Here is an old, but interesting story. It should be a familiar story to our Christian readers. Deanna Laney was commanded by God to stone her children to death as poof of her devotion to Him. Unlike the Biblical story of Abraham, God didn’t pull any punches at the last minute. He did not stop Laney from hitting her sons, ages 8, 6, and 1, with rocks weighing up to 14 pounds. Maybe He was out of sacrificial goats to use as replacements. She fulfilled God’s will by killing the two eldest, but failed Him by only permanently injuring the one-year-old. Perhaps that is why He abandoned her to the Texas ‘justice’ system.
While this story is not new, I recently had a couple of thoughts regarding this issue. First, how is Laney’s claim that God spoke to her any different from Akiane Kramarik’s claim? Christians cannot claim that God would never command a parent to perform such a horrendous act because He’s done it before. If the two situations are any different, what is the criteria? How are we to determine the validity of future claims of messages from God?
Secondly, since Laney ended using an insanity plea, how do we know that Abraham wasn’t suffering from similar delusions? Maybe, like Laney, Abraham only thought that God told him to kill Isaac. Claiming he was crazy would certainly go a long way to removing this problematic feature of Christian theology. Then again, it would admit that there is an error in the Bible.
–Sidfaiwu
No related posts.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Hi again, Neando,
I would say the defintion of the term, Freak, offered by the Concise OED, ninth ed. 3rd entry: “(coloquial): a person with a specified enthusiasm or interest,” somewhat loosely, but most nearly describes Akiane. More formally, I think, within a religious context, the term should be applied, to notorious extremists such as Rasputin, or others in his category.
June 16th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Boris,
Even if last century was not the bloodiest per capita (as per Steven Pinker) my point was that, given that the great genocides mentioned were driven by secular and atheistic agendas (whether on the left or right), the claim that the removal of religion from the world would avoid such and bring peace, etc., (as in “No-religion-is-peace”)is simply false. A particular ideological or religious belief will often provide the motivation and driving force for war, but then there are many that do just the opposite.
Instead, we should look for something more universal and basic–human nature itself. Pinker was right in debunking “the noble savage” myth. He assumes the natural corruption of mankind as the base cause of violence and then looks at modern trends that tend to ameliorate that tendency.
The question that should be asked is what part does a particular ideology, religion or world view play in the justification or condemnation of violence? And, even more basic, whether our own world view provides legitimate grounds for condemning or justifying violence.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Hi folks,
“Freak”
“1. Any abnormal phenomenon or product or unusual object; anomaly; aberration.
2. A person or animal on exhibition as an example of a strange deviation from nature; monster. . . .”
So a freak is a person (or something) that has deviated from the norm in some way.
So is a “religious freak” A. an abnormal person who has become religious? B. Everyone who is religious must thereby be a freak? or C. A person who, unlike normal religious persons, is abnormally religious?
June 11th, 2007 at 9:23 am
run-away enthusiasm, I like it. It is actually a great description of people we should watch-out for.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
The Concise OED, ninth ed., defines Freak thus: 3rd entry “(coloquial) a: an unconventional person, b: a person with a specified enthusiasm or interest.”
To categorize Akiane or Marjo Gortner, say, or all post-WWII US presidents, or even Joan of Arc, with the religious or non-religious tyrants being discussed here, in itself, seems to me, run-away enthusiasm.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Hello Neando,
I was only reprinting straight from The Atlantic’s website. I wonder how the Atlantic managed to miss-attribute that quote. Thanks for the substitute.
Well, in one sense, you are right. The worst monsters of the 20th century were not religious, which contradicts Lewis’s quote. But despite the horrible actions of these men, the 20th century was actually the least bloody century we have on record, per capita. So in addition to what boris has pointed out, the reason we had more deaths in the 20th century in large part due to the huge number of people living in that century. Here are a few choice quotes from the linked article:
(emphasis mine)
As we all know, as the Age of Reason took hold in Europe, religious influence on government decreased. Thus I would claim that C.S. Lewis is still right, religious freaks make the worst kind.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
@naendo
it’s been previously explained: the reason this century was this “bloody” was simply because of superior technology. think about the times of the 100 year war, and what would have happened if they had todays weapons and tech.
and i’m glad to hear that hitler, stalin and pol pot were just missing religion… cause we all know how peaceful religious people are. they would NEVER engage in wars or conflicts of any kind. what a BS argument…
also, don’t forget american presidents… “men of god” all of them, yet somehow i don’t think there was a single presidency since WW2 without a war that was in some way initiated by the US.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Sid, MAPK,
That quote was not from “Reflections on the Psalms” (I’ve just read that book). I have not come across the quote in my reading of Lewis, but I’ve seen a reference to it in a quote from C.S. Lewis, “A Reply to Prof. Haldane, in On Stories and Other Essays,” pp. 75-76.
But there is a quote from Ch 3 of Reflections of interest here: “If the Divine call does not make us better, it will make us very much worse. Of all bad men, religious bad men are the worst. . . .” Another way of saying it may be that religious freaks are the the worst kind. I generally agree, but sometimes wonder. Last century was the bloodiest of all mankind has known. The freaks at the forefront: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., could hardly be said to be religious or operating from religious motivations. That said, you might say that they were operating with “religious” fervour, from an ultimate commitment. With that I would agree.
Has anyone here defined what a freak is?
Sid, sorry to keep our discussion in limbo. I hope to get an opportunity later today (NZ time).
June 8th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Thanks again to Sid and Neando,
That’s a great quote from “Reflections On The Psalms,” once more clearly supporting a steering-away from organised religion as authority over the individual or the masses.
The other quote does seem more likely to be from “Miracles,” with which I am only remotely familiar. “Mere Christianity” is one of the best works, long or short, on apologetics I know of.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Here’s a nifty C.S. Lewis Quote:
From this page on The Atlantic Online website.
FYI, Neando, my response is up on my website.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Sid
OK that sounds fine. I am a bit intermitent and that would probably be more suitable.
MAPK L
I couldn’t tell you off hand which of Lewis’s many works the quote is in. Perhaps “Mere Christianity” which is one of his most popular books, or, more likely, “Miracles” which is quite a bit more difficult but worth the read.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Hello Neando (and all),
I have a better idea. Let’s just move the discussion over to my blog. That way, anyone can contribute to the debate and on the outside chance that other RF readers want to continue to read our debate, they can do so. Here’s a link to the post on my blog.
June 7th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Neando and Sid,
Thanks to you both for clearing up my puzzlement. I suppose my tendency to…or it may be a propensity for associating the term dualism specifically with good and evil derives from an enduring admiration of Francis Schaeffer. Interesting, Neando, what you mentioned about C.S. Lewis. I have read several of his works, but don’t recall coming across that expression “the whole show.” Guess I have some reading to catch up on. And thanks for the link.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:32 am
Hello MAPK,
By dualism in this context of the Judeo-CHristian world view, I mean that theism, as such, is the concept that God is essentially transcendent of the universe that He created. That is, there are two entities–God and that Universe. Monism, by contrast, is the view that the Universe is (in CS Lewis’s words) “the whole show.” This view is shared by a wide range of religions and philosophies.
Dualism, in the context of the mind/body problem, is as sids said. This involves the concept that the mind cannot be reduced to matter. I recently saw an interesting brief paper on this by the philospher Dallas Willard: http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=49
Sid, thanks for the discussion. I did once have in mind doing a defence of Abraham but never seemed to get to it. I felt that to get to some of the issues underlying, we needed to consider some of our world view assumptions. You are probably right that we are a bit far from that thread. If you wish to email me would it be possible to get my address from Gasmonso rather than for me to publish it here?
Regards
June 6th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Oh, Thanks Sid, That make it clear.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Hello MAPK L
I think Neando was referring to the supposed mind-body (or soul-body) dualism that most Christians believe in.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Hello Neando,
“the Judeo-Christian (dualistic) world view….”?
As I understand it, goodness, being eternally in God’s character, precedes evil, according to the Judeo-Chtistian world view.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Hey Neando,
Wow, do we have a lot to discuss. You bring up some great points that I would love to debate. But I’m afraid that we’ve already hijacked this thread far too much to continue here. Would you be willing to continue the discussion via email? I’m sure most RF readers don’t want to read any more about a debate on metaphysics. Just let me know.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:38 am
“Si” ….unintended abreviation for sidfaiwu
June 6th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Hello Si,
I apologise if I have misquoted you but thanks for your thoughtful reply.
“Empiricism has also proven to be extraordinarily useful as it gave rise to the scientific method. Skepticism about everything, not just immaterial substances, is part of the empirical method.”
The rise of science and scientific methodology predated empiricism and scepticism. The age of science was well under way when Locke and Hume appeared. Despite offical resistence, it was the mileu of the Judeo-Christian (dualistic) world view that gave rise to scientific investigation.
“I understand ‘nature’ to mean all that exists. Thus, by definition, anything that is ’supernatural’ super-exists? Existence is binary. Either something exists and is part of nature or it does not. Having ’super-existence’ doesn’t make any sense.”
Presupposed in the above statement is the materialist belief that all that exists is material “stuff” and is a restatement of what you said in #226. Thus existence is defined a posteriori from sense experience. The presumption is that nothing can exist that cannot be presented to human experience.
I’m wondering what version of cosmological argument you have in mind. You said: “The cosmological argument only proves that a self-caused entity exists.” But did not say self-caused but “uncaused” and “self-existent” By “self-existent” I mean existing of or by himself, independent of any other being or cause.
A self-caused entity is impossible. Causality of existence demands that a being be prior to itself in order to cause itself.
You said: “If God is real, It definitely needs to be made of something. My guess is that God is a necessary emergent phenomenon of all matter. Thus It is ultimately material in nature.”
First, it seems to me that if something is an “emergent phenomenon” of matter, it must be contingent on matter, and if contingent, then it can’t be necessary.
Second, what material entity can be an emergent phenomenon of ALL matter? If such an entity can or does exist, could it be greater than all matter? Would such an entity empirically verifiable since you say that “it is ultimately material in nature”?
Third, all our experience of the universe indicates that no part of it is uncaused. All natural entities, all the bits of the universe, are contingent and finite. Everything and every event has a cause for its existence. If everything, the whole universe, comprises the aggregate of contingent, dependent entities, then the universe as a whole requires a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.
Therefore, there must necessarily exist a first uncaused Cause of all that exists.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Hello Neando,
Empiricism was part and parcel of the Age of Reason. Sharing philosophical ties with the rise of rational thought in England is something I am proud of. Empiricism has also proven to be extraordinarily useful as it gave rise to the scientific method. Skepticism about everything, not just immaterial substances, is part of the empirical method. What is an ‘immaterial substance’ anyway? It reads like an oxymoron.
I never claimed that God is supernatural. Actually, I think that ’supernatural’ is an ill-defined term. I understand ‘nature’ to mean all that exists. Thus, by definition, anything that is ’supernatural’ super-exists? Existence is binary. Either something exists and is part of nature or it does not. Having ’super-existence’ doesn’t make any sense.
I never asked the question “Who made God?”. In fact, I find the cosmological argument compelling. But this argument does not guarantee that God is non-material nor that this self-caused entity is God as described in the Bible, Qur’an, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, etc, or even intelligent. The cosmological argument only proves that a self-caused entity exists. The cosmological argument fails to prove any particular concept of God.
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:54 am
Hello Doug,
I do love when entropy comes up since I can actually speak to it with some authority. What Neando is referring to in his comment “Entropy, unless it is well managed, doesn’t seem to be very kind to the creation of information.” is the 2nd law of thermodynamics: (simple version) in a closed system, entropy tends to increase. The earth is not a closed system: energy flows into and out of our planetary system, as it does all planetary systems. Secondly, the 2nd law is a statistical law, not an absolute one like gravity. It is possible for a closed system to spontaneously lose entropy, though unlikely.
One thing I would like to ask you, Doug, is what event are you comparing The Declaration of Independence to in your analogy? I enjoy discussions of extreme improbability, but I don’t quite understand what your original point was.
I’ve got to go now, so I’ll have to respond to Neando later.
Take care!
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 am
Good point Neando.
The entire creation seems to be going the way of entropy. Doesn’t that mean that things are winding down? Would you say that things in the universe were more organized yesterday than they are today and are more organized today than they will be tomorrow and so on?
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
Hi Sids
“Well, materialism paints a rather broad brush. It only states that everything that is ‘real’ is ultimately made of ’stuff’. The only alternative is to say that there are some things that are real that are made of nothing. Since we have no experiences of things made of nothing, it is safe to assume that everything is made of some ’stuff’. So materialism isn’t really a presupposition, but an inductively drawn conclusion.”
This kind of empiricism seems to stem from its roots in the Eighteenth Century, particularly Hume. Hence a scepticism about immaterial substances.
“If God is real, It definitely needs to be made of something. My guess is that God is a necessary emergent phenomenon of all matter. Thus It is ultimately material in nature.”
This appears to be a pantheistic concept that calls the universe with it’s emergent properties simply by another name. A bit like the “Force” — an impersonal invisible power that has light and dark properties but is still a part of the whole.
In theistic terms, this is a form of atheism as is any variety of monism: pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, or finite-godism. If one is bounded by an ultimate commitment to Naturalism in one form or another, then of course, only naturalistic evidences for supernaturalistic realities will be accepted. Which is nonsense.
So the question that you asked elsewhere “Who made God?” is a category error. If I asked you “Who, or what, made your god?” you can easily answer that it is the product of matter, etc. But, and I’m sure you know this, the theistic concept of God is that He is self-existent: The uncaused cause of all that exists. Anything short of this requires a cause for its existence, including all matter and its emergent properties–including your god.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Doug, an added prob with “you get the Declaration of Independence by throwing a stick of dynamite into a printing factory, no matter how many times you do it,” is that each time you toss one in you get a rapid increase in entropy. Entropy, unless it is well managed, doesn’t seem to be very kind to the creation of information.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Neando and Sid,
Sorry about the mix up and Neando I agree with you about the macro.
Sid, I’m not buyin what you’re sellin. You are right that I do have trouble “conceptualizing random processes and deep time”. I just find it impossible to believe that you get the Declaration of Independence by throwing a stick of dynamite into a printing factory, no matter how many times you do it.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:51 am
Oh, hey Doug!
I think you meant to address me with your comments. Under that assumption, please allow me to respond.
Given enough time and the correct environmental conditions, yep.
That just means that you have trouble conceptualizing random processes and deep time. A failure to understand a concept does not imply falsehood. If all truths were simple, science would be both unnecessary and fruitless.
Yes it could have been, though it is extraordinarily unlikely. Also, that would not be my first guess as the source of the sentence. This is because I have observed thousands of humans constructing English sentences and have also noticed a human fondness for the beach. Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that a human wrote that sentence in the sand.
Yes, I do believe that life ultimately came from non-life. I have no idea how it happened. I’ve read some hypotheses, though, and some sound reasonable. But since I am not a chemist, I lack the expertise to fully understand and critique them.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
Hello Neando,
Well, materialism paints a rather broad brush. It only states that everything that is ‘real’ is ultimately made of ’stuff’. The only alternative is to say that there are some things that are real that are made of nothing. Since we have no experiences of things made of nothing, it is safe to assume that everything is made of some ’stuff’. So materialism isn’t really a presupposition, but an inductively drawn conclusion.
Yep. If God is real, It definitely needs to be made of something. My guess is that God is a necessary emergent phenomenon of all matter. Thus It is ultimately material in nature.
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 am
Hi Sid,
Hume’s Of Miracles has been pretty popular (and scandlous for his day.) The copy I have is edited by Flew. My impression was that his argument shows a rather sleight of hand. Critiques have been many but its been so long and many have been buried in larger works and journals.
On metaphysics, your statements seem to presuppose materialism. You said previously “By the way, I happen to believe that God is one such metaphysically necessary being.” I am curious as to how you would handle my question: “On your definition, would not God be contingent on matter?” as you have expressed a belief in some concept of God previously.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 am
Doug,
I think you are addressing the wrong person. I don’t recall addressing these issues. For the record, I am a sceptic with regard to macro-evolution.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Neando,
One more question for you. Do you believe that life came from non-life and if so how?
Thanks
June 1st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Neando,
What I meant by a “programmer” was that our brains (and all life in fact) work the way they do because of the complex, pre-programmed instructions contained in dna which in turn can be compared to a computer program. So do you really think that blind evolution is capable of programming with intelligence?
As for as the tornado analogy, I find it impossible to believe that any amount of time would be sufficient to assemble a plane even if all of the necessary parts were laid out beforehand.
If you were walking on a beach and found a sentence written in the sand that said, “Neando enjoys reading and posting his thoughts on religiousfreaks.com.” Could that sentence have been caused by nature alone?
June 1st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Hello Mike,
Surprising as it may seem that I had to ask, and although it is not my purpose to cause you alarm, my theological consultant says that the burden of proof in religious matters lies with Mister Death, The Grim Reaper.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:32 am
Hello Everyone,
Neando:
Hume’s Dialogues concerning Natural Religion is one work where he put to rest many of the arguments for God’s existence. It’s been a while since I’ve ready what he considers the problem of miracles, but I remember the argument being compelling. Which critiques to either do you consider successful? I’d be interested in reading them. Unfortunately, unless they are short, I probably won’t have time to read them soon. I’ve got a stack of books that I’ve committed to reading ‘next’.
Numbers and logic are emergent properties of matter. They are like form and size. Once any matter exists at all, it has certain properties such as size, shape, number, etc. Even logic emerges. A chunk of matter cannot both be and not be, be both a cube and a sphere simultaneously, etc. (unless you’re a Buddhist). My metaphysical guess (guesses are the best we can do wrt metaphysics) is that these properties will always emerge in any possible, non-empty universe. In this sense, logic, numbers, etc necessarily exist if any thing exists at all. I hope this clarifies what I meant.
Doug:
Welcome back and congratulations on the new home.
Let’s see, let me restate ‘an infinite number of tornados’ with ‘an infinite number of random, redistributions of the parts. Also, add in a finite, non-expanding space and a functioning plane would be inevitable. If, however, space where either infinite or expanding, the parts could be redistributed an infinite number of different ways.
Infinite redistributions + finite, non-expanding space = every possible configuration of the parts; including ones with a functioning plane.
Infinite redistributions + infinite or expanding space = an infinite subset of an infinite number of configurations. The infinite subset need not contain any of the configurations that include a functioning plane.
What exactly do you mean by a ‘programmer’? There are many ways to ‘program’ something. The easiest and fastest way is to use deductive and inductive reasoning to design a program. I believe this is how you are thinking of a ‘programmer’. Another way is to have an enormous variety of ‘programs’ being generated and destroying all the ones that don’t work so well.
In the case of brains, an enormous variety is being created by genetic recombination, mutation, and other natural processes. Also, non-working or poorly functioning brains are destroyed by natural selection. So yes, our brains do have a ‘programmer’: evolution.
This is, of course, a simplistic and incomplete way of viewing the process of evolution. For anything much more in-depth, I would suggest consulting an expert on the subject.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:53 am
Hey Brian and Mapk L,
I am finally in the new house! Suddenly, I am a handyman with orders from the lady of the house to install new light fixtures, ceiling fans, and an irrigation system!
I took some time to try and catch up with the discussion and I am glad to see that some new kids have come out to play.
Brian, I’ll try to remember roughly where we left off. I think that I had asked you to provide me with a few of your best examples of New Testament contradictions. I would like to see those if you can provide them please.
Also, I’m not sure if you responded to the “tornado in the junkyard” analogy. Could a functioning plane come together with an infinite amount of time + an infinite amount of plane parts + an infinite number of tornados?
Maybe Sid could speak to this one as well since he said in an earlier post referring to a computer and its programs that…”Our brains are similar. The cleaver arrangement of neurons create information in the form of thought and ideas.”
So Sid, as Bill Gates has rightly said, “Computer programs don’t write themselves”, did our brains have a programmer?
p.s. as I am still in the middle of unpacking, I may be a bit slow in my responses.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Sid, which particular arguments or works of Hume do you have in mind? His scepticism of religion and morals are very problematic. His Of Miracles, though still popular among sceptics, has serious flaws. Christian philosophers have long discredited his arguments.
You said:
“I do know that numbers and logic have no meaning without the existence of matter, but think that they are universal to every possible universe. In other words, if anything exists at all, then logic and numbers apply. I believe this is what is meant by being ‘metaphysically necessary’. Thus their existence is contingent on matter even though they are universal truths.”
If logic and numbers are contingent on matter, how can they be necessary? Can matter exist without them or are they prior to it? Are not logic and numbers mind dependent?
“By the way, I happen to believe that God is one such metaphysically necessary being.” On your definition, would not God be contingent on matter?
May 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Sidfaiwu and MARK L both:
Since the scientific method admits that any theory is only good until proven otherwise, we should logically admit the fallibility of science and not seek to impose any of its finding on others. I think. Maybe if we can’t ultimately prove anything (since our existing hypotheses are liable to change in view of emerging evidence)we should just break out the cassocks and have a good old pray?
No, I didn’t think so either. Let’s just remember on whom the burden of proof actually falls in religious matters!
On another note, wouldn’t it be great if God existed and sent all the Atheists to heaven as a reward for using their brains. And gave us all 72 virgins. If I were clever I could turn a parable out of that, but in event I’ll just say Goodnight and God Bless!
May 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
It is arguable that evidence might exist for something beyond a reasonable doubt, but proof means evidence beyond any doubt whatsoever.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Hello again Mike,
Well, yes and no. He did prove that the existence of any particular God, Allah, Yahweh, Apollo, and so forth, so unlikely as to be impossible, but this had already been done years ago. David Hume is an example of one such philosopher who had done so. But Dawkins failed to prove that no God exists at all.
Dawkins’ biggest success in the God Delusion was that he gave sufficient reason to doubt that any ultimate explanation of the universe need be complicated or intelligent. I also like the fact that he has somewhat popularized the notion that religions are subject to rational criticism like any other system of human thought. Many people are mistaking his plan-spoken criticism and passion for the subject as ‘negative vitriol’, as Neando put it.
Even if we non-religious (I’m not exactly an atheist) can’t agree with anything, we can still unite to point out the ridiculousness that is religion.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“Theology and philosophy are now redundant.”
Looks like it’s time for me to change majors…
May 28th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Neando:
I’m worried - if science doesn’t embrace philosophy and theology are we not in serious trouble? Science is surely just a methodology to arive at the truth. No, stop this. I’m embarrassed by my own words. What I mean to say is that I think the case for Atheism is proven beyond reasonable doubt by Dawkins. Theology and philosophy are now redundant. God is dead and has been for many years. Clever words don’t change a thing. I personally feel that Zen is the only way forward, and I’m off now to contemplate a cosmic Sardine. May as well.Brian, I have much empathy.Perhaps in the general scheme of things science really isn’t the answer. Who knows.
May 28th, 2007 at 3:42 am
Mike,
“Dawkins … He’s squashed the God argument dead on its heels.” too many steinlagers, mate. He’s done no such thing. The humanist are finding him a bit of an embarassment with his negative vitriol. He should stick to science, where he is brilliant, and leave philosophy and theology to those who are good at it.
May 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Is it me,or are all the atheists on this site taking things a little bit too seriously? Aren’t we meant to be knocking the theists rather than ourselves? And balls to Dawkins, he’s too intelligent by far. The man frightens me. He’s squashed the God argument dead on its heels. What we now need is more Religious Freaks to laugh at. Not more arguments among ourselves. Please!? Anyway, this horse goes into a bar. The barman says “Why the long face?”….
May 27th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
The Supreme Being:
Cheers, mate, mine’s a pint of lager! Maybe if the Religious Freaks of this planet (you know who you are, Axis of Evil) all settled down for a six-pack we might be a bit better off!
Seriously, how the the hell can you live in the desert without a decent pint?
May 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
HELLO AGAIN, MIKE,
MEASURED IN COSMIC MILES, I SHOULD SAY OUR GEOGRAPHICAL DISTANCE IS RELATIVELY SMALL. AND SHOULD PROVIDENCE EVER LEAD YOU INTO MY LITTLE ACRE, I’LL WHIP YOU UP A MIGHTY MIRACLE-BREW AND WE’LL STEEP OUR MINDS IN A STOUT AND FROTHY DISCOURSE.
May 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Hi Brian,
Sorry to be lagging behind a bit. Back to post 192….
By this, comment: “at least until he chooses to reveal himself to the world.,” I mean until God reveals himself to ALL the world, including to you.
“That fact that you cannot comprehend the equating the existence of things that you deem fanciful to others you deem non-fanciful only betrays your prejudices towards these entities.”
I can hardly refrain from a prejudice against the reality of pink unicorns, but as for the mightiest banana-split…well, that sounds like something to be really hopeful for. :-)
“in fairness you have to hold their gods to be real. Otherwise, there would seem to be a lot of intellectual dishonesty, as you’ve already stated you have no evidence of your god.”
I’m a bit puzzled as to why you say I have stated that I have no evidence for the existence of God. I repeat virtually to no end that evidence and faith are one and the same, regardless of whether it is within a religious context. Any unprovable or yet unproven belief is faith in something. Here is Bookman’s second definition of faith: a mental state of accepting something as trust-worthy.
My reason for disbelief in the ancient mythical gods is not the same as for my disbelief in pink unicorns and such. What difference could it make to anyone even if the latter actually did exist, and no one believed it or ever knew it? But the reason for my disbelief in the ancient plural gods, for a start, is that mono-theism clearly supports a first cause of all other things, and secondly mono-theism provides an absolute basis for good as a standard over evil, rather than an equally- balanced duality between the two opposing forces. The Bible describes God as the eternal source of good. On this ground, we can know, also, that love, beauty and truth are eternal. And it explains the origin and affirms the finiteness of evil. It tells us not only the origin of evil, but also that all evil will eventually come to an end.
Hi Sid,
To pick up on your over-turned cup analogy, Christians don’t claim to have exclusive or privileged information detailing the location, colour, size, weight and composition of the marble. They only claim that clear evidence is provided to everyone, through reading the Bible, observing creation, and examining one’s own heart, mind and soul.
I would agree that science-of-the-gaps would not make sense, but do not scientific theories fill in gaps, at least temporarily? Indeed, it seems as if some are taken to stand as truth itself. And to attribute some apparently inexplicable natural phenomenon to God, strictly speaking, is only to say God caused it to occur, not that it necessarily defies the physical laws.
May 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Hello Neando,
As with many metaphysical hypothesis, they certainly could exist prior to material instantiation. We have no way of finding out. We have no way of observing a non-material universe to see if logic, etc. exist. All we have to go on is our experience and our experience is that logic, etc. apply in a materially-based universe.
May 27th, 2007 at 4:15 am
Hello Brian,
I confess, I haven’t read everything you have said about the subject and I have only followed discussions here intermitently, so I am sorry if I have missed your point. I agree that science is not itself an ideology, but it ought to be recognised that science, its methods and practises, are founded upon philosophical presuppositions without which it would fail. Some of these presuppositions virtually all scientists would hold in common if they are to remain in the scientific community. Every scientist has a particular world view which may or may not affect their agenda, research and outcomes. some scientists use their professions to promote their particular world view (Dawkins is a prime example).
May 26th, 2007 at 2:03 am
thanks for not reading a word I said Neando. I don’t believe in or follow science. How many times do I have to say it’s not a faith or ideology? It’s a methodology used to explain natural phenomena. I give up.