sorry - wrong post

Yes, I have a bubble lamp

DW

Who was your last comment for?

Sorry - wrong post

DW

"If science makes no claims, then religion doesn't, and in that case, what are you so worked up over?"

Those who do make claims, and kill over them, and claim moral authority over others due to them.

I know that's not you.
I don't know why you aren't especially worked up over those things as well. There are a lot more of those people out there than you are admitting to on this thread. Those people should be your target. By comparison, We're no bother.

I said nothing about God and I merely quoted you contradicting yourself. Not my problem, pal.

P.S. I'm sure I'm not alone in having reached my quota for reading extraneous personal details in this thread.

DW,

As I said, I think that "pointlessness" is a horrid thought, and to me, a highly unlikely scenario.
So I choose to have faith, with doubt, in "non-pointlessness"

I have seen no evidence, nor have I heard any postulations as to the specifics of "non-pointlessness", that would lead me to believe that any of them are enlightening. Indeed, the postulations made on those specifics by any of the organized religions, are suspiciously specific, and all too conveniently (for the church) doctrinal for me to give them any more serious consideration than I have done in the past.

The only reason I gave them serious consideration in the first place, (As a boy, and as a teenager) was out of fear for what would happen to me if I didn't. As you can see, I do harbor a certain amount of resentment for that fear having been instilled in me as a child. Oh the guilt free masturbation sessions I could have had. Only that Farah Fawcett poster knows my shame.

I still like to call that mysterious thing that lies beyond empiricism "God". But trust me, I am just stealing your word, for want of a better one. Nobody liked my Shmorf.

But when I paddle my surfboard, and a pulse of pure energy that has traveled thousands of miles across the ocean, picks me up and thrusts me forward as it's energy is transfered from a pulse in the water to the speed of my surfboard, as I dance across the chicane of a wave, I find God. I still don't know what God is, but I know that what ever it is, if it exists at all, God is with me at that moment.

Oh boy, I'm really kicked out of the club now.
lol

If science makes no claims, then religion doesn't, and in that case, what are you so worked up over?

Puzzled says, "In religion, dogma may slowly evolve over time but it's not a process that is very open..."

While I take your point, it's worth noting that that particular statement is very hard to square with the claim of some on this thread (perhaps not you) that there are in fact *too many* competing ideas in religion: Ten thousand distinct religions, with 34,000 branches of Christianity alone. Now not all the divisions are strictly doctrinal, but those statistics nevertheless suggest a very high degree of ferment, experimentation and change, and a more open process than implied by the above statement.

James 'Scotty' Doohan the greatest Scottish actor o' oor generation!
I thought that wiz Connery? Or even Mel Gibson in the embarrassinly awfy Braveheart! It wiz disgustin the way the wimmin here only wanted tae see up Mel's kilt!
It gets worse n worse so it does!

DW

Re: "Science does not say 'thou shalt worship no other authority but science.'"
"Actually, that is precisely what Dawkins says (and Pam inter alia)."

Richard Dawkins and Pam are not science.
Science makes no claims.
Science is not a person.
Science has no opinion.

Scientists however, are full of opinions.

Bernie,

On Star trek: "have I missed much?"

Oh just the work of the greatest Scottish actor of our generation, James "Scotty" Doohan.

"Beam me up Scotty"

It's a classic.

Thanks, Timmy. I won't quibble, but a couple of points:

"Science does not say 'thou shalt worship no other authority but science.'" Actually, that is precisely what Dawkins says (and Pam inter alia).

"But I can not believe it through faith. That would be answering a question that I think no one has yet answered." All I can say is that my experience is very different, and therefore I find that characterization mistaken.

"But I can not search freely at all, in a community that claims to have answered the question already." See above.

(Also, I have to say I don't think I've ever met a believer who was as determined not to question as Pam is.)

"But I can not believe it until it is proven, at least empirically." Obviously I was responding in the context of your earlier comment suggesting that you were at least open to "what lies beyond the limits of empiricism".

Pam,

Thanks for the elucidation, but I need help seeing how your examples support Timmy's claim, which was that an individual has an interest not in defense of a related group (per your examples) but in preservation of the species as a whole. If evolution is not about speciation, and any given individual is not thrilled to have descendants of a different and better-adapted species (preferably many), then I definitely would be grateful for further elucidation.

And thank you for yet again sharing and restating your personal profession of faith. We still see through your brain-twistingly paradoxical insistence that your non-rational wishful thinking about meaning, purpose and value somehow is the product of pure reason and actually connotes no meaning, purpose or value. Keep the faith!

In a recent post you stole my line: "Far be it from me to wish you ill in any way, but realistically, bad things do happen in life. Things with no up side at all. If nothing like that has happened to you yet, you're extraordinarily lucky. What would such a thing do to your faith?" Indeed, what would such a thing do to YOUR faith, Pam? (And yes, kudos for finally being honest enough to admit that there is at least some point at which you'd go ahead at long last and pull a Kevorkian.)

I've never watched a single episode o' Star Trek.
Have I missed much?

Bernie,

Gene Roddenberry - Creator of Star Trek

Intae ESP? No.

But being a good agnostic like you, I wouldn't be caught dead calling it impossible. Who am I to say?

Are ye intae ESP as well Timmy! Now ye've got me thinkin there could be something in that. How the heck did ye know I've downed a good buckit o' Glenfiddich the noo!
Who's Gene Rodenbury?

Bernie, get a grip. And I don't mean of that bottle.

It's pretty simple.

Scientologists believe.
I imagine.

Something very telling about people who are frightened by imagination.

Is Gene Rodenberry a scientologist too?
Get out you label gun, quick!

DW

See what you did by getting me to open up to you. You got me kicked out of the club. Oh well, didn't much like that club anyway. Too rigid for me.
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you" - Bob Dylan -

I don't think the "with you " part applies to you though. I wish it did. Here's why I think it doesn't.

You said:
"But I do believe through faith that that which is ultimately true is the one source of all, called us to be, dwells among us, leads us to itself. There is no way to "know" that, but the last part seems quite evident from the very fact that we are compelled to ask the big "why" questions"

I can imagine that. But I can not believe it through faith. That would be answering a question that I think no one has yet answered.

As an aspiring Christian I also believe through faith that that which is ultimately true is Love.

Again, I can imagine that. And it's very nice to imagine. But I can not believe it until it is proven, at least empirically.

I think our main difference is in the need for community confirmation.
You said:
"Your professed preference for pursuing your search in isolation seems odd in light of your emphatic statements about man's social nature."

I do not search in isolation. But I can not search freely at all, in a community that claims to have answered the question already.

You said:
"Nor am I persuaded that "dogma" and "doctrine" somehow are dirty words. That's just silly. Science's very highly systematized body of knowledge aids, rather than limits, the scientist. In that regard theology is no different.

Science is very different from theology. Science does not say "thou shalt worship no other authority but science."

Science only answers questions that can be answered with empirical evidence.
Theology answers questions without empirical evidence.

Dogma and doctrine are not dirty words if applied to fact.
They are dirty words to non believers, if applied to faith.

Thank you for the honest exchange.

Good Hivvins Timmy! Your case is even wurser than I thought! Ye'er one o' these daft bugger scientologists!
Is one numpty not anuff in here!

Pam,

Thanks for the clarification. I was referring mainly to "Why" when I described you and I think I had it right.

I think the only difference between you and I is, the wonder and joy that I get by considering the possibility that there is a why, and imagining what that might be. Not a "purpose" in a sense that there may be some doctrinal guidelines to follow. Just a "why". And I am certainly not "obsessed" by it. I do not need an answer. My life is complete without one. It is a hobby of mine to imagine about it. In fact I wrote a whole movie about it. And it is a comedy that does not take itself seriously in the slightest. I wouldn't have written this movie as a comedy if I were, let's say, a deist.

You said:
"Remember the old saw about monkeys and typewriters? Eventually something like us was bound to happen. It only took some 14 billion years."

Maybe it didn't take 14 billion years. Maybe some creatures similar to us have been around for 7 billion years. Maybe we are a colony or science experiment set up by them. With a purpose, set out by them. That would give us a "why". Although then the question would be, what is their "why". Maybe they don't know. Maybe theydo know their "why", and they are experimenting with us as a colony to see if we can figure out why before other colonies they have set up. Maybe we're in a race against another planet colony as part of some kid's school science project from an extremely advanced society. Maybe these people can communicate with us telepathically in an abstract way. Maybe this is why so many of us have the "why" question in our head.

I could go on all day long with such maybes that would give us a "why", at least for ourselves. It's what I love to do. It's science fiction. But people's past science fiction has often become todays science reality. The possibilities are infinite. This is not my obsession. This is my hobby, my work and my joy.

In response to the discussion about dogma above: According to Thomas Kuhn, science has paradigms that guide theory development. But obsolete paradigms are supplanted by new paradigms (difficult, but it happens).

In religion, dogma may slowly evolve over time but it's not a process that is very open, whereas science is open to new evidence. Moreover, it is not so much change in dogma from within the religion but more a response to changes in society's norms that seem to trigger changes for the dogma. Science might be impacted in that way too to a certain extent, but the process is more internal.

Dogma is not necessarily a dirty word. However the rigidity of religious dogma or doctrine can have some real world consequences. Harris lays out some of the negative impacts.

Aye Timmy, as that lovely man Sam Goldwyn put it:
"I'm an atheist, thanks be tae God!"

Well said Pam! And if I may I’d just like to add that anyone and I mean ANYONE, who claims to have knowledge of what we were before conception and what follows our demise has to be dismissed as a liar! This life is the ONLY life anyone knows anything about. Everything else, without exception, is mere speculation.
What a pity for the world so many cannot see that!

DuckPhup,

I knew I was going to get kicked out of the club again for that one. Boo hoo, and lol at the same time.

But that was a hit and run labeling Ducky.
You just labeled and ran, without backing it up with definition and fact.

No matter.

You are welcome use your semantical argument to label me anything you like Ducky. I will still be calling myself a atheist. And so would any normal, non semantical hang-up suffering person who read the body of my posts on this thread label me an atheist. Moreover, most would refer to me as a hardcore atheist based on my posts here.

But you are welcome to label me as you like. Based on your most recent post, I have now labeled you as well. But the site administrator won't accept my posts with that word in it. I can give you a hint though. It is very similar to your first name Duck. Just the vowel is different.

I have no doubt that you are so hung up on such definitions, you have probably trained yourself to not use any of the following phrases:
Oh my god!
Thank god!
God damn it!
Oh god
God help them
God only knows

Lest you be called a deist or something.
For the record, there is much in the definition of deist, that excludes me.
But you are welcome to call me whatever makes you comfortable.

Timmy wrote:
"I am not the Dawkins that you describe. I do feel like science, for all that it can tell us about what kind of gases are circulating the atmosphere around a planet in another galaxy, leaves us want of answers to the two most important questions that we have. How? and most importantly, Why?. These two questions are in us. That can not be denied. Pam is the only atheist I have ever come across who denies this, and correct me if I'm wrong about that Pam. At the very least you think that it is a complete waste of time to think about them. I sure don't."

I can't correct the statement that I'm the only atheist you've ever come across that thinks this way, since I have no way of knowing who you've come across, but you're not quite correct about me. I do wonder *how*. I would love to have all the answers about how the Big Bang came about, what there was before it, whether there are other universes, etc., etc. Please don't read me as lacking in curiosity - it's my middle name! I'm not *obsessed* by it, since I have no personal way of investigating it and I don't expect those who do to have answers in my lifetime; but I would like it if they did.

What I *don't* wonder about is *why*, in the sense of some ultimate and overarching reason or purpose. I don't think there is one. We are because we *can* be. The universe is mind-numbingly immense and the time involved is equally boggling. Remember the old saw about monkeys and typewriters? Eventually something like us was bound to happen. It only took some 14 billion years. :^)

I don't find religion compelling at all - it's too obviously a concoction of humanity in a time of great scientific ignorance. With our current knowledge, the more intelligent among the brainwashed are relegated to consigning more and more of scripture to the realms of metaphor and allegory to avoid looking like complete fools. (And then there are the Creationists, who apparently don't *mind* looking like complete fools.)

I'm also turned off by New Age mumbo-jumbo, and the word "transcendental" makes my eyes glaze over.

We are of this world. Our very distant ancestors came from the sea to colonize the land and they had to take a bit of the sea with them to survive. To this day the plasma that courses through our veins is very like sea water in composition. Every part of our bodies ("form follows function") is as it is because of the exigencies of life on this planet.

Look at it, marvel at it, revel in it. It's wonderful and fascinating, and you can spend a liftime just learning about it.

It's all *I* need, and I'm sorry for those of you who can't be satisfied with less than eternal conciousness.

That sentence should be, "Isn't it an inherent part of Christian doctrine that people who do not accept Christ are damned forever?"

"All branches of Christianity and all Christian doctrine understand God to be inherently both transcendent and immanent, and understand everything that 'lies beyond the limits of empiricism' to be God (or God's creatures, i.e., angels and the souls of the departed)."

That's news to me. Nothing like that was ever mentioned at my Lutheran church when I was growing up. And I never found anything like that from my Bible reading. Everything I ever read or heard described God, the angels, and the souls of the departed in anthropomorphic terms.

"Well, that's the beauty of doctrine. If you run across such a made-up claim, you can test it against what Christians have always believed."

I agree in part. Why would you use Christianity as the test, and not some other religion? Or what about testing the claim against your own personal revelation that may or may not have anything to do with any organized religion?

"Use whatever words you like, but the concept of doctrine in itself have absolutely nothing to do with the beliefs you describe. It's a little like saying the study of genetics supported Nazism. Almost anything can be used for evil."

Isn't it an inherent part of Christian doctrine teach that people who do not accept Christ are damned forever, such as in Revelations 21:8?

"The quote from Harris is at best intellectually dishonest and more likely just ignorant bunk — while undeniably his criticism is relevant to some manifestations of religion, he makes an extremely crude generalization that in most cases is wildly hyperbolic if not demonstrably false. In any event, what he describes is not an inherent attribute of religion."

Good point. Harris doesn't seem to make a distinction between organized religion and individual belief, which undermines his argument. Individual belief is still religion, in my view.

"They do not brand their rivals as evil, nor do they threaten damnation for adherents of rival hypotheses. If 'dogma' and 'doctrine' are not the right words for those, when what are the right words?"

Use whatever words you like, but the concept of doctrine in itself have absolutely nothing to do with the beliefs you describe. It's a little like saying the study of genetics supported Nazism. Almost anything can be used for evil.

The quote from Harris is at best intellectually dishonest and more likely just ignorant bunk — while undeniably his criticism is relevant to some manifestations of religion, he makes an extremely crude generalization that in most cases is wildly hyperbolic if not demonstrably false. In any event, what he describes is not an inherent attribute of religion.

Tonio,

I can't question your own experience, but some of your characterizations of Christian belief render it unrecognizable to me. You seem to have suffered painful encounters with extremely bizarre forms of pseudo-Christianity.

You say, "If there are doctrines that allow for transcendental concepts, I'm not aware of them...We really need a word in English that would embody Timmy's point about what lies beyond the limits of empiricism."

These just strike me as odd statements. All branches of Christianity and all Christian doctrine understand God to be inherently both transcendent and immanent, and understand everything that "lies beyond the limits of empiricism" to be God (or God's creatures, i.e., angels and the souls of the departed).

Now, you're right to suggest that in everyday conversation way too many people get way too anthropomorphic in talking about God, and they are way too certain that God concerns Godself with micromanaging the weather, their physical health and their finances. But that just reflects their ignorance, not their professed faith.

"They claim that a literal God has made rules for people to live by, rules that have little to do with ethical principles or with achieving happiness."

Again, this absolutely contradicts mainstream Christian doctrine, which holds that God created us specifically to be happy with God forever.

"Theoretically, anyone can make up any sort of rule and claim that the rule is God's command."

Well, that's the beauty of doctrine. If you run across such a made-up claim, you can test it against what Christians have always believed.

"Nor am I persuaded that 'dogma' and 'doctrine' somehow are dirty words. That's just silly. Science's very highly systematized body of knowledge aids, rather than limits, the scientist. In that regard theology is no different."

Unbalanced, I would agree if the D words were simply simply synonyms for "body of knowledge." But in science, competing hypotheses do not claim to have monopolies on transcendental truth. They do not brand their rivals as evil, nor do they threaten damnation for adherents of rival hypotheses. If "dogma" and "doctrine" are not the right words for those, when what are the right words?

Sam Harris said it even better in a recent interview:

"The problem with religion is that it is the only type of us/them thinking in which we posit a transcendental difference between the in-group and out-group. So the difference between yourself and your neighbor is not just the color of your skin or your political affiliation. It's that your neighbor believes something that is so metaphysically incorrect, he's going to spend eternity in hell for it."

Timmy,

Sorry for reading backwards and not responding first to your longer more sincere post. I don't disagree much with what you wrote [I hesitate for your sake to say as much, as I gather you've already been kicked out of the club], but here are the distinctions I see.

You say, "...you must accept infinite possibilities and even other potential genres." Agreed. But where you [Timmy] see "Abrahamic" or "Christian" as nothing other than two among infinite possibilities, I understand them as traditional names for that which is ultimately true. Given the probable variety of self-reflective life among millions of planets, we should not be surprised if there turn out to be vast numbers of such "names" for one reality.

But I do believe through faith that that which is ultimately true is the one source of all, called us to be, dwells among us, leads us to itself. There is no way to "know" that, but the last part seems quite evident from the very fact that we are compelled to ask the big "why" questions. And while there is indeed no way to "know" any of this, and in fact I "doubt" it, my experience—at least so far—is that the mind is quite naturally repelled by the alternative. As an aspiring Christian I also believe through faith that that which is ultimately true is Love.

The other distinction I would mention has to do with isolation versus community. Your professed preference for pursuing your search in isolation seems odd in light of your emphatic statements about man's social nature. I believe through faith that a God Who is Love exists in relationship and is experienced in community. I am deeply enriched, not at all diminished, by membership in an unbroken conversation and communion stretching back to the Apostles and the Hebrew prophets.

Nor am I persuaded that "dogma" and "doctrine" somehow are dirty words. That's just silly. Science's very highly systematized body of knowledge aids, rather than limits, the scientist. In that regard theology is no different.

Hmmm... I agree with a lot of this paragraph from About.com, although I don't seem myself as a deist:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_deism.htm

"Deists were and are opposed to religious orthodoxy, dogma, and doctrine, all of which they have argued lead inevitably to corruption and intolerance. Deism acknowledges that most, if not all, religions contain within them a basic core of rational truth and understanding of God; nevertheless, all have also fallen away due to the corrupting influence of supernatural religious beliefs and superstitions. Insofar as a religious doctrine or practice does not harm anyone, however, deists argue that they should be tolerated as cultural practices and not treated as something blasphemous or heretical."

My beliefs might better fit the definition of scientific pantheism:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_pan.htm

"When scientific pantheists say they revere the universe, they are not talking about a supernatural being whom they worship. Instead, they are referring to the way human senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us."

Timmy wrote: "I'm with you here. I love to call that "other", God.
That is exactly what I like to call it. But when I do so, I am stealing a word from the religious. I don't mean Bible God. I am calling what lies beyond the limits of empiricism, God. But not Abrahamic God. It is an extremely abstract personal definition of the word "God" lifted from religion that I am using in this context. That is why I can be non religious and say things like "thank God". I am not being disingenuous when I say "thank God." Not according to my definition."

-- Well... thanks for clearing that up, TImmy. If that is what you truly think, then you are not an agnostic... you are not an atheist... you are a 'Deist'.

Willis,

"The 8:15am Venn diagram seeks to garrison its 'Fact' center from invasion by religion. But this is FLATLAND thinking (to refer to the 1881 classic): a two-dimensional object cannot image a third dimension (viz., transcendence). Of course I agree that 'real-world fact' should not be corrupted by fancy, fantasy, whatever. But when cumulative evidence convinces one of God as reality's dramatist & chief protagonist (as in the Bible), THAT transcendent fact is the central Fact We Live By. 'Fact' cannot be captive to, the exclusive possession of, materialism.'"

What do you mean by "cumulative evidence"? Are you saying that such evidence exists in the real world and should be accepted by everyone of proof of God's existence? Or do you use the phrase to refer to personal revelations or other experiences?

Your point about "transcendent fact" sounds somewhat like Joseph Campbell's point about religious myths being metaphors for certain truths. Is that the meaning that you intended? In another post, Timmy said that he uses the word "God" as an abstract reference to what lies beyond the limits of empiricism.

My point is that religious doctrines treat God's existence as a real-world fact and not a transcendent fact. Doctrines are all about Flatland thinking in their claims about deity. Specifically, Judaism and Christianity and Islam define "God" as a supreme being apart from the universe who makes decisions for everything that happens. From my reading, these religions seem to oppose the idea of "God" as an abstract reference or metaphor. If there are doctrines that allow for transcendental concepts, I'm not aware of them.

I would argue that the English language and Western culture makes it difficult to have debates about "God" in the abstract or metaphorical sense. Our culture is suffused with the concept of God as a defined being. Just a guess, but I would say probably 80 to 90 percent of the posters on this site read the word "God" as a defined being, even the atheists. We really need a word in English that would embody Timmy's point about what lies beyond the limits of empiricism. I would also argue that using "truth" to refer to transcendental principles is also misleading, because "truth" is also a synonym for "fact."

What difference should it make whether one defines "God" literally or metaphorically? Because religious doctrines, especially the evangelical ones, also make claims about people. They claim that a literal God has made rules for people to live by, rules that have little to do with ethical principles or with achieving happiness. The first half of the Ten Commandments are a good example. To my reading, these are about feeding the ego of a jealous God. This is very, very far removed from the idea of actions having natural consequences, or of certain truths about the nature of human existence. Theoretically, anyone can make up any sort of rule and claim that the rule is God's command.

Now, could some of the "rules" in scripture be references or metaphors instead of literal commands? (For the moment, we'll ignore the rules about stoning adulterers and so forth.) It's possible to read them that way. But I suggest that it isn't obvious from scripture that one doesn't have to read the text literally. Even non-fundamentalist Christians read the Bible with a certain degree of literalism.

Timmy! When are ye ever gonnae learn! There's no excuse for you since the numpty keeps telling you himself...you're wasting yer time attempting to explain matters for him...he's mentally unbalanced, what's known in these parts as a heid banger!

MU

"You're not at their mercy, but they demand a high standard to be disobeyed. The point is that with such powerful weapons at your disposal, you ought to be freer than that (and in fact you are, as your example acknowledges)."

Again with the words in my mouth straw man stuff.
"Demand a high standard"???????
Who said that? You said I did, but I didn't.
"At their mercy"
Who said that? You said I did, but I didn't.

At their mercy means you can't override them.
Even if I did say "high standard" Which I didn't.
They still can be disobeyed.
Therefore, we are not at their mercy.

[Advice: When one is in a hole, first stop digging.]

DW

Yes dude. Stop digging.

You asked:
Why is altruism good?

I answered:
Emotionally, because it makes us feel joyous.
From a biological standpoint, because it preserves the species.

Then you accused me of stating that EVOLUTION was about preserving the species and asked me to back up something I did not assert.

This is called a straw man argument.
I called you on it.
You got caught.
Deal with it.

"I said that we trust [instincts], and need a good reason to override them. Hardly at their mercy."

A distinction without a difference. You're not at their mercy, but they demand a high standard to be disobeyed. The point is that with such powerful weapons at your disposal, you ought to be freer than that (and in fact you are, as your example acknowledges).

"Altruism is biological not evolutionary."

??? !! ??? !! ??? !! ??? !! ??? !!

[Advice: When one is in a hole, first stop digging.]

I think Point-of-View? At least that is what I mean when I write it.

What's a POV?

DW

Oh and this insincere post also requires addressing

You quoted me:
""From a biological standpoint, because it preserves the species."

And then you said:
"Sorry, Timmy, but if your claim is that evolution "preserves the species," you're going to spell that out for us rubes. That's a gross mischaracterization."

Look again at the post Jason. My answer was to
"Why is altruism good?"
not,
Why is evolution good?

Altruism is biological not evolutionary. And it is good because it preserves the species.

Careful with those straw men dude.

Willis Elliott:

I appreciate you bringing your insights to the conversation. Perhaps you are older than I am (sounds like you're old enough to be my father). However, even my father (when speaking to me about theology and/or philosophy, his own area of expertise) does not speak down to me with such condescension. If you have issues to raise, it might be more effective to not be so dismissive in tone. I echo Pam's comments on this.

Once again, working backward from the last point made in the most recent post, I have a few comments:

#10. We have so much more to learn about the brain. Assuming that with the current state of scientific knowledge, we cannot "prove" (or even define) the existence of the "soul", what should the starting point be? Do we assume that there is some mental (or spiritual) function which we cannot properly define to be the "soul" or do we say that we do not know but are searching for evidence?

You imply the materialist position is not valid, yet do not give reasoning for the mind that is separate from the observable function of the brain. Philosopher's ruminations based on a sample of N = 1 (examination of self) hardly qualifies as scientific. I also think that materialists should not assert that there is nothing beyond the observable brain function. However, we have no verifiable evidence as of yet and therefore have no reason to reject the hypothesis that the functioning of the "mind" can be explained by the physical functioning of the "brain".

It's not clear what it is you are trying to say here. Are you saying that there is a mental function beyond brain activity? And why is that relevant for religion?

#8 (where is #9?). The 2-dimensional being cannot understand 3-dimensional beings (C.S. Lewis referred to this, if I remember correctly?). Yes, but it's just like when we illustrate 3-dimensional diagrams in books (2-dimensional pages), we project by holding one dimension (i.e., the z-axis) constant. If so, we should be able to observe evidence of the 3-dimensional thing (even if not in its fullness) if we can have evidence of n layers (projecting x-y space on n points along the z-axis). Would this be a correct analogy of cumulative evidence?

But it is a stab in the dark (and we need to make a leap of faith), isn't it? Perhaps multiple POVs will help here, since it provides different data points to infer different layers on the z-axis?

#7. It seems like your POV is similar to presupposing ("it's in one's heart") god's existence and going forward from there. Is this correct?

#6. Yes. At some point, one must make a leap of faith since out ability to know is so limited. And there are "Truths" (with a capital T) out there that are beyond our knowledge. But why is it the bible and not some other version? (Granted, there are not that many choices). But nonetheless, since you take the bible as a narrative of faith (a confession of faith, if you will), isn't the Christian bible just one (incomplete) narrative? Why say the bible is the one and only narrative of god (or is this what you are saying)?

#5 (and #1 to a certain extent). The bible is not 21st century document. We need to interpret it for contemporary application. However, there are many who take it too literally, which is a personal choice. It is no longer a personal choice when those "values" are brought into the public sphere. I think this is what Sam Harris and others are trying to get at. Is this too childish a criticism to make?

DW

Now I have to respond to you insincere post.

You said:
"First Timmy says that humans benefit from the "powerful weapons" of intellect, imagination, and reason."

I did.

"Then he says we're totally at the mercy of our instincts."

I did not.
I said that we trust them, and need a good reason to override them. Hardly at their mercy.

"Uh, okay — so when do we get to use the heavy firepower?!"

Constantly. My instinct tells me to hump every hot chick I see, wether she likes it or not. I override that instinct daily.

DW,

Thank you for the sincere exchange. Your re-description of faith with doubt clears it up for me. I appreciate you opening up to answer that for me. I know for certain now that you are not Jason.

I am not the Dawkins that you describe. I do feel like science, for all that it can tell us about what kind of gases are circulating the atmosphere around a planet in another galaxy, leaves us want of answers to the two most important questions that we have. How? and most importantly, Why?.

These two questions are in us. That can not be denied. Pam is the only atheist I have ever come across who denies this, and correct me if I'm wrong about that Pam. At the very least you think that it is a complete waste of time to think about them. I sure don't. I think that there is nothing more valuable than to spend your quiet, thinking time considering these questions and the possible answers. And I think that it would be just the saddest scenario, and the most cruel existence imaginable for 7 billion creatures to be wandering around with self awareness and these ultimate questions in their head, and for there to be no answers to these questions. Especially the "why?"

I think, therefore I am.
I ask why, therefore..... OK it's not necessarily "therefore" there is an answer to why.

But I find it highly improbable, extremely highly improbable, that there is no "Why". That would suck. I hate that answer. So I will have faith that there is an answer. I have faith that there is a why. Faith with doubt. Because I won't know for sure until I am dead. And if the answer is that there is no "why", then I won't even know when I die. So I really hate that answer. But all options are on the table. So I have faith, with doubt, in "why".

In your response to my "false dichotomy" posit you said:
"If it is possible for there to be anything other than pointlessness, that other is God."

I'm with you here. I love to call that "other", God.
That is exactly what I like to call it. But when I do so, I am stealing a word from the religious. I don't mean Bible God. I am calling what lies beyond the limits of empiricism, God. But not Abrahamic God. It is an extremely abstract personal definition of the word "God" lifted from religion that I am using in this context. That is why I can be non religious and say things like "thank God". I am not being disingenuous when I say "thank God." Not according to my definition.

You then said:
"There aren't infinite options or innumerable gods. There are only pointlessness and non-pointlessness.

I agree with the second portion of that statement.
I don't understand the first part.
Why not? I mean, I understand that it is most likely that there is only one answer to what "non-pointlesness" is. But there are an infinite number of possibilities as to what that one answer is.

Even in the genre of the Christian monotheistic all knowing all loving God with eternal life in heaven. God might be quite different in many ways from the Christian God.

e.g. (Richard Carrier's description of a thought that I have had)
Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.

This is just one possibility in an infinite number of possibilities, in the Abrahamic genre of God alone. Remember, these are possibilities, not probabilities. You have doubt with your faith, you must accept infinite possibilities and even other potential genres. We're talking about what the meaning of our existence could be. It could be anything.

You said:
"If a religion makes a truth claim based on what it regards as revelation, then a prospective adherent to that religion must decide whether or not to accept that claim."

I'm not sure why anyone would want to be a "prospective adherent". Is this just someone listening to the claim?
It's the word "adherent" that bothers me right away here, before I've heard the claim. Alarm bells are going off already. Why would the answer to "non-pointlesness" require adherence. I don't get it.
Then you said:
"He may choose to make a leap of faith and accept the claim, but in this life he will never "know" it with certainty"

Why would I choose to make a leap of faith, and adhere to doctrine, or scriptures, that claim knowledge of the answer to "why"?

Why would I choose to accept an answer to the most important question in my head, and choose to adhere to doctrines that come with this answer, especially when the answer makes no sense to me? Why would I make a leap of faith that this answer is correct, when I find this claim to be highly improbable, and the evidence for it suspiciously specific and doctrinal. This is almost as improbable to me, as pointlessness. Remember how I said that I don't like the pointlessness option, and so I was going to choose to have faith in "non-pointlessness?" I also don't like this suspiciously specific, suspiciously doctrinal option equally as much.
Earlier we both agreed to call "non-pointlessness" God. And I explained to you how I define that word when I use it.
With this in mind, I can make the following statement.

I have faith in God. (non-pointlesness)
And that is all I need. Science leaves me want, for God. So I choose to have faith in God, and this satisfies me. Enough to give me the drive to go on living and searching for more information about God. In my mind, and in my heart, I search for what I believe in. I feel no need to answer my questions about God through a leap of faith. Especially a leap of faith to answers I find suspiciously specific and conveniently (for the church) doctrinal. I wish I had an answer. But I don't need one that badly.

Last post was from me.

"Second, I'm no biologist, but I'm quite sure that continuation of the species is a consequence and not the cause of an individual's behavior. (Indeed, a bias for merely preserving a species would preclude evolution.)"

The first part is correct, but the part in parens doesn't necessarily follow.

"The individual's interest is in surviving to pass on genes (and to survive to continue to do so, in order to improve her odds of having descendants), and seeing that her offspring then do the same (that's the real reason mom takes the bullet). Social behavior including pseudo-altruism exists only to the extent that it furthers that end."

This part is wrong as it pertains to social animals - and it is altruism, no "pseudo" about it. Stephen Jay Gould explains it well, so do some others. All I can give you in this space is a quick summary - social animals live in family groups where there is nearly always some genetic relationship between members. Risking one's own life so that others of the group can live may cut down on the *concentration* of the sacrificed animal's genes in the next generation (no offspring will have fully half of her genes), but in sheer numbers of shared genes passed on, she is ahead of the game. So a baboon that screams to warn the troop that a leopard is coming risks drawing attention to herself and becoming the leopard's dinner, but her sisters and brothers stand a better chance of reproducing because the leopard doesn't get a much bigger dinner. They pass on genes that they share with the sacrificed sister, and in the aggregate, more of her genes go on.

"But why is altruism 'good' or 'moral'? Why is morality good? Why does it matter?"

I'm not crazy about the word "moral" because of the religious overtones, but altruism is *good*, for precisely the reasons stated in the example above. Further, rules of social behavior, which all social animals have, allow them to live together peaceably, which is to the benefit of all (not, as you stated somewhere above, just for the weakest).

Social living and its attendant division of labor, advance the interests of all concerned. Lionesses need lions around not only to sire the cubs, but to provide protection from hyenas, cape hunting dogs, and other male lions, who will kill their cubs in order to bring them into heat and impregnate them with their own offspring. Lions need lionesses not only to bear their cubs, but to hunt the game that they're just too big and slow to catch.

Why does it matter? Once life got started, the process was set in motion, because that is how nature works. The first life forms were extremely simple (probably just a short strand of RNA that was able to replicate). Since it couldn't evolve into something simpler, the only way to go was toward more complexity. So it did. So it still does, although the simple ones didn't die out - they are, in fact, ubiquitous, and if we didn't have a gut full of them, we wouldn't be able to digest our food. We'd die. It matters to nature. Animals are driven by their genes to live and to reproduce because those that *weren't* *didn't*, and are no longer with us.

I, like you, just happen to be a member of a species that went an unconventional way in the survival game and developed a brain big enough not only to give it a survival advantage, but also the ability to consider its existence. A brain that is able to know that it will die. A brain that notices that life isn't always, or even often, just. In its struggle to deal with that knowledge, humanity invented the idea of an "afterlife", and all of the attendant tales that made that seem reasonable and also helped to explain what it observed but didn't have the requisite knowledge to understand.

Does that make life "pointless"? Maybe it would to you, but it doesn't to me. I like being a part of this great panoply of life. That I am, that I exist against all odds, that I get to love others (human and animal) and be loved in return, that I get to see great sunsets and eat great meals, and watch great plays, and travel the world, and constantly learn new things, and all the other things that make up life - that's enough for me. If its not for you - if you're just slogging through this life hoping for another one - then I feel very sorry for you, because you're really missing out.

Knowing from Willis Elliott that the Bible is not a book, but an evolutionary archive, perhaps all these years the Bible should have been called “the good evolutionary archive,” or “the greatest evolutionary archive ever told” or “The world’s best selling evolutionary archive.” And erudite Christian educators like Willis should have been encouraging us to purchase a copy of “How to read an evolutionary archive” so that we would not be so foolish as to not know the difference between a book and an evolutionary archive.

Pam avers, "It's actually funny to see a believer telling a non-believer that s/he engages in wishful, imaginary thinking."

That's the nervous laughter of discomforting self-recognition as it finally sinks in: [a] There's no essential difference between Pam's religion and anybody else's; and [b] all genuine atheists are dead.

"There is no reason to override it unless there is a stronger instinct causing us to."

First Timmy says that humans benefit from the "powerful weapons" of intellect, imagination, and reason.

Then he says we're totally at the mercy of our instincts.

Uh, okay — so when do we get to use the heavy firepower?!

"From a biological standpoint, because it preserves the species."

Sorry, Timmy, but if your claim is that evolution "preserves the species," you're going to spell that out for us rubes. That's a gross mischaracterization.

Timmy, re: the allegedly false dichotomy of "God or pointlessness"

Let go of all preconceptions about God. Assume God is not. There is nothing. Now imagine pointlessness. If it is possible for there to be anything other than pointlessness, that other is God. Again, let go of all other preconceptions or claims or ideations about God. God is simply non-pointlessness. There aren't infinite options or innumerable gods. There are only pointlessness and non-pointlessness.

Timmy, thanks for the sincere exchange. Let me try it from a different angle.

If you're Richard Dawkins and are 100% certain that science will tell you absolutely everything you ever will need to know, then (as he would gladly acknowledge) you have no need for faith. And there are statistical methods to deal with uncertainty in the realm of natural knowledge.

If, however, you are not quite as certain as Dawkins is that science is equipped to tell you everything you ever will want to know about who you are, what love is, etc., then you have to seek that kind of knowledge elsewhere.

Questions about why we're and where we're going fall in this category, and obviously religions try to answer them. If a religion makes a truth claim based on what it regards as revelation, then a prospective adherent to that religion must decide whether or not to accept that claim. By definition the claim is untestable empirically, and the prospective adherent has no way to "know" with certainty whether or not the claim is true. He may choose to make a leap of faith and accept the claim, but in this life he will never "know" it with certainty. Since he always will be uncertain, by definition there always will be an element of doubt (and if he did "know", it would become knowledge, not faith). Faith is what allows him to discern the true meaning and value of the claim and therefore to accept it in spite of his imperfect understanding, uncertainty, and doubt.

MU,

"Timmy, if one's most powerful weapons are intellect, imagination, and reason, then surely that person is perfectly free to override the way she or he is "wired" with respect to voluntary continuance of existence."

It's called instinct for a reason. We trust it. There is no reason to override it unless there is a stronger instinct causing us to. There isn't.

"I'm no biologist, but I'm quite sure that continuation of the species is a consequence and not the cause of an individual's behavior. (Indeed, a bias for merely preserving a species would preclude evolution.)"

The first part of your sentence explains why the rest of it is wrong.

"But why is altruism "good" or "moral"? Why is morality good? Why does it matter?"

From a biological standpoint, because it preserves the species.
Emotionally, because it makes us feel joyous.

"You're quite right that God is the source of life, and of the intrinsic goodness that we instinctively recognize in life's yearning for itself."
"And yes, it is Bible Jesus God because there is only one God."

How do you know?

Anon,

One more point from another of your posts.

"But go ahead, posit that God is not,"

OK

"that you are a purely material being with a finite, pointless and astonishingly brief existence."

I do not posit that my life is pointless. Maybe Pam does. You'll have to ask her. I only posit that the point is unknown. All options are on the table.

Again this is the false dichotomy of "God or pointlessness"
Choose.
There are an infinite number of other options. Including an infinite number of other possible gods.

Timmy, if one's most powerful weapons are intellect, imagination, and reason, then surely that person is perfectly free to override the way she or he is "wired" with respect to voluntary continuance of existence.

Second, I'm no biologist, but I'm quite sure that continuation of the species is a consequence and not the cause of an individual's behavior. (Indeed, a bias for merely preserving a species would preclude evolution.) The individual's interest is in surviving to pass on genes (and to survive to continue to do so, in order to improve her odds of having descendants), and seeing that her offspring then do the same (that's the real reason mom takes the bullet). Social behavior including pseudo-altruism exists only to the extent that it furthers that end.

But why is altruism "good" or "moral"? Why is morality good? Why does it matter? Do you "love the way nature works" because you know (how?) the results are good — or did you decide the results must be "good" simply because that's the way nature happens to work?

You're quite right that God is the source of life, and of the intrinsic goodness that we instinctively recognize in life's yearning for itself.

And yes, it is Bible Jesus God because there is only one God.

Bernie said:
"Christianity and what Jesus taught parted company even before the first century AD was out."

Word

MU,

Thank you for making the effort to explain "Faith with doubt"
I assure you this is honest inquiry. You efforts were not wasted. I would like to go through your post on it. I am trying to get it. I think you've done an excellent job of explaining it. But I am still unclear about a few things.

"I won't disappoint you, Timmy, because once again you're dabbling naively in words that have specific theological meanings."

No argument

"Faith and hope are two of the theological virtues identified by St. Paul (the third and greatest being love). Faith has to do with perfecting knowledge and understanding. Hope has to do with perfecting the will."

I'm with you so far.

"It is true that Christians generally believe that faith and hope are unmerited gifts of Divine grace. But a person is not an inert vessel. She or he must consciously acknowledge and use these gifts for them to become efficacious."

I have some swamp land for sale in florida. You buying? Me neither.

"Faith is free assent to revealed truth. It must be free; whatever is coerced cannot be faith."

People are not born knowing of God. At some point, before they can believe in God, they need to be told of God. The Bible says "Only a fool does not believe" That is but a fraction of the coercion in the Bible. Then there is all of that peer pressure, and the authoritative anointed ones. All faith found through the Bible and church os coerced. Not forced. But coerced.

"I only need faith when understanding is unachievable by purely natural means. In that case, on a natural level, I have an imperfect or incomplete understanding — in other words, I have uncertainty, or doubt. In a real sense, it is doubt — the gap between natural knowledge and perfect knowledge or truth"

I may have this wrong, but I read this as meaning that the "doubt" you speak of, is in the natural knowledge that requires no faith. For the perfect knowledge of truth, faith is your vehicle of assent. And in this knowledge, you have no doubt? Doubt is only in the knowledge you gain by natural means?
Am I close on this last guess?

"Hope acts upon not knowledge but the will, perfecting it through a desire for and confident trust in the eternal happiness for which we are created."

You need to perfect your hope to the point where you confidently believe "in the eternal happiness for which we are created."?
Again. Sorry. But I've still got that swampland for sale. Interested?

I hope you're not off-put by the sarcasm, it is your style as well. But I have made some honest inquiry here on some of the points. I hope you will grace me with some more clarification

Thanks

MU says (I think to me):
"In other words you refuse to answer the question because it's too simple."

What question?

Mentally Unbalanced says:

"Survival of the fittest is the only perfectly rational, Godless ethic."

No argument here. That's how we live.
But you are mistaking fittest with strongest.

Fittest includes the humans most powerful weapon, the brain. Intellect, imagination, reason. Humans are not wired for self preservation, they are wired for preservation of the species. Survival of the species relies on the "fittest" genes being passed on. Remember that the "fittest" includes intelligence. Intelligence recognizes the benefit of altruism in the survival of the species and so there we have survival of the fittest breeding the perfect moral of altruism. I love how nature works.

Your mistake Anony, was thinking that humans are wired only for self preservation. That is secondary to the survival of the species instinct. That is why a mother will die for her baby. A husband will choose for a captor to kill him over his wife.
No God necessary.
Or maybe all of that is God.
But I'm ever so certain that it is not Bible Jesus God.
There's just nothing to suggest that it is.
And plenty to suggest that it isn't.

Willis, y'all from the deep south, Alabama fr'instance?
So 2/3 African Americans are bastards eh? Ye sure sound like one of those knuckle-trailing throwbacks to Neanderthal times and as far away from what Jesus taught than they were.
Christianity and what Jesus taught parted company even before the first century AD was out. Your research on the subject shows great gaps if you are unaware of that.

Anyway here in post Christian UK there's an even bigger percentage born out of wedlock now that partnership is more popular for couples setting up life together. And wait for it... don't swoon...that includes same-sex couples. Imagine that! Shockin ain't it!

In other words you refuse to answer the question because it's too simple. I'll wager you tried that line of argument with your second grade teacher.

Anony says:
" And since no one has offered a credible refutation, that merely demonstrates atheists' intellectual dishonesty."

Credible refutation is not necessary in the face of an incredible assertion.

I get the impression Numpty is still in his teens, at least mentally and the barrage of posts he bombards us with is done in between playing with himself!
You should know Numpty you could end up blind doing that not mention it's a mortal sin for ye'll roast for all eternity and serve ye right!

Pam says, "None of us have agreed with you." True. And since no one has offered a credible refutation, that merely demonstrates atheists' intellectual dishonesty.

"...you know nothing about social animals." I do know that animals are not rational beings and therefore are quite irrelevant to my point.

Timmy says, "Because you have more doubt than I do. You are not as smug."

On the one hand, Timmy, that's quite so. Your persona is smug, undoubting, and unthinking.

On the other hand, I look at the Niagara of ranting and emoting and mocking (by comparison with which my own modest satirical efforts are a mere trifle) and self-congratulation and vitriol, and I say: These are not the words of a secure, mature person.

Maybe it's the cannabis talking.

Mentally Unbalanced says:
"As we have seen, any proposed justification for not immediately ending that pointless existence is highly irrational and based solely on wishful, imaginary thinking. Such justifications inevitably reduce to 'just because I say so'."

As we have seen?? No, as you have posited - even insisted. None of us have agreed with you. Existence is not pointless from the standpoint of the one enjoying it, nor for nature's purposes. It's actually funny to see a believer telling a non-believer that s/he engages in wishful, imaginary thinking. What a joke!

MU says: "But go ahead, posit that a person continues his pointless existence. The most (indeed only) rational course for that person is to maximize his self-interest. You can talk about social compacts, but they benefit only the weak or irrational. Survival of the fittest is the only perfectly rational, Godless ethic."

Absolutely not true, and clearly you know nothing about social animals. Try reading something besides religious tripe for a change.

Timmy jokes, "It proves a Godless morality exists."

Nonsense. It does nothing of the kind. There is no morality apart from God; indeed, apart from God, there is nothing, period.

But go ahead, posit that God is not, that you are a purely material being with a finite, pointless and astonishingly brief existence.

As we have seen, any proposed justification for not immediately ending that pointless existence is highly irrational and based solely on wishful, imaginary thinking. Such justifications inevitably reduce to "just because I say so".

But go ahead, posit that a person continues his pointless existence. The most (indeed only) rational course for that person is to maximize his self-interest. You can talk about social compacts, but they benefit only the weak or irrational. Survival of the fittest is the only perfectly rational, Godless ethic.

I won't disappoint you, Timmy, because once again you're dabbling naively in words that have specific theological meanings.

Faith and hope are two of the theological virtues identified by St. Paul (the third and greatest being love). Faith has to do with perfecting knowledge and understanding. Hope has to do with perfecting the will.

It is true that Christians generally believe that faith and hope are unmerited gifts of Divine grace. But a person is not an inert vessel. She or he must consciously acknowledge and use these gifts for them to become efficacious.

Faith is free assent to revealed truth. It must be free; whatever is coerced cannot be faith. And reliance on revelation does not mean that one is obliged to abandon reason nor to assent to what is plainly false.

Faith perfects knowledge by filling in what is unknowable through natural means alone. If I can achieve perfect understanding of a thing solely through natural knowledge, then I have no need of faith with regard to that thing. I don't need faith because I KNOW (or can know) for certain.

I only need faith when understanding is unachievable by purely natural means. In that case, on a natural level, I have an imperfect or incomplete understanding — in other words, I have uncertainty, or doubt. In a real sense, it is doubt — the gap between natural knowledge and perfect knowledge or truth — that creates space for faith and makes it necessary. That's why it may be said that faith requires doubt — faith truly cannot exist without doubt.

Hope acts upon not knowledge but the will, perfecting it through a desire for and confident trust in the eternal happiness for which we are created.

Willis,

What a slog, reading your most recent post. The verbosity with which you can drag out the assertion:
God is real because it says so in the Bible.
God has told us that the Bible is his word.
How do we know?
It says so in the Bible.

That's all you've said Willis.

"The heart has reasons for which reason can not know"

This is true. And we all get the irony.
How on earth you get from that, to "Therefore Bible Jesus God is the truth", I'll never know.
I'll never know.
Cause none of you Jesus freaks can tell me.
I know, I know, it's too abstract, and a long long process over time, to explain.

Fair enough.
I don't believe what you believe.
You will never make me.
I respect your right to believe it.
But I do not respect your decision to. Or your reasons to.
I will therefore criticize your belief. As is my right, that you must respect.

I ask you Willis, do you respect my decision to not believe?
Do you respect my reason for not believing?

I doubt it.

Do you respect my right to not believe?
I'm sure that you do.

We are the same in that respect Willis.

We respect each others rights, but not each others decision.

Your frustration is that you know that, all of the most harsh criticism you can throw at my decision and reason to not believe, is like water off a ducks back. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. in fact it makes me laugh. And you know that the reason for this is that I am so smug in my confidence that I am right.

On the other hand, your frustration also lies in knowing that our criticism of your decision to believe, and your reasons given, is not water off a ducks back to you. It hurts. Because you have more doubt than I do. You are not as smug. Because most intellectuals are atheists. And you know that's true. And it eats at you. It's not fair. And you are flailing.

None of what you say will stop us from criticizing your belief.
Your frustration is that you are welcome to criticize ours, and you don't think that we are welcome to criticize yours.

lol doc

Boy Anony sure wishes that we atheists would all just suddenly realize that since we don't believe in God or Heaven, why not steal, and rape and kill. His biggest disappointment is that none of us are doing that. It proves a Godless morality exists.
It proves him wrong.

Hope those walls are rubber.
lol

"Mutual affirmation & admonition" is a phrase we use in church, interchurch, & interreligious discourse. We hitch up by saying "yes" to one another, then say "no" by pulling--i.e., challenging one another to (& here comes another churchy phrase) "repentance & renewal of life": to turn AWAY FROM error to truth, from ill-will to good-will, from hostility to love--TOWARD a new & better way of thinking, relating, living. I bother my head about y'all because I believe we "Sam Harris" posters are, in this blogchatter, if you'll pardon the expression, "in church," educating one another...

...which leads to this post as responding to your responses to my fourth post (which was last evening):

1----Erroneously, some of you refer to the Bible as a "book." The Qur'an is a book: written by a single author with a single POV over a short period of time. The Bible is an "archive": written by many authors with multiple POVs over a huge period of time, a millenium. In an earlier post, I distinguished between "how to read a book" (as an event) & "how to read the Bible" (as an evolution). Tom Paine, Sam Harris, & some of you (as recently as this morning) have dug up out of the Bible-archive stuff long past in the evolution of the Biblical mind--as though the Bible were a book! And, also this morning, one of you confessed to reading no further after my beginning a sentence with "We Bible believers...."

2----So how can I be a "Bible believer," seeing that the Bible is not a book but an evolutionary archive? Simple! Everything in the archive is within a single Drama, the Bible Story, with God as both dramatist (e.g., in the Bible's first sentence, "...God created" the universe) & protagonist (central actor). The script is loose, "a work in process," the whole cast chiming in on it. Really quite messy: instead of willing order, the dramatist wills freedom....

3----freedom: as the Bible (& that U.Chicago Divinity School Chapel arch) puts it, "The truth shall make you free." But, one of you said, even if the Bible correlates with truth & freedom, that doesn't prove the existence of God. "Prove," no.
"Evidence," yes: if the drama honors truth & freedom & claims God as the dramatist, the drama- paradigm's logic is that God deserves the centrality the Bible gives him. The impediment to this logical conclusion is a stultifying, stiffling, reductionist philosophy that has temporarily captured the West's academy, viz. materialism (the doctrine that reality is "nothing but" material, transcendence being "delusional").

4----Some of you have expressed shock that we Bible-believing scholars accept anepigraphic/epigraphic dissonances, differences between archeological evidence & Biblical texts. Of course we do! Bible research has always been the primary drive of archeology in the lands of the Bible, & we rejoice in its findings. Of course the consonances far exceed the dissonances: archeology, more often than not, confirms the Bible. But the ancients had only "annals," not written "history" in the modern (historiographic) sense; they had to work mainly from memory. And God, who gave them freedom to investigate & create, wasn't about to prevent their occasionally getting it wrong; & even misunderstanding/misrepresenting God's intention. (Several of you have brought to my face a sad smile, in your childlike question: If God had written the Bible, wouldn't he have made it easier to understand?} And please notice that it's because Biblical religion takes history so seriously (with God as Lord of history as well as nature) that the modern discipline of historiography was born in Christendom.

5----None of you (to my knowledge) has addressed the problem I've challenged Sam Harris' naive
"women's equality" with, viz. CUCKOLDRY. At 10:52 last evening, one of you shockingly said that "gender roles" aren't based on "real biological differences but on perceived differences." I shouldn't have to spell this out, but please be patient: (1) Men & women should act responsibly with regard to offspring--having them & caring for them. (2) To fulfil these responsibilities, men & women need to know the identity of their offspring; the negative being that they are not bio-responsible for any children not their offspring. (3) Both men & women can be sure of their offspring--women, by the umbilical cord; men, by DNA. (4) The bio-ideal (thus also the human ideal) is that children should grow up under the care of their bio-parents; & the words for the social constructs to further that are "marriage" & "family." (5) Biologically, marriage is a promise to women (their maternity-motherhood being sure) & a threat to men (their paternity-fatherhood being in doubt until the DNA testing of "their" children). (6) If the DNA testing proves that one or more of the children is not a carrier of the husband's genes, he has no bio-responsibility for another man's child (or other men's children)--but because he's married, he's A LEGALLY TRAPPED CUCKOLD. (7) Ergo, men are wary of marriage & in some cultures avoid it (e.g., more than 2/3rd of African-American children are born bastards). (8) All but some of the most primitive societies have social constructs to protect males against cuckoldry. (9) None of these constructions has been perfect (nothing human is perfect!), &--with all we know that was unknown to former generations--we should be able to come up with a less imperfect one. (10) It's unfair to the past (including the Bible) to criticize those imperfect constructions without proposing a better one. (11) To say that gender differences are more "perceived" than "real biological" differences is a ducking out of reality & an irresponsible evasion of an agonizing human problem.

6----At 1:39 this morning, one of you said "faith + doubt = hope, not faith." That's a false either/or. Hope is the futuric form of faith. We walk on two legs: the courage of faith (i.e., the courage to believe) & the courage of doubt. Some get stuck in intellectual adolescence, not taking the next step., viz. doubting their doubts. In that condition, reason stifles imagination, which doubt can free into "the second naivete." (For a masterful-mature exposition of this, see FIDES ET RATIO.) Without this re-juvenation, the Bible will read like nonsense. (Jesus' way of putting it: "Unless you become like little children, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.")

7----At 3:06 this morning, somebody asked me about the first word in "cumulative evidence." Of course there can be no "objective evidence" of any form of transcendence: thus, Pascal's "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know." But as subjects we live outwardly from our subjective consciousness, where (appropriately) subjective evidence accumulates & evaporates as our believing & doubting gains or loses potency. All the stories I've ever read of prominent atheists becoming believers include their witness to this cumulative-evidence phenomenon. Of course I agree that "Christians and Muslims of conscience (should) stand up and bring reform to religions from within." We all--in culture, government, whatever--need to clean up our acts.

8----The 8:15am Venn diagram seeks to garrison its "Fact" center from invasion by religion. But this is FLATLAND thinking (to refer to the 1881 classic): a two-dimensional object cannot image a third dimension (viz., transcendence). Of course I agree that "real-world fact" should not be corrupted by fancy, fantasy, whatever. But when cumulative evidence convinces one of God as reality's dramatist & chief protagonist (as in the Bible), THAT transcendent fact is the central Fact We Live By. "Fact" cannot be captive to, the exclusive possession of, materialism. Besides, as Rilke said, questions we can answer (the "flatland" questions) aren't as important as those we can't & are called to live--so "Live the questions."

10--Materialists answer the mind/brain question by asserting that the former is "nothing but" a functioning of the latter (a position reversing the "perennial philosophy"--the general opinion of humankind through the ages). One of you said "The soul is the metaphysical shadow of the self"--neatly though naively sucking the former into the latter. And some of you have been saying that the "self" has no substance but is "nothing but" a flow of consciousness. Not strange to me that as transcendence-deniers, you materialists have so much need of "nothing but" & its synonyms.

Oh boy,

Wherever Anony is, I hope the walls are made of soft rubber.

Andy,

Sam is a sign of the return of Jesus, but not Jesus himself.
I am.
I am the new profit, and God's new scripture I will show you all.
A new bible. One that is not flawed and does not need to rely on interpretation. Because unlike the first Bible, this one is:
Free from authority
Free from peer pressure
Free from missing information
Free from absent opinions.

And so it is a perfect guide to finding God.
And it is ever evolving with the times.
It's a tough read, because it is very long,
but if you can get through it all
You will find God.

It's called the World Wide Web.
Everything thing you need to know to find God is in there.
God's new gift to humanity.
WWW
I was told of this by an angel while walking through the desert in Baja. God has spoken again. He got tired of hearing people say "why doesn't God speak to all of us?"
So he did.
WWW

God bless.

Ye've got a point there Andy. Aye, it is my belief too that if Jesus were to show up to day he'd have a fit!
Wunner what he'd have tae say on the statuary and pagan paintings on the roof and the fantastic splendour of the Sistine Chapel in Rome for starters?

Does anyone imagine Sam has a shot at being seen as Jesus come back? The radical who stirs things up and gets everyone talking about God, and tells us how we can save ourselves from the unholy rabble in the holy land? I vote we wait for His next holy scripture and enjoy a new thread rather than continuing this one.

Pam wishes the world would become enlightened. Nobody can argue with that, but since enlightenment is quite impossible apart from God, it's completely counterproductive to cut God out of the equation.

Pam's godless utopia "would foster the notion that we’re all together in this thing". Of course, that's mere opinion and wild untestable speculation (on the part of one who claims to rely solely on reason and evidence). It's at least as likely that a pre-religious ethic of "might makes right" will prevail. We've covered this ground repeatedly before, but the worst tyrants of recent times were indifferent to religion and hardly would have been dissuaded by its absence.

In Pam's utopia, "it makes sense to treat each other well, and to be good stewards of the Earth, not only for ourselves, but for the sake of our children and our children’s children." No it doesn't. Again, that's just an assertion — Pam's own private brand of wishful thinking.

If there is no reality beyond our ears, then none of that do-gooder stuff could possibly matter. If ethics is nothing but biology, then the h@ll with you — I'll do what I d@mn well please. Why not? Who cares? Why do you pretend to care? Where did you get such foolish ideas — from biology? Then throw off those chains! You are all that matters! Grab all the power and wealth you can, by any means necessary! Why the h@ll not? If this is all there is, and you just want to derive maximum pleasure from your brief pointless existence, then that's way to do it! Cut the wishful thinking. Stop deluding yourself. Get rid of your private religion.

Silly me to have hope that Anony/DW would have some insightful revelations for us.

Anony: "bizarre psychotic paranoia."

Physician heal thyself.

What would we do without our resident numpty!
Tell us Numpty, was it jist holy inspiration where ye got that sentence from? Or auld Nick himself? Gonnae tell us? Gaun tell us? Tell us? Gaun.

Oh my, speak of the devil.

Good summation as well WM,

And Bernie:
"I’d say ‘Bobby’ will be in his element among children where they don’t know how to point out how shifty and evasive his replies are to questions put to him."

Tru dat.

Bobby might be gone, but I have no doubt that Anony will be back to give us some insight into our questions about "faith with doubt" and wether or not it should be called hope, or is it different than that.

Did I say Anony would give us insight? Now that's hope.
More likely we are to be set straight again, and told how ignorant we are. But I have hope. I can't call it faith, unless I add the caveat "with doubt".

Will "faith with doubt" overcome doubtless faith?
I hope.

Wow. Just when one thinks we've reached the farthest extremes of mutual incomprehension, the conversation lurches off and riffs on the most bizarre psychotic paranoia.

Willis:
I found your post incredibly offensive. Perhaps you would gain more ground if you refrained from using (repeatedly, in all your posts) words such as "immature", "pathetic", "childish", "rebellious", and "adolescent."

You also point out that Sam Harris wasn't born until 24 years after you earned your first doctorate. Clearly, you think that your age confers some special wisdom upon you, and that all your educational credentials make you very special indeed. Have you stopped to consider that a great deal has been learned since your undergraduate days, and that Sam's education may have been more comprehensive than yours for that very reason? Bear in mind that one is never too old to be a fool.

I'm not as old as you, but I'm certainly no spring chicken, and way too old to be called "adolescent", nor is my thinking immature.

You state that we haven't answered your questions, but you have ours. I disagree. I asked Bobby more than once about how he thinks clergy are qualified as guides. He never replied to that, nor to many other questions. Nor did you ever say how you get past Duckphup's observations on free will, despite being asked.

As to some of your points:

#1 No argument, except for your all-caps FAITH. The concept you were speaking to has historical precedents, thus requires no faith to believe.

#3 The hubris is incredible. Your school's Nobelists don't confer greatness on *you*. Nor does the fact that Baptists had a hand in its founding in 1890 (along with John D. Rockefeller) make it a religious school. In fact, the Web site states:
"Although the University was established by Baptists, it was non-denominational from the start. It also welcomed women and minority students at a time when many universities did not".

The Nobels were in economics, physics (including theories of superconductors and the measurement of the speed of light), medicine and physiology, chemistry, and literature. The latter won by the Jewish Saul Bellow and the atheistic Bertrand Russel. To intimate that the religious founders and religious early presidents of the school had any bearing on the winning of these prizes is disingenuous in the extreme. Is this some corollary of guilt by association?

The words on the arch are admirable - I'm all for truth, and I do believe that it will set you free. I just don't think that truth means *religious* truth.

Please stop trying to impress us with this kind of BS. We don't find degrees in religion convincing of erudition, nor are we snowed by your association with a school that has produced genuine scientists and intellectuals.

#4A The Bible and the Abrahamic religions don't teach equality of the sexes? No kidding! That's what we're saying. You say that the Bible and Ashley are for patriarchy, and this means what? That we should all agree and roll over? Not me, thank you very much, and believe me, from my standpoint it has nothing to do with political correctness - I'm the sex on the receiving end.

Cuckoldry? Let me tell you something - women are not, by nature (and for good evolutionary reasons), inclined to wander, sexually speaking. That's a male thing (again for good evolutionary reasons). Men tend to impute such things to women because it's the way they think, and they can't imagine that our minds don't work the same way.

OK, yes, I'm generalizing. Not all men wander, or want to, and some women do, but I submit to you that many of those do because of the way their husbands treat them. Building a good, trusting, relationship is work, but it's the surest way to ensure that one's children are one's own. You might also note whether you can see a resemblance, or if that's not enough, get a DNA test, but don't be surprised if your wife resents it.

#4B We didn't ask what your "cumulative evidence" was; we asked how you defined that, given that it doesn't fit with the dictionary definition of the word "cumulative." You imply that this is different from the sort of evidence required by science, or, say, a court of law.

#5 You disparage the "childish notion" that getting rid of religion would improve the human condition. I think it would. I’m not so naïve as to think that all would be sweetness and light if it were to go away tomorrow. Human nature is what it is. Chimpanzees make both love and war, and many animals fight over territory. Additionally, the “have-nots” would certainly be more resentful of the “haves” if they realized there was no ultimate reward awaiting them (religion is one way that the underclasses have been controlled throughout time). But a gradual enlightenment would at least take away the justification for many of the world’s atrocities, would allow the use of birth control to lower population to a point where the third world had some hope of an improved standard of living (or at least its next meal), and would foster the notion that we’re all together in this thing – riding out the only life we’ll ever have on this little blue marble, so that it makes sense to treat each other well, and to be good stewards of the Earth, not only for ourselves, but for the sake of our children and our children’s children.

Thanks, Bernie, but I hope that you don't change your writing a bit. I have no hope of writing posts that are anywhere NEAR as entertaining as yours!

WM: You work for THEM! It should be the other way about!
You write well WM. Wish I could write half as well.

Bernie, most of the people that I work with have Ph.D.s in Physics or Electrical Engineering. I think that you would be surprised at the poor quality of their writing. Of course, many of them speak English as a second language. Maybe "Bobby" is Chinese. Or maybe writing just isn't his thing.

I share your concern about what Bobby's going to tell those youngsters, though. I can only hope that though this discussion may have strengthened his personal faith, that on of the things that he has learned from this discussion is that faith is personal and shouldn't be forced on vulnerable young minds.

Is it not more than a wee bit strange for anyone to discover something that is great, great…, and then do a runner! If it was all that great surely the logical thing to do would be to continue with the prospects looking good for finding even more in here that is great.
Especially for somebody who can influence children. What is this character going to tell those youngsters? He says it will be about how God can work through us. Which seems to mean there’ll be a lot of praying for us heathens tae see the light!

When he says ‘there is nothing more I can give.’ I have tae say I’m not aware of receiving anything from him except the waffle on how his prayers are answered and so forth.

I’d say ‘Bobby’ will be in his element among children where they don’t know how to point out how shifty and evasive his replies are to questions put to him.

Moreover, it is my understanding that to gain a Ph.D a higher standard of English would be required than what ‘Bobby’ has shown in here.

Sorry, but I've not been able to get rid of the feeling that ‘Bobby’ is a fake, a fraud. About as genuine as the signature at the end of his post which is rightly and for first time in inverted commas; the only instance I've found to his being open and truthful!

Timmy, interesting points - and your last post seemed like such a good wrap-up to this discussion that I almost hate to post again in this thread! But since I already wrote this note …

I wonder why some Christians took offense when their faith + doubt is described more as “hope” than “belief” – were these the same Christians who admitted to having doubts? To me, hope seems a good thing. I recall a verse from somewhere in the NT that says “faith is the substance of things hoped for.” So why be offended when that hope is recognized as such?

I’m all for people having hope, though I would “hope” that they could base it on the firmest ground possible and see it for what it is. To me, the specifics of any religion seem a very unstable substrate on which to base one's hopes, rife with quicksand that sucks many faithful into a harmful mire of dogma and intolerance. Maybe as human knowledge and philosophy advances, a better substrate will be found. But maybe hopes based on religion are the best some people can do for now. Maybe everyone would benefit if we atheists who are content with our lives in the here and now had a better understanding of the benefits that religious hopes can bring some people and more compassion for the people who need these hopes.

Instead of attacking religion, can we find a way to leave people their hopes while preventing the hopeful from being used by the believers for the purposes of forcing compliance with religious dogma on non-believers and growing religious “armies”? Are the hopeful willing to take much of this burden on their shoulders? Or is the line between most believers and most hopeful so very faint that for all practical purposes it is invisible?

Yes,

Thank you God for giving us Sam Harris, to start up conversations like this. Indeed, thank God for Sam Harris.

To all,

this was great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,great, great, great experience.

Im ready to move on. I have shared my thoughts, my heart, my experience and my witness. I thank you all for your questions, for your answers, for your comments, for your thoughtfulness and for your emotions. There is nothing more I can give.

Tomorrow I am scheduled as the speaker for the youth group at my church. I will talk about how God can work through us. Many of the discussions here have opened my eyes and increased my faith by leaps and bounds. I will apply what I have learned in this forum. Thank you all. Thank you God for this forum that in a way is a prayer to you from every single poster.

God bless you all always.

with all my love,

"Bobby"

Timmy, the last four paragraphs of your last post are excellent. When a religious doctrine claims to be fact, I don't see how to reconcile such a claim with the right to believe or the right to criticize. As I see it, the claim seems to contradict the concept of that right.

Mentally Unbalanced, here is another way to explain what I'm saying about religious belief versus real-world fact -- you are probably familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria.

Imagine a Venn diagram with one large circle for Fact. Surrounding the circle would be other circles for Theories and Hypotheses. Some of these would overlap with each other, but not with the large Fact circle. Surrounding these would be other circles for Religious Beliefs and Religious Teachings. Some of these would also overlap with each others, but these would not overlap with any of the Theories or Hypotheses or with Fact.

What doctrine attempts to do is to move a Religion circle to a place inside the Fact circle where it does not belong.

"Elliott isn't talking about a 'Christian type of reason' — he's talking about the two meanings of 'raison' in Pascal's aphorism (that Elliott had just quoted): 'Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.' — 'The heart has its reasons that reason cannot know.'"

That sounds like the idea, which I mentioned in another thread, that religious belief comes from some type of personal experience that Christianity might call "revelation." In any case, even if one concedes the occurrence of the revelation as a fact, whatever might have been revealed lies outside the realm of fact. That's partly because no one can see into another's heart, and partly because the revelation has such intense personal meaning for the individual that no one else could really understand it, even others who have had similar revelations.

"Tonio, I've really struggled to understand who or what it is that you perceive is coercing you or infringing upon your right of conscience. Now I gather it isn't so much that anyone actually is imposing their beliefs on you, as it is that you want veto power over everyone else — no one else can believe anything, because the mere fact they believe intimidates you. (If that isn't it, then I still don't get what you're saying.)"

It may sound like I want that veto power, but in actuality, I am horrified by that thought.

I'm trying to make a distinction between religious belief and real-world fact. There is no such thing as "fact" when it comes to religious beliefs about deity or the afterlife. When one attempts to define his or her belief about deity as fact, one implies that everyone who has a different belief is incorrect. There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" belief when it comes to the existence or non-existence of deity.

I'll say it again - I don't feel coerced when people insist that their beliefs are factual. Instead, my initial reaction is, "Who the hell are you to say what is factual and what isn't about supernatural existence?" Even when the person is being respectful, the claim sounds arrogant to me. But as a matter of principle, the claim implies a disrespect of others' freedom of belief. People have certain beliefs about deity not because of factual proof but because they've had certain revelations. I don't consider my own religious beliefs to be factual.

If this isn't clear enough, I can try to explain it further.

Great Post WM,

I agree. Faith with doubt seems to be an oxymoron to me.
That is, in the religious sense of the word faith as it has been described to me by Christians who were explaining the kind of faith I needed to have to find God in that quiet place. It was my doubt, they told me that was standing in the way of finding God.

Faith with doubt does work with some dictionary definitions of the word. Many dictionary definitions include words like hopefulness and optimism along side words like conviction, belief, confidence, and loyalty.

Most of these words can coexist with doubt.
I'm not so sure about "belief" and "conviction" with doubt though.

But I think that the correct description of "faith with doubt" lies in those words from the definition such as hopefulness, optimism, confidence and loyalty. These are all good things and harmless.

But Christians seem to take offense when we say something like, "I think your faith is more of a hopefulness or wishfulness".

WM: "presumably someone with hopes rather than beliefs would be less likely to try to impose their hopes on others than a believer would her beliefs. (Although, is it possible that for some people the doubt causes them to be more dogmatic in an attempt to erase it)? This is interesting to me; in general I tend to think of hope as a good thing."

Clearly, the problem we have is not people who have "faith with doubt." And again, I do not understand why people who have faith with doubt, aren't the ones who are most concerned about the great number of people who have zero doubt with their faith. Such a lack of doubt, that they would kill in the name of their religion, or force the doctrines of their faith on others.

This is the kind of faith I am concerned with. Faith without doubt. When the Christians on this thread have made the case for faith not being the cause of terrorism, they are talking about their kind of faith. Faith with doubt. But that's not the kind of faith we are talking about.

Our slings and arrows are correctly thrown at absolute faith, without doubt. I really think that you guys are jumping up and catching slings and arrows that are not meant for you.

I really don't think that even Sam Harris has a problem with faith with doubt. I certainly don't. And I respect people's RIGHT to believe what ever they want. I always will. But I don't have to respect a person's belief. Just their right to believe it. There is a difference. Not even Sam Harris has called for any action to be taken to force people to stop believing. Or to disrespect their RIGHT to believe it. He does however, exercise his public right, to criticize beliefs that he does not respect.

I'm pretty sure that all of you respect my RIGHT to not believe. But I don't get the sense that any of you respect my decision not to believe, or my reasoning for not believing. And I'm cool with that.

But you do not seem to be cool with my inability to respect your decision to believe or your reasoning to believe.

You can insult my decision to not believe all you want. But you have to respect my RIGHT to criticize your belief. Though you do not have to respect my decision to.

Willis Elliott:

Starting from #5 in reverse order, it's not clear that the historicity of Jesus is the main issue here. He could have existed (and the gospels included in the bible as well those gospels not included provide different accounts, perhaps with varying degrees of accuracy; i.e., we seem have historical documents that are corroborating one another to a certain extent), but details seem murky at best. And even more important, the question of his divinity has not been settled (at least not if you are looking for objective verification in a conventional sense). Therefore, what you say about the bible is an interpretation of the alleged events surrounding the figure named Jesus.

#4b. I merely asked for what you mean by "cumulative" evidence. Obviously it is not evidence in the sense that someone like Popper for instance used it. It's not a term that I understand, and therefore wish to know what you mean by it.

The other #4, I'll call #4a (you had two #4s). I think what Harris is pointing out is that the social injustices in earlier times of history carry over to modern times by forcing the modern society to replicate or emulate some or much of the values just because it is written in the bible. Most responsible people who read the bible or the koran will try to reconcile inconsistencies arising from the fact that these are historical documents from many many years ago, and we read them with 21st century norms and a more advanced level of knowledge about our environment. And many of these social injustices are reinforced and become rigid through dogma. I agree with your point that it is silly to think that rationality can wipe religion out (at least not in any of our lifetimes, I'd bet). However, I think that (although I don't think this was Harris' intent) it is incumbent upon Christians and Muslims of conscience to stand up and bring reforms to religion from within.

#3. All those Nobel laureates from U of Chicago? Is there are tinge of bias there? Maybe U of Chicago had a lot of smart people (and surely the Nobel prize cannot be the only criterion for the success of an academic institution)? And if it is any one department, then it's probably their Economics department that is more responsible for their smashing success winning that prize.

#2. I agree that we need to engage in dialogue earnestly. I don't always do, but at least I try. If I do not succeed always, then I apologize in advance.

#1. Yes. Who doesn't like to hear their own voice pontificating about the nature of the universe and one's own unique (and wonderful?) perspective on it? I hope such sentiments, while okay to indulge in once in a while, can be tempered and refined by honest criticism from others.

Anonymous, no problem with the delay, thanks for getting back to me. I’m amazed that so many people are able to post so promptly sometimes (myself included)! Thank you for the book recommendation – I’ve ordered it and am looking forward to reading it.

Re: “Second, while the amount of brainpower invested in constructing an intellectual framework over a long period of time may not be conclusive, but it certainly provides something to chew on.”
That is true – it is worth considering why so many people have devoted themselves to Christianity (or Islam for that matter). It would be nice to have an historian pipe in here with information on how these religions have spread to so many people. I am not an historian. But from what I do know of history, I suspect it has a lot to do with very aggressive Christian (or Muslim) conversion efforts – and a harsh lack of tolerance for people who didn’t conform to these religions. For Christianity at least, in many cases the lives of non-believers and those who would have exercised their minds in pursuits that contradicted church teachings would have been in jeopardy. Many people who lived in these harshly intolerant times and still wanted an intellectual challenge may have been stuck exercising their brainpower within the framework provided by the church.

Re: “Faith requires doubt.”
To me, faith + doubt = hope, not faith. I would tend to consider someone with faith + any significant doubt to be a hoper, not a believer. Which is a big improvement from a non-believer’s standpoint – presumably someone with hopes rather than beliefs would be less likely to try to impose their hopes on others than a believer would her beliefs. (Although, is it possible that for some people the doubt causes them to be more dogmatic in an attempt to erase it)? This is interesting to me; in general I tend to think of hope as a good thing – even what I would consider irrational hopes seem to be able to sometimes improve the lives of those who hold them. The purchase of lottery tickets (which I find completely irrational and I have never done) seems to provide a certain lifting of the spirits that some people need. Of course, it also provides frequent experiences of disappointment. Food for thought – thanks!

Tonio, I've really struggled to understand who or what it is that you perceive is coercing you or infringing upon your right of conscience. Now I gather it isn't so much that anyone actually is imposing their beliefs on you, as it is that you want veto power over everyone else — no one else can believe anything, because the mere fact they believe intimidates you. (If that isn't it, then I still don't get what you're saying.)

The idea in a pluralistic society is that everyone gets to believe any fool thing they want. We don't have to accord respect to their foolish beliefs, but we do have to respect their freedom to believe even things you find unpleasant or intimidating.

“Would you explain the Christian type of reason?” Elliott isn't talking about a “Christian type of reason” — he's talking about the two meanings of “raison” in Pascal's aphorism (that Elliott had just quoted): “Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.” — “The heart has its reasons that reason cannot know.”

What are ye on about Tonio!
There's little difference between men n wimmin!
And that's as it should be!
Three cheers fur the little difference sez I!

"I've had no response to my challenge that the Bible correlates with freedom & justice more than with the negatives some of you gleefully list."

I think Harris has answered that in his books. Simply because a certain religious doctrine has laudatory features or has benefits for people, doesn't mean that the doctrine's claims about deity or afterlife are factual. The Bible may very well correlate with freedom and justice, but that has nothing to do with whether Jesus was human or divine.

"I conclude that Harris-ites are not interested in realitic equity of the sexes, only in ideological equality of the sexes."

I think "ideological equality" is the wrong phrase. I would not deny that women have biological advantages in some areas and men in others. In fact, I see both genders' advantages as complementary from an evolutionary advantage standpoint. My objection is to dogmatic and legal constructs that attempt to restrict either gender's role in society. In my experience, those restrictions aren't based in real biological differences but perceived differences.

"What's most pathetic, in my opinion, about the sophomoric notion that getting rid of religion would improve the human condition is its childish, Rousseauian notion that human beings are basically good."

I think it's obvious that people are capable of both enormous good and enormous evil. Even if there was no religion, like in the hopelessly idealistic John Lennon song, people would still harm each other for personal gain. One restraint on that impulse is self-preservation. I think the difference with religion is that the idea of divine mission can overcome all restraints and moderating influences, including self-preservation. The promise of heaven and the threat of hell can be enormously powerful inducements.

"You miss Pascal's irony. Pascal used "reason" both ways: as scientist, for the commensurable (verifiable/falsifiable); as Christian, in his well-known gnome 'The heart has reasons that reason cannot know.' His Pascal's Wager is a subtle attack on the common confusion of the two
types or dimensions of reason."

Would you explain the Christian type of reason?

I think you miss the point when you talk about "adolescence rebellion against religion." In this thread, I keep pounding away at the concept of doctrine, which has little to do with the heart or with the principle of individual freedom of conscience. For me, the issue is not about evidence for or against deity. It's that when people talk as if the existence of deity is a fact, that goes against the idea of freedom of conscience. Not in a coercive sense, of course, but simply as a matter of principle, which is that belief or non-belief in deity is a personal matter. As part of that principle, I believe it's wrong to take a set of religious teachings and proclaim that those are the only "right" ones for people to believe, no matter what the merits of those teachings.

As ye already know Numpty, ye'er in fur a lang wait since ye widnae unnerstand oanyways even if sumthin' o' substance (smacked across yer daft kaflic dial wi' a wet halibut fr'instance!) did come yer way!
god bless ye.

Nonsense, drunken friend. If somebody actually has something of substance to say, I await with all due respect.d

Looks noo like a false alarm Numpty.
Wurse luck fur yoo eh!
god bless ye.

The bampot Numpty has nuthin wurthwhile tae say but alas the eejit's ploy tae ruin this board has gone very much accordin tae plan.
What we have here in Numpty is a fanatical kaflic fundie that has much in common wi' the Taliban.
Sae lang as ye bear that in mind ye won't go far wrang tae see whit the chancer is up tae.

Wee thoot ye'd syned oof then, eh, Bernie? Wherefor art thou back, then, pray? Wellcomen at'all events then.

See whit ye'er up against Trish!
Logic is oot the window wi' Numpty!
god bless ye.

oh, my, timmy - so derivative! is your professional material likewise?

Numpty sez:
'A mind is a terrible thing tae waste'
Aye, that's so, but not when it's yours Numpty!
god bless ye.

Trish says, "I firmly believe that it is this sort of self-aggrandizing reading of random luck that is preventing the U.S. from joining the civilized world and initiating nationalized health care." Talk about non sequiturs. Thanks, Trish, for providing yet another example of a completely irrational "firm belief" not derived from a religion.

Trish also says, "Yet this institution actually encourages people in extreme situations to pray for their own survival with complete disinterest in the survival of those sharing the disaster..." I wonder if you would favor us with a single specific concrete example of a religious "institution" (to use your term) of any kind anywhere ever actually preaching or promoting anything of the sort? Or are you merely talking out of your hat?

But no matter, darling Timmy, you know I 'll never grow up! I adore you just as Actually, Ducky's term is "Wholly" Babble. My remote diagnosis is arch in a sophomoric kind of way.

I gather your professional humor (and Timmy, you know I adore you just as you are. Promise me you'll never, ever change. My remote diagnosis and-night obsession with dear Rev. Robinson. cannabis-induced paranoia. in a sophomoric kind of way. I gather I use the term loosely)
me you'll never grow up! sweet precious dear Rev. Robinson

On the topic of "answered prayers" - I have always thought there was a certain streak of smug cruelty when someone who survives an event that has killed others says that their prayers were answered. Is it their prayer to be alone among smoldering ruins? Or is it to be close enough to disaster to have a good story? I think this shows the inherent selfishness and us/them divisions that religion superimposes upon our population. It would be one thing, after a potentially fatal event that all survived, to say that one's prayers were answered. But when some die, and you don't, the only humane remarks would be sympathy directed to the loved ones of those lost.

Religion consistently claims to improve our moral sensitivity. Yet this institution actually encourages people in extreme situations to pray for their own survival with complete disinterest in the survival of those sharing the disaster, and to report afterwards on the success of their prayers even when the event that provoked the prayer was fatal to others. I think the phenomenon of survivor's guilt demonstrates that most people are better than their religion would teach them how to be.

I frequently hear religious people claim that when they themselves survive some brush with death or bad health, or always having good health or good fortune, it is some kind of reward for their devotion to religion, as well as an outward sign that the big guy is happy with them. The word they use is blessed. The flip side, sometimes verbalized, sometimes only implied, is that those who are killed, injured, sick, poor or in any way damaged, somehow brought this upon themselves. The unhappy circumstances of others are portrayed as punishment and lessons for the afflicted. I firmly believe that it is this sort of self-aggrandizing reading of random luck that is preventing the U.S. from joining the civilized world and initiating nationalized health care.

Hey Timmy! Trust ye realise Scott and Anonymous (yet again!) and so forth are one and the same Numpty?
god bless ye.

Actually, Ducky's term is "Wholly" Babble, which is arch in a sophomoric kind of way. I gather your professional humor (and I use the term loosely) runs toward the sophomoric.

Your day-and-night obsession with dear Rev. Robinson cannot possibly be healthy. My remote diagnosis is cannabis-induced paranoia.

But no matter, darling Timmy, you know I adore you just as you are. Promise me you'll never, ever change. Promise me you'll never go back to nasty old Canada. Above all, sweet precious Timmy, promise me you'll never grow up!

Hey Anon,

I'm with you on those people who think they are comedians. As a comedian, I am particularly annoyed by these people.

To bad you can't get up for describing all of the hurt those things you listed cause. Shame. Cause we're up all day and all night and quite "exercised" to shed light on all of the hurt cause by your atrocity inciting Holy Babble. (Sorry for lifting your line Ducky)

oops - so hard to remember

Willis: "so women are free? Women free in China, India-- where?"

Canada
Australia
Sweden
Great Britain
America
Holland
Norway
etc.

The most secular societies basically.

China is not secular. It is filled with traditional religions that your hyper educated ass is obviously ignorant of.

Scott inquires, "Does this not frighten you?" Not particularly. People believe all kinds of nutty things. Some people think you can legislate a minimum wage and employers' payroll budgets will expand as if by magic. Somebody apparently thinks we should care about various movie stars' domestic arrangements. Other people think golf is fun. Some people think they're comedians. I could make a good case that all of these foolish beliefs cause actual harm. But I don't have time to get exercised over them.

Wow!

Now you're freakin me out.
That's exactly what I was just going to say to you!

Oh yeah,

And Willis,

You had two number 4's in your list of points.
All that schoolin and no one taught you to proof read?

Willis said:
"I think. For example, I've had no response to my challenge that the Bible correlates with freedom & justice more than with the negatives some of you gleefully list:"

You've had mountains of response and evidence. You accept none of it on the grounds of your interpretation of things like this.

Deut 20:10-18
10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. 12If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

Notice all of the "you shalls"
Commandments from God

Your anointed ones (laugh) can take what ever apologist interpretation they want from this, in the context of Commandments from God, these are the most inflammatory, atrocity inciting words imaginable.

Even if you call them God's commandments to a particular people of a particular time; when was this kind of behavior ever called for? What time in human history were these proper morals?

Atrocity inciting hate mongering........ I could be describing God or Pat Robertson right now.

Your interpretation of the book is not the problem.
Your book is the problem

Happy we finally agree (but I'd be far more confident of our apparent agreement if you paid the idea more than lip service).

Anony!

You made a post that I 100% agree with!

Congratulations!
It can now be said that you have had at least 1 lucid thought in your life.

And Willis

To your #5, I retort simply,
not true
Your back-up for your opening sentence loses all credibility with me at "We Bible believers hold that...."

Willis

Pascal's wager is a false dichotomy.
It doesn't make it past that.
Any further criticism of it is academic. Just for fun. Because the first hurdle was too easy to have satisfied those who like an intellectual challenge.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Anon,

Just say "I don't want to answer", instead of deflecting the question, as you deflect all hard and illuminating questions.

First you called my question a demand, and then change it to mean all of history. Genius!... Not.

We both know the answer is Pat Robertson.
And his contribution to the demise of your religion will be duly noted in the history books.
You know, something like a picture of him with the caption below "The beginning of the end"

tick tock tick tock tick tock.

And the "non religious" demographic grows larger, and larger and larger.

tick tock tick tock.

The world is waking up.
Osama Bin Laden and Pat Robertson are the alarm clock.
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are the morning news.

Tick tock tick tock.

That's my tune.
My children's tune will be
Ding Dong the witch is dead, the mean old witch, the wicked witch
Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead.

Thank you, Dr. Elliott, for the badly-needed perspective. And thank you for your service to education (also badly needed, as you can see).

I've just been offcially informed I've posted more than my due.
So that's it.
Even so, I must say its been truly informative what I've learned in here. It's been a lot, aye it has, so here's wishing ye all the best (and that includes Numpty) as I ride intae the sunset.
Adios,
Bernie Bee

Don't waste yer time! Willis Elliot is Numpty again!
god bless ye Willie!

StonedTimmy demands to know "who is causing the most damage to the reputation of Christianity? Sam or Pat?"

Sorry, but neither amounts to pocket lint in the history of Christianity — and I say that not as an aspiring adherent but merely as someone possessed of a passing acquaintance with world history.

Ye've watched both videos! Good fur you Numpty.
god bless ye.

"Religion and the Meaning of Human Existence" was a 1973 University of Hawaii course I relished partly because my students included so many atheists & agnostics. (To graduate, students had to have one course in religion; & that title seemed to allow the most space for continuing their adolescence rebellion against religion.) So many Sam Harrises, though Sam himself was too young to have been one of them: he was only 6, & didn't even get born until 24 years after I'd earned my first doctorate (& fourth degree) in religion.

So one reason I'm enjoying this "Sam Harris" blogchatter is nostalgia. I'm not putting any of you down when I say you sound like my U.H. students of 34 years ago--bright, delightfully feisty, & religion-ignorant (with arrogance as its flip-side), with a conscious eagerness to learn, & an unconscious will to misunderstand & flush down everything unvalidating of their prejudices.
I must not take time to respond to everything you've asked me or to reference you personally, but I must make a few responses.

1----For common ground, we on this thread have at least this: we all believe in sounding off, speaking up & out. We sense that to remain silent is to fail a dimension of our humanity; we know that to ask no questions is to remain ignorant; & we see that silence, far from guarding one's vulnerability, exposes one to loss of freedom, to alienation-divorce-violence-war. Ergo, keep talking! It itself it's a fulfillment & victory for humanity! On the positive side, it helps to have FAITH that talk/conversaton/dialog plants on both sides seeds that may sprout to the greening of the glogal mind, for global good.

2----The SKILL to dialog does not come packaged with & connected to the WILL to dialog. In teaching the skill, I used a poster of two persons glaring at each other & screaming "YOU THINK FUNNY!" The artist had drawn one head round & the other, square. On our present interchange, the squareheads are saying "You are delusional!" & the roundheads are replying "You are blind!" (Or, if you prefer, the other way around; but note that the aggressor was the unbeliever Sam Harris & his disciples.) Humor is a distancer & coolant!
It's good new that U.S. embassies are beginning to hire experts in the local religions/ cultures. (The reverse of W's policy of not talking with our "enemies"--Syria, North Korea, Iran.) Worldwide, we are in a post-secular period, THE END OF UNFAITH. (Jihadist cells are spreading through the net faster than are humanist webs. No?)

3----One of you said that on this thread, freethinkers have been answering believers' questions, but believers are bypassing freethinkers' questions. The reverse, I think. For example, Iv'e had no response to my challenge that the Bible correlates with freedom & justice more than with the negatives some of you gleefully list: it's not accidcental that the University of Chicago, powerfully Biblical in foundation, has won 78 Nobel prizes (to Harvard's only 41). The first five presidents were Biblical scholars; & the first adapted the scientific method to Bible study (named "inductive Bible study") & had 10,000 studying Biblical Hebrew & Greek by correspondence. Carved in the stone