Religion and ethics in the news

Re 'unanswerable' questions revealed: I have penned a few 'Expressions' that give my own answers/ponderings to a few of these questions and collected them into a manuscript - just looking for the services of an agent/publisher now if anyone has one up their sleeve??!!
(not the question about blondes I hasten to add -although that is hardly unanswerable!! of course it's no!)



As for robots being an answer to human loneliness - hmmmm - do you really fancy cuddling into that each night???!!!!! No thanks! :-)

On a more serious note - I feel the actual implications for healthcare are detrimental. Ok - long distance decisions can be made but this just increases the separation from the patient and more faceless medicine that lacks the human touch.

That God^2 article was utter tosh, I'm afraid. Even more disappointingly inane than most of these articles are. As for the exodus whimsy, the first thing to establish is that there is anything whatsoever in need of explanation. There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence to back up the exodus myth, and it is highly likely to be a fictional effort to unite the Canaanite tribes in the Israelite confederation when it was written, some time around the 8th century BCE. Get the archaeology first, guys, then we'll listen.

I found the God² story interesting, but just as flawed as Helio has already said. I've no issues with people with faiths and beliefs being scientists, I think it's entirely upto them. If they can take a good hard, rational look at their faith and reason it with the science that they do, that's okay with me. The issues I do have is when people place their beliefs as being more important than the science, that any results that contradict their beliefs is wrong.

I did like the article on the end of New Atheism (even if I do disagree that it's 'new'). I especially liked the Dawkins quote "Look," he told Laurie Taylor, "somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So to me it is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology."

Kinda sums up how I feel about people who use religious arguments trying to defend their opinions.

There's a review of the creationist book launch from the Pharyngula blog, one of the links on the side over there ------>

(by the way, to clarify, by "these articles" I meant "god and science" articles in general, NOT the links Will kindly provided! :-)

"A Time to Die" was excellent listening. I think Dr Nitschke is doing valuable work in providing information to those of sound mind who would like to know the best way to end their own life.

I think people should have the right to choose an assisted death provided their decision is freely taken, is their settled wish and is taken when they are of sound mind. If a person in their nineties, for example, is doubly incontinent, cannot get out of bed and wishes to die with dignity, who has the right to prolong their suffering? I am undecided on the matter of depressives.

The link: The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion - Brilliant. Really enjoyed watching it. Sums up a more intelligent , measured way of getting to grips with our internal & external worlds. In a way, it's a luxury we find ourselves in a sensible part of world to explore all of this, and not stuck in some part of the world mired in religious comflict, closed minds or reduced to bare survival

Newlach....We are a major downward spiral if we become supportive of allowing people to end their lives...Dr.Nitschke hasn't thought about the real consequences!

Natman and Helio...How did your doom and gloom weekend go?
Did you find some more philosophical masterpieces to share?

Here's what I read....1st Corinthians, chapter 1

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength....Amen

The 'End of New Atheism' story was interesting, but I can't help thinking that we seen a version of it all before.

Evangelical, Post-Evangelical, Emergent, The Juxtaposition of opposite adjectives Evangelical... Atheist Evangelical...Ecumenical Atheism.

Is it just me or is there an uncanny similarity between the fashions of Atheism and the fashions of the Church?

That said, our resident Heliopolitan is way ahead of the 'New Atheist' pack with his CJCA... Atheists making a cultural idol of Jesus, who'd have thought; 'Shine Jesus Shine... ;-)

Brian,

Good to hear from you again, and even better to see you're still making no sense whatsoever!

Book of Natman Chapter 2, vs 3: And verily, I shall quote to my hearts content, for quote mining is productive and worthwhile. RAmen

Dawkins got there first - Atheists for Jesus! CJCA is now on Facebook...

"CJCA is now on Facebook..."

You mean I can ask Jesus to be my personal friend?

Natman

I can't help noticing that you are a bit out of date with your version of the Book of Natman; the old English only gets in the way of the meaning, don't you think?

You should try a rewrite, the New Intercontinental Version of the Book of Natman, or the Through the Book of Natman in One Year Book of Natman, or what about a Book of Natman with Study Guide Book of Natman?

Just a thought, but I reckon it'd make your message all the more relevant for people not familiar with the Book of Natman; perhaps you might even think of some designing some fun and funky covers for your book, give away free pens and the like... Worked for us! ;-)

2MP,

I should rework the translation to match my materialistic and atheist worldview and ignore the literal meanings of the words.

(And in case anyone thinks that's a bit far fetched, do an internet search for the 'Conservative Bible Project' and see the greatest work of hubris and manipulation you're likely to see in a long time.)

With regards the news stories, the piece about the Vatican Bank just goes to show that regardless of your religious or non-religious views, greed is still the same everywhere.

Enjoyed 'the end of God - horizon programme' -thanks for posting the link William. Thing is when discussing science and God you would think they would have somebody who at least knew God to some extent to put that side of the equation......instead of just all the science and scientists who are trying to exclude God. They have Dawkins but no counterpart. This in my view is where the programme fell down - as they were just proposing God is this or that (eg God of the gaps, or the superGod who made the laws) etc without actually knowing God or having someone who knows God to some degree to put forward those understandings. And I'm not talking about people who have faith or belief or who claim someone else saved them or who had flashing lights and clashing symbols and a whole other host of myriad stuff that does not in my view come from knowing God. ( I accept that for many people faith and belief are very important to them - but the fact that one calls it faith or belief means it is not known. Faith can be a step on the journey and unfold to become a known of course. )

Also the understandings of science in the programme eg E=mc2 support the reality of God and in no way denigrate God. Everything is energy and it is, in my view, only by understanding and experiencing the world at the energetic level that we can get a handle on what is really going on in life, in the human person and understand evil and God. As we are energetic beings we can do this - for we feel what is going on all of the time - except that many of us have shut down or numbed out our ability to feel. However, all is not lost as we can re-awaken our clairsentience and begin to feel and know again! :-)

The 'my lie' is an interesting one. A woman who got caught up in others stories of abuse and came to believe she had 'recovered memories' of being abused by her father ......only to then come to the conclusion later that this was 'false memory' and did not happen. Seems like there were alot of similar stories in the USA at that time - where firstly people were having these 'recovered memories' that then became 'false memories' and sued their therapists who initially 'helped' them with recovered memories!

Courageous to write a book on her experiences in a world where people are quick to judge and condemn without knowing all the facts and all the factors involved. Hopefully will help those who have gone through a similar experience.

Abuse (all forms of it) is much more pervasive than we realise I feel. Given the amount of bullying etc that goes on in work places/families and other forms of disrespect - we prob tolerate it much more than we should. Thing is at the energetic level it's even worse!! Even blogs are not immune! :-)

Eunice,

You *know* God?

Would it be OK if I asked how?

I might be with Helio on this one!

:-)

Eunice

I’ve been reading an article on clairsentience and I wonder if I might respond the following way?

(It's a science/religion/personality thing mods, at least thats’s my excuse:-)

When I respond in some or any of the ways described: butterflies in the stomach, sense of peace, know that my wife is in the garden without seeing her, feeling ‘heat/hot’ or other physical symptoms, association of mood with colour etc (and I suspect many will recognise such responses), I find that there are many ways of explaining this. It could be another’s expression, tone of voice, body language; it could be a memory, common sense, familiarity of routine, experience; it could be anticipation based on another’s actions or comments; perhaps enthusiasm or loyalty or diligence; maybe what we call our personality for example MBTI descriptors or perhaps particular abilities for example creativity, clarity of thought, incisiveness, compassion and so on.

Now it seems to me that most, if not all of us, can observe this kind of behaviour either in ourselves or in others, while at the same time finding such experiences difficult to explain, possibly due to their ‘automatic’ or ‘instinctive’ nature, but this need not necessarily mean that such responses/senses are the result of ‘energy’ or ‘god’ or ‘spirituality’ or something ‘psychic’.

From my own perspective in the evangelical Christian world I have found it to be the case that some of the above experiences are associated with what is sometimes called ‘the presence, or leading, of God'.

For example people might speak of a sense (although the Evangelical word is ‘burden’) that someone needs prayer or that they should visit someone or go and be a missionary in another country.

But do we know that any of this is God, I suspect not. Can we however suggest that these are human traits, yes I think we can. Am I, as a Christian, happy to go around saying God lead me this way or that way, no, I’m not; am I happy to associate God with a feeling or a sense, no.

Eunice, as much as I would like to be able to agree with you, I find I can’t read these aspects of our human behaviour the way you do, and it’s not for want of being in circumstances where some of them are considered the norm.

Reading about clairsentience (never heard of it before) it seems a common feature of some religions-buddhism etc. My initial reaction is it's plausible. If it's simply a case of honing your sense of perception; through time, practice and learning the cues. From a personal perspective, I can gauge from body language, reactions and some people you can just *flow* with. Others you just seize up inside & you feel there's no empathy/understanding with the other person. I guess in terms of those trained in some healing art like Reiki- through time and experience they're able to pick up on health and energy cues. They say a dogs keen sense of smell can detect cancer, so i guess everything has its own signature , so to speak

2MP: As Socrates said 'know thyself' - when self is known - God is known - and then the work begins!
We are made of the same 'stuff' as God - in Christian language 'made in the image and likeness of God' and for me the part of us that is made in the image and likeness of God is the soul - it is pure love with the same properties/qualities as God. This is not new understanding but ancient and part of ageless wisdom. Also for example in the Christian tradition Julian of Norwich in the revelations of divine love says the same thing.

As I have said before I use to be an atheist then agnostic and when I started on my journey of exploration I knew there was something more to life than I had previously considered ( I couldn't even say the word God back then!) but did not know what.....as that journey unfolded I knew God was real but did not know God. That has unfolded further such that I would now say I know God - not in an arrogant/superior way but thing is it would be a lie for me to say I believed in God.

During that journey there has been a shift from the head to the heart - the inner heart is the gateway to the soul - it is the source of love within us that is God. This love is a stillness - with no emotion, it is needless and just serves. As the Psalmist says 'be still and know that I am God'. We can connect to this stillness using a gentle breath meditation as a form of re-connection to our innermost being. Sure this is an unfolding, a developing that never stops - there is no end point as we can always unfold more and more and more. However, there is nothing greater than what is within you/us as the kingdom of God is within and it is to come to know and feel that yumminess within.

So we become reacquainted with this innermost and endeavour to make choices from there based on what FEELS true at that time. Do we mess this up ? - of course. It is an unfolding. However, there have been people down through the ages who are more evolved and embody the soul and who can 'know' things because of the wisdom of the soul - as it has the same properties as God. (omnescience etc) For me Jesus is an example of such a person who embodied the light and love of the soul =Christ and who then lived according to that love and who could 'know' things without being told them or reading about them etc. Could call it revelation - as he was at one with God. There are many other people who have done this and it is possible for all people to do it - it is our divine heritage.

Whilst I am relatively early on the unfolding path - I do know without any doubt that my essence is love, that it cannot be harmed by anything whatsoever and that my woes and ills have arisen by making choices in separation to the love that I am. In other words being emotional or excessively mind driven or doing things for identification, recognition and acceptance, desire to please or heaps of other ways that we sabotage ourselves. We all do this - it is part of being human and part of the journey is to realise/know what our true nature is and live from there instead of living in the separation to that true nature.

For me the knowing is just that - a knowing - the inner heart just knows. I'm sorry its probably not the 'how' you were looking for and I know people will dismiss it but that's just how it is! One of the mystical writers wrote that love is a secret wisdom that knows of things that the mind and reason know not. The way to assist that re-connection back to one's innermost and the knowing of the inner heart is through the breath.

As for clairsentience - it is to know what one's state of being or presence is and to know what another's presence is - eg to feel the sadness that actually lies behind someone's anger. It is the ability to feel clearly. We are energetic beings - made up of lots of holes or space through which energy flows - so we are in communication with all there is all of the time - we are all feeling (energy) all of the time and feeling each other all of the time (energetically that is!). We may experience that as a feeling or as a knowing. Its like you know when someone is lying to you or when you walk in a room and you know there has been an argument. We do it and don't realise we do it or don't call it feeling but it is. Many of us numbed out/checked out/shut down our recognition of what we were feeling as children through upbringing etc but we never actually stop feeling - we cannot due to the nature of how we are made. So yes it can take some of us a while to begin recognising again what we are feeling. And yes - this can be affected by what is going on in us -hence why important to know self again. The important thing is to live being guided by what we feel is true for us.....and to reflect on why we are doing/saying what we are -what is motivation/agenda - is it just for attention/recognition/identification/pleasing etc. Of course life goes on and we can't stop every 5 secs to do this but when we can. But so often we feel one thing and then overrule it with the mind.

Someone who is truly clairsentient and who did not shut down that ability can feel and know what is going on in any situation or person. They can put their hands on the body and feel what is going on for that person because the body is the marker of truth and reveals all our choices. We could all do that if we didn't shut down our natural clairsentience.

You are right to be cautious re attributing this feeling or that feeling to God. There are many so called 'God experiences' that I would say are not from God as there is more going on than we realise esp. when understanding what is going on energetically.
Be still and know that I am God sums it up for me and by making choices from there we bring the stillness into motion and serve from that stillness, from that love that needs nought. Do I do this all the time - no - again it takes practice, unfolding etc. ONe way to bridge that is by being gentle in all that we say, think and do - and you are very gentle already I feel! :-)

I'll stop there cos too long but there is much more to this of course ! :-)

ps: Teilhard de Chardin said "Joy is the most infallible sign of the presence of God"

I would agree with that - to be joyful within one's own being without needing anyone or anything, no stimulation of any kind, no other person, nothing outside of you - only you. It is associated with love, harmony and stillness (so not a happy clappy ra ra joy - which isn't really joy) .......those four qualities love, joy, harmony and stillness are the qualities of the soul.

Ryan - yes it is something we all do and can do but some are more attuned to it cos they didn't shut it down in childhood. It is natural, not a gift, nothing special - it's just how we are made - we can't not feel but we can shut down the recognition or awareness of what we are feeling as I know only too well!!! :-)

2MP: my apologies - intended to share not lecture! Still plenty of arrogance for me to work on !!! :-)

Eunice

Not a problem. No need to apologise... and don't go being down on yourself.

2MP: thank you! :-) I love to discuss this stuff but realise I can overstep the mark at times!!! :-)

I've just read Dawkins' diatribe on 'Ratzinger' listed above.

RD includes a long quote from Adolf Hitler in which Hitler identifies himself as a Christian. This is presented as evidence to support the view that Hitler was not only a Christian believer, but that this supposed profession of faith had some influence on his nefarious policies. I cannot express strongly enough how ridiculous an argument this is. An arch liar and deceiver appeals to Christian belief in order to curry favour with elements within German society and this is taken to be a sincere and honest revelation of the true state of his heart and mind! Come off it. I assume therefore that RD believes everything else Hitler said, does he?

We need to work out what people really believe through what they actually do. And what was Hitler's thinking that led to his actions? It is that life is a constant struggle, and only those who are strong have the right to live. Remind us of anything? Certainly not Christianity, that's for sure.

I admit that the Pope's juxtaposition of Nazism and atheism was slightly unfortunate, since it requires some explanation and qualification. Such a simple juxtaposition is surely designed to be provocative, and this seems to have worked in the case of RD's response. However, the naturalistic philosophy underlying and justifying atheism provides a framewok to which Hitler could appeal to justify his policies of racism and eugenics. Here's a good example.

So therefore the Pope had a point.

LSV is a heap of unlogic and inconsistency as usual. He says not to judge what people believe not by what they say but by what they do. That is not bad, but then he doesn't follow up on his own statement. He doesn't list any actions, he just goes into another demonstration of being philosophically challenged.

What if he had followed his own statements and looked at actions rather than speeches?

Pharyngula had an interesting post on banning books. Darwin and Haeckel were banned by the nazis, as were books that ridiculed religion:
https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/who_was_on_the_nazis_naughty_l.php

Also, atheist and freethinker organisations were banned. In October 1933 they were said to have been stamped out.

But never let reality get in the way of your beliefs LSV. After all, that is not what they are about.

@LSV

More of your usual asymmetry at work here. The Pope's real world Godwinism is "slightly unfortunate", whereas you cannot express strongly enough how ridiculous Dawkins's response is.

grokesx (@ 27) -

"More of your usual asymmetry at work here. The Pope's real world Godwinism is "slightly unfortunate", whereas you cannot express strongly enough how ridiculous Dawkins's response is."

No, this is not asymmetry at all. I gave my reason why I judged these comments in the way that I did. The Pope had a point, but could have expanded on it, whereas Dawkins' comment doesn't deserve the same status, since it is completely inane. If you can't see the difference between these types of judgments, then I pity you.

PK (@ 26) -

"He doesn't list any actions..."

You call me 'philosophically challenged', but I think you must be 'historically challenged' if you really don't know what my comment about Hitler's 'nefarious policies' refers to. Sending disabled and handicapped people to special clinics to be murdered, in order to eliminate the weak (and therefore 'useless') members of society, is consistent with an ethic of human behaviour based on an interpretation of the observation of the struggle within nature. This is naturalistic thinking. Therefore it is entirely logical to understand these actions as the outworking of a naturalistic philosophy - the same materialistic reductionism which undergirds atheism.

The fact that the Nazis banned the books of freethinkers is actually irrelevant to the argument as to Hitler's view of God. Of course a totalitarian regime is going to stamp out freedom of thought per se, even if some of the views of those 'freethinkers' may be consistent with Hitler's own personal metaphysics. Remember he was a political tyrant first and foremost and therefore was motivated by political expediency in demanding conformity of thought.

So I unashamedly stand by my comments and beliefs, which are entirely consistent with reality.

@LSV

Take a look at the speeches again before you start judging other people's comprehension skills. The Pope explicitly makes the claim that Hitler's regime wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live and then goes straight on to say:

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny

In response to this, Dawkins points out at that Hitler was technically a Catholic and gives evidence that he certainly wasn't an atheist. I can't find the part in the speech where Dawkins presents the view that this supposed profession of faith had some influence on his nefarious policies. Could you point it out, please?

On another note, I don't suppose it was in any way possible that Hitler used anything and everything he could to bolster his twisted tyranny, by any chance? That he may have seized on the grotesque pseudo-science of eugenics to give a veneer of authority to appeal to sections of society in the same way he used religion?

No, no course not. It was athiest materialism wot done it.

LSV
From the speech in question,

"Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society"

Perhaps you could give some examples of how Hitler wished to eradicate god from society, specifically the christian presumably catholic god?

paul james (@ 30) -

"Perhaps you could give some examples of how Hitler wished to eradicate god from society, specifically the christian presumably catholic god?"

It depends how we understand 'atheism'. If atheism is nothing more than a protest movement (without any philosophical or world view commitment whatsoever) against the use of theological or theistic language, then I would agree that Hitler was not an atheist. And if theism is nothing more than a language game, then he was a theist. So what?

I am not interested in the superficialities of the lip service of language. I am talking about the underlying philosophy which informed and justified Hitler's policies. The philosophy underlying atheism is naturalism (metaphysical naturalism or philosophical materialism, if you prefer). If there is no philosophical foundation to atheism, then we could conceivably have an 'atheistic creationist' or an 'atheistic supernaturalist', both positions which are clearly absurd. To be an atheist actually means something philosophically, and it is not simply about superficialities.

This philosophy has ethical implications, especially concerning the sanctity of human life. This is the third time on this blog that I have linked to this article from the Telegraph, but I am linking to it again, because it explains succinctly what I am talking about, and is a contemporary example of how the philosophy of materialism causes people to question the inherent sanctity of human life.

Hitler used this philosophy to justify his evil policies. He wrote in Mein Kampf:

"For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to 'save' feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature's will is scorned."

"A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong." (emphasis mine)

So Hitler may not have been overtly promoting atheism or denying theism. In fact he referred to the 'Divine Will' when referring to the brutal laws of nature which eliminate the weak. This reference to God is mere lip service and deception. What he was doing was simply adorning the atheistic philosophy of naturalism (building an ethic on the concept of 'survival of the fittest' in nature) in Christian language in order to deceive the German people. Hitler's morality was informed by the philosophy of naturalism. So what evidence do we accept? The evidence of the philosophy that guided the tyrant's actions, or the vacuous words coming from the mouth of a lying and deceiving propagandist?

I prefer to look at the concepts which underlay what Hitler actually did, and then draw my conclusions about what he believed about reality in general. And my conclusion is that he was not a believer in God, since he was promoting a philosophy contrary to faith in God (and that includes the Catholic God).

@LSV

I prefer to look at the concepts which underlay what Hitler actually did, and then draw my conclusions about what he believed about reality in general. And my conclusion is that he was not a believer in God, since he was promoting a philosophy contrary to faith in God (and that includes the Catholic God).

Nooo, you prefer to take some things he said as lip service and other things he said as indicative of the philosophy underpinning his morality or lack of it.

Just tired old Godwinism, but also an amusing variant on the God agrees with me phenomena.

I'm surprised William has left out Christine O'Donnell from his list, and her truly bizarre comments about creationism and witchcraft.

Grokesx: Re the paper link: that is not surprising and alot of people project onto God their own 'beliefs'. Just a couple of comments: God does not have 'beliefs' . Alot of what people 'believe' about God eg that he is a judge etc is not true in my opinion and does not actually reflect what is really going on - even if they 'believe' it is. Point is for me - it's not about what people 'believe' or what they think God 'believes' - but about what is actually going on in the human person, the world, life etc.

Another daft thing that Dawkins wrote in his article is the following:

"It probably is too harsh to expect the 14-year-old Ratzinger to have seen through the Nazis. As a devout Catholic, he would have had dinned into him, along with the Catechism, the obnoxious idea that all Jews are to be held responsible for killing Jesus..."

This seems to suggest that Ratzinger had a choice in whether to join the Hitler Youth, and the insinuation is that he joined the Hitler Youth because he was convinced that it was justifiable to persecute the Jews (Dawkins, of course, conveniently ignores the fact that Christians recognise that Jesus was actually himself a Jew - so Christianity is hardly a basis for anti-Semitism, despite the prejudices of some so-called Christians).

Has RD considered that a 14-year-old would not have had much choice in the matter of the Hitler Youth, and that the most sensible thing to do in the circumstances was to just go along with an enforced unpleasantness? This was a totalitarian regime, for goodness sake! After 1939 all 14-year-old boys were conscripted into the Hitler Youth, and there is evidence that Ratzinger was an unenthusiastic member, who refused to attend meetings. So RD's insinuation that Ratzinger was either a genuine Nazi or naive about Nazism (thanks to supposed Catholic inspired anti-Semitism) is, at best, scurrilous, and, at worst, a lie.

And I wonder what RD would have done, if he had been in the same position. "Sorry, Mr Hitler, I don't really agree with you, so I'm going to stand on the street corner shouting my protests." I don't think so, somehow. A comfortable atheist from a cosy English democracy has no right to make insinuations about the difficult decisions of someone suffering under a brutal regime.

And to think that I am the one who is supposed to be out of touch with reality! You just couldn't make it up, frankly.

And I haven't even got on to Dawkins' huge straw man about original sin...

LSV, post 28,

You conveniently fail to explain the anti-atheist nazi policies I mentioned (going on about how freethinkers would have been inconvenient to their regime but forgetting the atheists that were mentioned in the same sentence, extremely selective in your reading and responding) and instead go on your usual nonsense of determining for atheist what it is they think and attacking them for that straw man you've set up. The number of atheists who think as you say they do (also in post 31) is just about none. So thanks for showing you can't answer the specifics and can only strike down positions atheists hardly ever take in the first place.

PK (@ 36) -

"...can only strike down positions atheists hardly ever take in the first place."

Well, I'm relieved that you now acknowledge that there are no philosophical - and therefore ethical - implications to atheism, and that you also acknowledge that we can derive no meaning whatsoever from the philosophy of naturalism (which Hitler was doing).

Since atheism is clearly merely a matter of language (and nothing more), I really don't know why people like you get so stewed up about atheism versus theism. Handbags at a conference of linguists hardly seems to matter, in my opinion.

Even if Hitler was pursuing a policy of suppressing the writings of 'freethinkers' (by which I assume you mean atheists), it doesn't alter the fact that he was applying the ethical implications of the philosophy of naturalism (just like the Telegraph article I linked to, which I assume you don't agree with). He observed the struggle within nature (survival of the fittest) and applied it to human society. Now please say if you don't subscribe to the philosophy of naturalism, so that we can try to understand your particular form of atheism that is obviously built on some other philosophy. I would love to know what that philosophy is.

Heliopolitan post 2 "There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence to back up the exodus myth, and it is highly likely to be a fictional effort to unite the Canaanite tribes in the Israelite confederation when it was written, some time around the 8th century BCE. Get the archaeology first, guys, then we'll listen."

Heliopolitan, perhaps you can give your scholarly opinion to a current Fox News report concerning UCAR and the University of Colorado at Boulder 'Parting the waters: Computer modeling applies physics to Red Sea escape route September 21, 2010' I don't know if links are allowed but you should have no difficulty in locating it. Could it be that archeology and modern fluid dynamics, if not confirming Moses's parting of the sea has at least recognises that the event was very possible and cannot be discounted as a just myth? I hope that William does an article on this report. Also remember that archaeology and History are not the same things. A common misconception.

LSV, our exchange may actually be going somewhere.

Atheism (in what that means to me at least) is primarily about what I don't believe. The question of what I do hold to is a different matter and would probably fit in better on a different, lengthy thread in itself.

Where you go wrong is when you seem to think that atheists think that what comes natural is the correct way to go about it. That is of course not at all the case, quite the contrary. In the animal kingdom dominant males of many species might take liberties with the females around them whenever they feel like it, yet our jails are not overflowing with atheist serial rapers.

Since our exchanges are often a bit strong, let me say here that I'm making an effort here to make you understand what atheists think or in this case don't think (or just me, I don't speak for anyone other than myself), not trying to trip you up. But the idea of 'law of the jungle is the natural order, therefore we should run society like that too' is really not what atheists think. That is a really dreadful distortion. And it is therefore not surprising that when christians try to tar atheists that way that they fail miserably. I think I posted a link to you before about a pastor who had made up some sock puppet identity and started saying things online like 'Killing is fine' etc. Atheists who read that were aghast that one who was supposedly one of theirs would say something like that. An some IP tracing showed that it was indeed not an atheist but a pastor who was saying that while pretending to be an atheist.

https://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/20/pastor-gets-caught-lying-for-jesus/

So you see that the 'anything goes' type of morals is so far removed from what atheists think that if a supposed atheist says that it immediately raises eyebrows and sets off alarm bells of suspicion. It just doesn't fit in at all with what atheists think.

Hee hee,

Check This Out (#38) - Fox News may as well be renamed Fundamentalist Xian News 24. It's so biased to the right wing conservative christian side of American life it's hard to believe.

I'd take anything they broadcast about things like that with a pinch of salt.

CTO
Have to agree with Helio. Over a hundred years of well motivated archaeology has failed to discover a single camp fire of perhaps two million people wandering aimlessly in an identified area for 40 years.

"Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long. No evidence exists that Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe, nor is there evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds"

@LSV

So you can't find the part of Dawkins's speech where he presents the view that Hitler's supposed profession of faith had some influence on his nefarious policies, then?

As Peter has said and as I have argued with you at length before, your portrayal of the supposedly ethical consequences of naturalism is wilfully flawed. This is not to deny some atheists - Sean on the other thread is an example - do make arguments of the type you think all atheists make, but, for the love of your supposed god, tackle some of the other arguments occasionally instead of running away from those that don't fit your stereotypes.

And for someone who witters on about logic and philosophy as much as you do, you don't half display a wonderful array of elementary errors. Over the months I have been coming here you have used reductio ad hitlerum, argumentum ad nauseam, appeals to consequence, arguments from incredulity, cherry picking, the no true scotsman gambit, false dilemmas, bare assertions and, of course, you've burnt poor Edward Woodward to a cinder. And all that's besides the is-ought problem and naturalistic fallacy that you can't seem to get your head around.

Quite a haul.

grokesx (@ 42) -

"So you can't find the part of Dawkins's speech where he presents the view that Hitler's supposed profession of faith had some influence on his nefarious policies, then?"

Oh so sorry for overlooking your wonderfully challenging post.

Dawkins quotes Hitler as follows (please note the bits I have highlighted in bold):

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who – God's truth! – was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after 2,000 years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

In other words, Dawkins is quoting a saying from Hitler which linked together his profession of Christianity with his belief that Christianity justified the oppression of the Jews. I notice that Dawkins did not insert any disclaimer to acknowledge that Hitler's attempt to abuse Christianity in this way was erroneous. In fact, far from doing that, he asserts that the Catholic Church encouraged anti-Semitism (hence his lies about Ratzinger's relationship to Nazism). Now I know that logic is not your forte, grokesx (despite your cute attempts to appear logical through your ability to list the names of all sorts of fallacies), but it is pretty obvious to an unbiased reader what RD is saying.

By the way, if you are going to accuse me of committing 'elementary errors', then it might be a good idea to explain what they are, instead of putting on an appearance of debunking my views without presenting any evidence. As for 'Godwinism', frankly I couldn't care less about this arbitrary 'Godwin's Law' nonsense. If this Godwin bloke wants to stifle debate about one of the most serious periods in human history then count me out.

@29 -

"On another note, I don't suppose it was in any way possible that Hitler used anything and everything he could to bolster his twisted tyranny, by any chance? That he may have seized on the grotesque pseudo-science of eugenics to give a veneer of authority to appeal to sections of society in the same way he used religion?"

Errm.... except that Hitler actually implemented the pseudo-science of eugenics. Hardly lip service is it?!

Whereas he did not implement the ethics of Christianity, which do not involve murdering innocent people.

What were you saying about logic, again?

Natman - Fox news may be everything you say. However, Fox news are responding to a press release. They did not provide the content. Scientists, the high priests of secular thought, are responsible for saying that a parting of a water is indeed possible, including via an strong east wind. Should we give any credence to their claims, or should we dismiss their views because they are 'off message' and have come up with a 'wrong' answer? The original post 38 was to answer directly the question posed in post 2, can archeology explain or prove the so called 'exodus myths'. I am not saying that this finding provides a definitive answer or proof. I am well aware of the archaeological difficulties and also the various models proposed by bibical scholars to explain the exodus. But it just not good enough to say that because there is currently no evidence for a mass exodus that we will never find evidence a mass exodus. It may just be that we are looking in the wrong place. Archeology by itself is not history. It cannot speak directly about people, or say anything about for example, what they thought. We need written records for that, such as those contained in the biblical account. I hope that these particular scientists will have given skeptics like yourself and Heliopolitan, food for thought.

William has also missed the Bishop Eddie Long scandal.

@LSV

An arch liar and deceiver appeals to Christian belief in order to curry favour with elements within German society and this is taken to be a sincere and honest revelation of the true state of his heart and mind! Come off it. I assume therefore that RD believes everything else Hitler said, does he? - No true Scotsman.

The repetition of "materialsm/empiricism is self refuting" argument, ignoring several counter arguments - argumentum ad nauseum. This also often contains a false dilemma, "since empiricism is self defeating, then..." [insert various wafflings here].

The Dawkins stuff - cherry picking. And in case you haven't got it yet, let's give it another go - the quote is presented as evidence that Hitler was not, as the Pope claimed, an atheist. He specifically makes the lip service point himself immediately prior to the quote:

But he certainly knew his overwhelmingly Christian constituency, the millions of good Christian Germans with Gott mit uns on their belt buckles, who actually did his dirty work for him. He knew his support base...

If you saw stuff in there linked to Hitler's "nefarious policies" that's you putting your own spin on it - kind of Dawkins's point, really.

Any of your posts on abiogenesis and evolution - arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.

Your arguments on morality usually involve an implicit appeal to consequence - the idea that if morality were not a god given gift then we could all just do as we like. And of course, the Sewell/Expelled type argument, Darwinism leads to nazism puts in the occasional appearance.

Peter has dealt with the naturalistic fallacy and the is/ought problem in your analysis of the atheist position.

Reductio ad hitlerium is plastered all over this page and poor Ed cubed is sacrificed as regularly as shrimps on Bondi Beach.

Errm.... except that Hitler actually implemented the pseudo-science of eugenics. Hardly lip service is it?!

You miss the point, again. The pseudo-science of eugenics was a perfect fit for the master race stuff and it had a veneer of respectibility at the time, especially in America. Of course he carried it out - he was a psychopath, but it is not evidence of a specifically atheistic/naturalistic philosophy in action. Rather it is more evidence of him - as I said before - seizing anything and everything available to promote his psychopathic ideas.


Godwin, don't knock him, his law tries to prevent stupid arguments like this one. It's a pity the Pope hasn't heard of him.

Oh, one more thing, the heavy handed sarcasm - it's brilliant.

LSV, post 43, my italics added

"Whereas he did not implement the ethics of Christianity, which do not involve murdering innocent people."

That last bit depends on what parts of the bible you emphasize. You may pay more attention to the benign parts of the new testament. Not all who call themselves christian do.

grokesx (@ 46) -

1. No true Scotsman argument - are you suggesting that it is impossible for someone to masquerade as something they are not? For instance, suppose I went around telling the whole world that I was an atheist, but I also claimed to believe in prayer and the power of the supernatural; wouldn't 'true atheists' doubt that I was, in fact, an atheist? If atheism actually means something, then there are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to warrant that description. So an atheist discovers that I, claiming to be an atheist, am promoting the efficacy of prayer to God, and, quite rightly says: "No true atheist promotes the efficacy of prayer". Is that statement a fallacy? I will leave the intelligent reader to answer that question for him- or herself. Of course, the same argument can be applied to any belief system that actually means anything in practice.

Let's put it like this:

A. All atheists disbelieve in God.
B. Joe Bloggs claims to be an atheist, but also says he believes in God.
C. Ah, but he cannot be a true atheist, since no true atheist believes in God.

Is 'C' a fallacy? Of course not! If you're going to try to invoke a fallacy, at least try and understand what the fallacy is saying. For instance, in Flew's original 'Scotsman' example, it is not a definition of a Scotsman to be incapable of committing a serious sex crime. So your understanding of this is highly simplistic and, dare I say, fallacious.

If we look at the example in my post, if Hitler was a true Christian, then it follows that Christianity means absolutely nothing at all - on the same level as if it were possible to have a theistic atheist. Since the central figure of Christianity was a Jew, whom Christians are to worship as God, then it follows that no one who hates the Jews can be a Christian, since logically a true Christian cannot hate Jesus Christ.

Shall I put it as a simple syllogism for you?

A. Jesus Christ was a Jew.
B. Christians are required to worship (love) Jesus Christ.
C. Therefore anyone who hates all Jews cannot love Jesus Christ.

And we then apply this...

D. Adolf Hitler hated all Jews.
E. Therefore Hitler could not have been a true Christian.

So go on, fault that logic then! Hardly a fallacy, is it?

2. "The repetition of "materialsm/empiricism is self refuting" argument, ignoring several counter arguments - argumentum ad nauseum."

Look, grokesx, I suspect you are absolutely desperate to silence me, and you have used various methods over the months to attempt to do so. The reference to the 'straw man' fallacy was one of your favourites. But my argument about empiricism has not been refuted at all. Please show me the argument that has refuted my claim that empiricism is self-refuting. And I have repeated this argument, because it is an important point, since it proves that naturalism is based on 'faith' just as much as theism. If you want me to shut up about this, then perhaps you could be so good as to answer the claim, or if you cannot, then acknowledge the faith basis of your world view.

3. Cherry picking from Dawkins' argument. I assume you are frustrated that I haven't been through every single point in his article. I could do, if I have abundant time and inclination. However, I fail to see how my points are fallacious, considering Dawkins' claim about the Catholic Church's view of the Jews. And if Dawkins is admitting that Hitler was paying lip service to Christianity, then how does that undermine my argument? If that is the case, then that leaves the door open to considering that Hitler was something other than a Christian, and we would need to discern that from what he actually did. Which is a perfectly valid point.

4. "Any of your posts on abiogenesis and evolution - arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity."

Yes, you are absolutely right about incredulity. I don't believe in abiogenesis and I am not convinced about the claims concerning macroevolution (it's called 'scepticism', if you really want to know). The idea that life can self-assemble without the input of intelligence is something I do not believe. Please prove that that position is a logical fallacy. In fact, I would suggest that you are confusing a valid opinion with a logical fallacy without providing any justification for doing so. It's a cunning way to dismiss your opponent's viewpoint without having to trouble yourself with doing any work.

Calling another person's point of view 'a logical fallacy' without providing any argument to demonstrate that it is indeed a fallacy, is a method not worthy of anybody's respect.

5. Moral arguments. Atheists are fond of making moral points, but yet hold a world view which provides no basis for objective morality. If it does, then please provide me with the evidence for this objective source of morality. According to the philosophy of naturalism, in what way were Hitler's policies 'wrong'? He could argue that he was only doing what he felt was natural. What's wrong with that, according to naturalism?

If making this straightforward point is a 'logical fallacy', then I am not convinced that you even know that the phrase means, and you are just throwing it around as an act of brinkmanship on this blog.

6. 'Reductio ad Hitlerum'. The opinion of Mike Godwin is subjective (and, in fact, is merely a humorous observation). Prove to me that it is not. An arbitrary opinion cannot qualify as a logical rule. To confuse a subjective opinion or observation with a logical rule is itself a fallacy, which you are committing.

7. Eugenics. I have been arguing that we can discern what someone believes about reality as a whole through what they do. Is there anything logically fallacious about that? Coming back to Flew's 'true Scotsman' argument, perhaps the sex maniac from Aberdeen wasn't really a 'true' maniac at all, but was only playing to the gallery!!!!! So now who's committing the logical fallacy?!

As I say, you can try and silence me with your constant appeal to logical fallacies. It might, however, be worth your while actually coming up with some proper arguments once in a while.

LSV,

Why does morality have to be objective?

Why does your belief make your morals objective? Surely the bible is just as subjective as any other starting point.

I do believe, like most who perceive atheists cannot have morals, you aren't aware of the concept of informed consent.

@LSV

Using the no true Scotsman fallacy allows you to define what constitutes a Scotsman and what doesn't depending upon your own convictions. This is precisely what you are doing. I could, for instance, point to the long and bloody history of Christian persecution of Jews and you would doubtless say, ah well, but they weren't true Christians, because true Christians wouldn't do such things.

Fair enough, but to take this to its, ahem, logical conclusion, we would end up with millions of definitions of what a true Christian is. Actually, that's not so far from the truth, since there are about 30,000 Christian denominations, each following true Christianity.

It's late - I'll get back to the others tomorrow. Suffice to say, for crying out loud man, grow some. Silence you? That's a monster persecution complex you have there, fella. This is just a blog some people with nothing better to do than argue the toss about stuff come to. It's hardly the Spanish Inquisition.

With all the discussion of Atheists and theists do you think actions like this Prayer meeting on M25 help or hinder the perception of christianity.

Dave,

Nice link.

I'll probably comment once some people who aren't falling around laughing have commented.

I'm sure that pastor is sincere though. Which makes it even better.

Dave

Is 'Leatherhead' in the link you provided the name of the town or is it an adjective?

grokesx (@ 50) -

"Suffice to say, for crying out loud man, grow some. Silence you? That's a monster persecution complex you have there, fella. This is just a blog some people with nothing better to do than argue the toss about stuff come to. It's hardly the Spanish Inquisition."

OK, I'll concede that you've got a point here, in the light of one of my previous comments! Annoyance got the better of me, I admit.

(I'm certainly not planning on conceding the other points, mind you! Unless, of course, irrefutable evidence is presented.)

There are some good comments to the story, especially from E. Vile-Satanist, 666 Baphomet Avenue.

@LSV

Please show me the argument that has refuted my claim that empiricism is self-refuting. And I have repeated this argument, because it is an important point, since it proves that naturalism is based on 'faith' just as much as theism. If you want me to shut up about this, then perhaps you could be so good as to answer the claim, or if you cannot, then acknowledge the faith basis of your world view.

No one has refuted the argument, but many have disputed the conclusions you draw from it. I recall three or four questions relating to this point that went unanswered, in between repetitions. That pretty much fits the bill of argumentum ad nauseum.

You originally posted the Dawkins quote and your spin on it without reference to the context, which was as a response to a specific part of the Pope's speech.

This looks a bit like an example of drawing a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities to me:

You can attempt to intimidate me as much as you like, but no one (however qualified) is going to force me to believe the totally insane idea that the complexity of life somehow magically 'self assembled', and in a universe of chaos the delicate intricacy of life was protected from every storm and hostile force over billions of years without any need for a principle of order, and not only that, but it managed to improve itself by pure chance.

And force you to believe? There's definitely a theme emerging here.

Moral arguments. Atheists are fond of making moral points, but yet hold a world view which provides no basis for objective morality.

You have pointed three times to a consequence of this, namely the discussion of abortion without reference to a divinely ordained concept of the sancitity of life. This consequence has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of that world view, no matter how daunting the consequence.

According to the philosophy of naturalism, in what way were Hitler's policies 'wrong'? He could argue that he was only doing what he felt was natural. What's wrong with that, according to naturalism?

You've thrown in another is/ought problem in there with poor Ed cubed. We've talked extensively about this before.

The reductio ad Hitlerum was not on this thread and I hold my hands up to invoking Godwin here in a not too serious manner. I was thinking of your approval of Dennis Sewell almost but not quite blaming the gas chambers and nihilistic teenage murderers on descent with modification.

The eugenics stuff, no formal or informal fallacies imputed there. Still wrong, though.

51

It certainly gives a completely new meaning to 'crossing the bridge.'

54

On consideration, the antics of this minister really are a bridge too far. Although belief in God has spanned the centuries, back to the time even when God told Moses to go Forth, and people have aspired to enter paradise through the Golden Gate, its time to bring a suspension to all of this nonsense. I know, I'm stretching it now...

I know this'll be flagging Crawley's Law, but...

(taken almost word for word from LSV's post)
No one (however qualified) is going to force me to believe the totally insane idea that the complexity of life was somehow magically 'assembled' by an invisible and unprovable being, and in a massive, almost infinite universe of chaos the origins of the delicate intricacy of life was only vaugely recorded in a single book given to a specific lineage of people and no one else, and not only that, but it managed to make the universe look the exact opposite of this.

Your arguments, LSV, work both ways. However, the burden of proof is on you, the theist, to provide evidence for the existance of this entity. And more than that, all the evidence points to a universe that doesn't require such an entity.

(here we go round the mulberry bush....)

RJB: have you been at the communion wine????!!!! lol

Natman (@ 58) -

Sorry Natman, old chap. I can't reply to your post, because it seems there's an (unofficial) embargo on my mentioning the argument "that should never again be mentioned" (you know the as yet unrefuted argumentum ad nauseam).

So not wishing to reinvent the wheel (or the merry-go-round, if you prefer), perhaps you would like to explore some of my earlier posts on other threads to work out the answer that I would have written here?

(Oh, by the way, Natman, you wouldn't mind directing me to the authoritative tome which lays out the rules for 'burden of proof', would you? And also the independent proof that assures us that that tome indeed possesses infallible authority? I would be most interested to study it. Thanks.)

LSV, dodging the question yet again.

Oh, by the way, there's an invisible pink unicorn in my living room.

Unless you can provide proof that it's not there, you have to believe in it. There's a book written 2000 years ago that backs up my claim. I know it's true, because the invisible pink unicorn said so, besides, it's written in the book that the book is true, therefore it's true.

If you challange the existance of the invisible pink unicorn, then ask yourself this; if the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist, where do dreams go when you wake up?

Hah, you can't answer it, therefore the invisible pink unicorn is real. Logic!

[/sarcasm]

... the independent proof that assures us that that tome indeed possesses infallible authority?

Are you referring to the bible again?

I got my last post wrong, it should've said:

there's a holy, divine god living in heaven.

Unless you can provide proof that it's not there, you have to believe in it. There's a book written 2000 years ago that backs up my claim. I know it's true, because god said so, besides, it's written in the book that the book is true, therefore it's true.

If you challange the existance of god, then ask yourself this; if god doesn't exist, where do morals come from?

Hah, you can't answer it, therefore god is real. Logic!

Natman (@ 61) -

So what you seem to be saying is that you will only believe in something you can see.

So I assume you don't believe in your own consciousness? I assume also that you don't believe in your own thoughts? Do you believe in logic? It's not something we can see.

Do you believe in empiricism? Again, it's not something we can see. Do you believe in atheism? Again, something as invisible as an invisible pink unicorn.

Now someone may perhaps say that they believe that their own consciousness exists, because 1) they feel it and 2) they experience its effects. Both of these arguments (from experience and effect) support my belief in God.

I have put similar points to you in the past, and you have dodged them, yet you have the audacity to accuse me of dodging the question. I was not dodging the question, but asking you to answer the points that I have raised in the past concerning the problem of empiricism. You are asking for empirical proof alone, but I have proven to you that empiricism (as an epistemology) is faulty. And no one has refuted this point (because it is, in fact, irrefutable).

So why don't you have the guts to answer my long-standing question about empiricism before you accuse me of dodging questions?

The ball is in your court to answer the problem of the self-refuting nature of empiricism. You answer that and then I will answer your questions. Because if you cannot answer this, then you have no right to claim that the only evidence which can ever be deemed valid is empirical evidence. First let us define what constitutes 'evidence' and then we can have a proper discussion.

If you are not prepared to do that, then you are the one who is the real intellectual dodger.

LSV,

Let us, for the sake of the argument, concede that empiricism is self-refuting, that all evidence is flawed due to the unobservable nature of the observer, that, yes, empirical proof is everything you have claimed it to be.

If all evidence is considered with that same flaw, it's still evidence! By making the playing field level, by assuming that the empirical is just as subjective as the non-empirical still requires the non-empirical to provide something!

Please, please, now that we can ignore that first hurdle of yours, show us why all the evidence gathered to support mainstream theories and scientific concepts are now dust, and the only truth is goddit.

If this is your only argument, that empirical evidence is self-refuting, all you're doing it reducing it to the same level as potential non-empirical evidence. It doesn't magically make non-empirical evidence appear out of the aether, nor does it destroy the fact that, regardless of how it's observed, or the nature of the observer, evidence still exists.

Come on LSV, as Natman says, there are ways forward from the argumentum ad ellessvium and you have been offered plenty in your time. Several of us have presented the sciency way, stressing that strictly speaking, "proof" is not a concept that figures outside formal systems and maths and that discussion can usefully progress using the weight of evidence of the natural world. We get into arguments about the nature of evidence, to be sure, but at least its discussion.

I have pointed out that no philosophical position is not open to serious criticism. Philosophers have been going hammer and tongs for millennia and show no sign of stopping. You have given no philosophically justified alternative to empiricism, despite several invitations to do so. In any case, most philosophy involves inductive reasoning which doesn't involve absolute proof, but a less than certain inference. So, if empiricism is self refuting and we can't trust our senses absolutely, how do we justify our beliefs? Scientists and sciency atheists justify there's and put the justification forward - so, you don't find any of it 100% convincing, whoopy do, we don't either, but to us its the best we have. What have you got? Apart from, that is, folding your arms and saying, "Ah, but I think I may have mentioned that empiricism is self refuting."

Natman -

The current debate about 'religion' versus 'atheism' (often portrayed as the conflict between 'superstition' and 'reason'), is really a debate about whether reality can only be understood in terms of matter and energy operating within a closed system, or not. If there is evidence that there exist (or there must exist) realities other than merely matter and energy, then, in principle, it is not irrational to hold to a 'religious' explanation of reality.

If the materialistic view of reality can be falsified, then that opens up the possibility of other explanations. I acknowledge that this seems to be a negative way of approaching the subject, but it must be remembered that naturalistic assumptions are also arrived at by means of falsification. This must be true, since we cannot prove directly that life originally arose from non-living matter without an external organising influence (since we cannot, of course, go back into the past to observe exactly what happened). The naturalist has, in his mind, debunked the possibility of a non-naturalistic explanation (in my view, for philosophical and not scientific reasons), and therefore, by a simple process of elimination, he asserts that life must have arisen naturally. Once a plausible mechanism is discovered for the natural development of life, then his case (in his mind) is proven. This conclusion can only be arrived at by means of the method of falsification. Therefore it cannot be unreasonable for non-naturalists (i.e. theists) to use exactly the same methodology as their philosophical opponents.

Now I assert that, if philosophical materialism is true, we cannot possibly know it to be so. This is because the only epistemology possible within that philosophy is empiricism. All knowledge would have to derive from material stimuli - in other words, sensations and sense perception. But empiricism cannot account for thought itself, since empirical sensations can only be organised by means of prior ideas. On another thread I used the example of looking at an object, let's say a door. If we strip away from the visual sensation all ideas: colour, shape, spatiality, function, perspective etc, we are left with nothing at all. There is no sensation there at all. Furthermore, no epistemology can be built on sense perception, since nature does not provide us with a philosophy. There is nothing in the observation of nature that tells us that "this is the philosophy you must hold in order to make sense of reality as a whole". Furthermore, nature certainly does not provide us with a ready made ethic.

Since the fundamental claim of empiricism cannot be verified empirically, then it follows that such an epistemology is false. And yet the philosophy of naturalism depends on that epistemology. Therefore that calls into question the truth of the philosophy of naturalism. Thus I am satisfied that this philosophy has been falsified. Note that I am using the same method that naturalists use with regard to a non-naturalistic explanation of reality. So they can hardly dismiss my method as merely negative, if they follow the same approach.

Now I acknowledge that my adherence to Christianity has a strong experiental component, and, of course, we can wrangle forever about the historical basis for the Christian faith. I am convinced by it. I regard it as fairly futile to try to argue with a sceptic for the truth of Christianity specifically. The whole debate operates on a far more fundamental level. Once someone has accepted that the philosophy of naturalism has been falsified, then we can consider alternative explanations. But it is hopeless considering those alternatives until the first step has been taken.

Now you may not accept that this approach constitutes an evidential methodology, but I have reasoned here why I hold to this approach. Even if you disagree with the approach, then at least I have laid out clearly why I believe as I do.

So I am not saying that I am trying to 'prove' my particular view of God. What I am saying is that the jury is out on this subject and that the claims of naturalism (to have debunked all religious claims) are entirely false. So, fair enough, let's accept a reasonable, rational and respectful agnosticism (I have a lot of time for that). But I reject completely the dogmatic assertions of atheistic 'certainty' (with its tiresome caricatures of religious belief), which is so characteristic of the so-called 'New Atheism'. Furthermore, I reject conclusions which are claimed to be the result of the scientific method, when on closer inspection we can see that they are infused with philosophical presuppositions, which themselves have not been - and cannot be - verified by the scientific method.

LSV,

So ultimately, your argument is that seeing as (using your logic) 'material' evidence cannot be trusted 100%, your beliefs in a monotheistic god as written in a very specific and highly self-referring must be the only plausible alternative?

At it's very core, your basics are that despite the reams of evidence collected (albeit by a 'flawed' methodology) they're put forwards by a cadre of people who you perceive to hold flawed beliefs, therefore the evidence they've collected is inadmisible?

I'm struggling to see why you'd discard observations based on a purely philosophical ground. It's as bad a the courts dismissing valuable and conclusive evidence because the police failed to fill in the right paperwork.

Natman -

"I'm struggling to see why you'd discard observations based on a purely philosophical ground."

What 'observations' am I discarding?

My observation of the reality in which I live tells me that there is a causal relationship between intelligence and complexity. I have never seen or observed a causal relationship between non-intelligence and the creation of complex systems (even if those systems, once created, may have certain adaptive facilities built into them). So in what way am I dismissing empirical evidence, since that evidence supports my inferences?

I have been told on this blog that scientists 'start with where we are and work outwards' (Helio). Now why is it that I am now being criticised for doing that very thing?! I start with where I am, I observe that complex systems do not arise without the input of intelligence, and therefore I make the relevant inference about reality as a whole. So where has this 'non-intelligence' theory come from? Certainly not from empirical observations, that's for sure.

So I am struggling to understand exactly what you are talking about.

LSV,

The issue here is that you believe in an intelligent entity that oversees (for want of a better word) the entire universe.

Because of this, you look at the universe and instantly ascribe intelligence to what you see.

I could show you fantastic microscopic crystal structures, the beauty of a nebula, the pattern inherant in a slow motion explosion - all of them random in that their patterns cannot be predicted, but they follow incredibly complex rules.

However, you'd insist that such things are evidence of an intelligent designer, you initial bias blinds you to taking the spectacle for what it is.

Natman (@ 69) -

"The issue here is that you believe in an intelligent entity that oversees (for want of a better word) the entire universe. Because of this, you look at the universe and instantly ascribe intelligence to what you see."

And, of course, the same argument can apply to your methodology, by which you interpret empirical data according to your philosophical presuppositions.

I am not disputing that apparently random processes can occur within certain environments, but those environments are themselves complex systems operating according to ordered laws and mechanisms. The same argument can apply to adaptation within living systems (which, by the way, are far more complex than crystals). This freedom that exists within the system is not evidence of mindlessness but is testimony to the incredible complexity of nature. But these random events don't prove that the fundamental principle behind the whole of reality is complete mindlessness. These events certainly do not disprove the intelligence explanation.

So, yes, you can interpret reality in the way that you wish. That is your prerogative as a free agent, and I respect that. But I fail to see how this is some kind of slam dunk proof that "God is dead" or that the only 'scientific' explanation for reality must involve a rejection of an ultimate intelligence. But this is what we are constantly told by the new breed of atheists. The materialistic / atheistic explanation for reality has nothing to do with science and everything to do with philosophy.

It's a bit like the astronomer who claims he is 100% certain that there is life on another planet, based purely on the fact that this exoplanet has been found in its solar system's "Goldilocks zone". How is that a rigorous result of the scientific method? It sounds more like pure wishful thinking to me, based on a prior belief in abiogenesis.

Anyway, I fear I am transgressing what you call 'Crawley's Law' on this thread, so I look forward to continuing this discussion on a more appropriate thread - or on an open thread - some other time. (No, I am not running away, just aware of the rules!)

"I observe that complex systems do not arise without the input of intelligence"

Is that not the very conjecture that was thrown out of court when proposed as the basis for ID to be taught alongside evolution in American schools?

The decision was that it was not an observation it was a belief and so could not be taught.

@LSV

For a start, those nasty New Atheists don't tend to make claims of having debunked all religious claims - certainly not the ones you are trying to make here. Dawkins, for example, is on record as saying a case can be made - although he doesn't find it convincing and will argue against it - for a deistic first mover. I've made a similar point on here a few times, saying that many sciency types are comfortable with a deistic world view where some slacker god creates a universe and leaves it to its own devices, or a pantheistic affair that just says god is the universe. There are even some who are theists, but they aren't proper scientists, obviously ;)

So, even if we were to accept your materialism is falsified mullarkey - I hope to get back to that - the actuality of religious belief as it plays out in practice with its prayers, faith healing, prosperity gospels, speaking in tongues, exorcisms, miracles performed by dead cardinals, divine revelations in the shower (that one was from CIF), biblical inerrancy, biblical inerrancy lite (a slippery customer, that one) is open for investigation. A universe that runs along the lines that nearly all religious people believe can't fail to be different to one that doesn't and we could expect to see the results - indeed the godded claim to see the results daily. Except, we don't see them, unless we do as you are wont to do and expect supporting evidence for the areas you don't like - evolution for eg - to conform to far stricter criteria than the ones you do - Jesus wants me for a sunbeam, say - and let regression to the mean, confirmation bias and all the other cognitive biases - of which the Dunning Kruger Effect is an amusing and oft displayed example - get the better of us.

And since I can't be bothered to make this post readable I leave you with that meandering sentence.

"And, of course, the same argument can apply to your methodology, by which you interpret empirical data according to your philosophical presuppositions."

The difference here is that LSV is making an initial presumption that there is a 'god' and so all the observations are tailored around that presumption. I, and possibly the vast majority of scientists, make no initial presumption; the concept of there being no god involved is not a presumption but a baseline from which to extrapolate. There is no scale from 'There is a god' (+1) to 'There is no God' (-1) with some safe middle setting from which to go one way or the other (0). It's the analogy with light - darkness is not the opposite of light, it's the absence. Atheism isn't the opposite of religion, it's the absence of it and should be the point from which all science is conducted, involving the possibility of a god only when the evidence suggests so.

In true scientific methodology you would have a hypothesis, yes, but it wouldn't demark the boundries of the observable evidence. By demanding that there is some form of entity that oversees everything before you even start looking at the evidence will envitably skew your perceptions towards that belief.