homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
What you mean presumably is that Dawkins will make clear and understandable statements whilst the Archbishop will waffle and baffle.

Hear, Hear!!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:


Dawkins fumbling for a moment to recall the rather lengthy subtitle of one out of many scientific works, and then getting it more or less right - that doesn't begin to compare.

Yes the point was to show that the argument made based on the poll was not a very good one.

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884

 - Posted      Profile for angelfish   Email angelfish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
it was also a multiple choice question with the choices being Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles, Psalms, and don't know. Only 35% of the people who identified as Christians could answer the question correctly.

I would have thought that a significant proportion of people who answered wrong misread the quesion, and answered "Genesis". If you phrase it as a trick question, you will inevitaly trip people up.

--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"

Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
it was also a multiple choice question with the choices being Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles, Psalms, and don't know. Only 35% of the people who identified as Christians could answer the question correctly.

I would have thought that a significant proportion of people who answered wrong misread the quesion, and answered "Genesis". If you phrase it as a trick question, you will inevitaly trip people up.
Well, possibly. But I think it's stretching it to call it a trick question, and the results of the survey don't really bear out your suspicion:

Matthew 35%
Genesis 19%
Acts 3%
Psalms 3%
Don't know 39%
Prefer not to say 1%

If you make the unwarranted assumption that every single person who said Genesis misunderstood the question, you just about get to a narrow majority of self-identified Christians who were able to answer this basic multiple-choice question (with effectively only 3 options, seeing that we're now mapping Genesis onto Matthew).

So even the most generous interpretation is pretty damning for the "Christian Majority" claim.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow, 45% of respondents who self-identified as Christians got the question wrong without even the excuse of the mistake that I made (first book of the New Testament, not the whole Bible).
quote:
Originally posted by JJSchmidt:
If you don't actually *read* the Bible, even going to Church every week, it's certainly possible you wouldn't notice.

Could this apply to many regular church-goers, do people think? In a church where the Sunday service is strongly based on the lectionary, might people not pick up the basics of how the Bible is structured?

I ask because I'm really in no position to judge; pretty much everyone who comes to our Sunday meetings is also involved in a midweek home group, in which (amongst other activities) the Bible will be studied. That sounds like boasting but I don't mean it to be! I'm just trying to make the transition in my mind to thinking of how church might be done in a way that doesn't involve people routinely looking through a Bible themselves.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
[qb]Given that he said that in his book the God Delusion, it shouldn't have been much of a surprise.

Indeed. But most people who dislike Dawkins strongly appear to have not actually given his work more than a cursory skim. They make his approach to Christianity seem nuanced.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think what's entertaining about it is Dawkins confidently announcing that he could tell Fraser the full title and then fumbling it. If he'd said up front that he didn't know, followed by a spiel about how it's not a Holy Book, science doesn't have Holy Books and so on, then he'd have successfully rebutted the question. He didn't. As it is, he dropped himself in it.

Agreed entirely. The questions aren't in the same league. Dawkins was thrown a disingenuous question and got overconfident.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Wow, 45% of respondents who self-identified as Christians got the question wrong without even the excuse of the mistake that I made (first book of the New Testament, not the whole Bible).
quote:
Originally posted by JJSchmidt:
If you don't actually *read* the Bible, even going to Church every week, it's certainly possible you wouldn't notice.

Could this apply to many regular church-goers, do people think? In a church where the Sunday service is strongly based on the lectionary, might people not pick up the basics of how the Bible is structured?

I ask because I'm really in no position to judge; pretty much everyone who comes to our Sunday meetings is also involved in a midweek home group, in which (amongst other activities) the Bible will be studied. That sounds like boasting but I don't mean it to be! I'm just trying to make the transition in my mind to thinking of how church might be done in a way that doesn't involve people routinely looking through a Bible themselves.

A lot of our folk simply go to an online Bible, search and print out the passage to be studied. Indeed, we often make it easier and email the passages out to them in advance.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Wow, 45% of respondents who self-identified as Christians got the question wrong without even the excuse of the mistake that I made (first book of the New Testament, not the whole Bible).
quote:
Originally posted by JJSchmidt:
If you don't actually *read* the Bible, even going to Church every week, it's certainly possible you wouldn't notice.

Could this apply to many regular church-goers, do people think? In a church where the Sunday service is strongly based on the lectionary, might people not pick up the basics of how the Bible is structured?

I ask because I'm really in no position to judge; pretty much everyone who comes to our Sunday meetings is also involved in a midweek home group, in which (amongst other activities) the Bible will be studied. That sounds like boasting but I don't mean it to be! I'm just trying to make the transition in my mind to thinking of how church might be done in a way that doesn't involve people routinely looking through a Bible themselves.

Further to Leo's remarks, I think it fair to say that there are a fair proportion of my congregation who would struggle with the order of the books in the Bible, New Testament or Old. I suspect that this may well be true of a lot of Anglican congregations. My previous Vicar made no secret of the fact that he believed that the majority of our congregation probably did not read anything from the Bible from one week's end to the next. We took to printing the readings for the day on a loose sheet, so that the congregation at least had a portion of the Scriptures in their hands each week (to more-or-less quote his comment at the time).

The problem with The Lectionary is that, unless you choose to follow the readings in a pew Bible, you are unlikely to have any idea where in the Bible the readings come from, far less how the books are positioned in relation to each other. Are the Anglicans in their pews Christians?* But are you or I or Prof. Dawkins entitled to rule that they are not Christians? Only God knows the answer to that one and, unless I am very much mistaken, Prof. Dawkins is not God.

*(Answers on a Postcard, please ...)

--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!

Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
followed by a spiel about how it's not a Holy Book, science doesn't have Holy Books and so on, then he'd have successfully rebutted the question.

I'm not sure he would. I can see there's a difference between scientific method and holy-book-method of course, but I don't see how you get from saying the Bible is a holy book to needing to know particular details about scripture to be able to self-identify as a Christian.

If the point is that many self-identifying Christians have limited understanding of what is meant by that, and could neither hold their own discussing the merits of incense on feast days nor quoting the New Testament precisely I think that's likely to be true, but likewise I suspect many who self-identify as atheists, freed from superstition by evolution, have very little understanding of what evolution is about.

Many people asked about evolution will say something Lamarckian, for instance. Nevertheless I respect the fact that they've taken a decision that evolution without God is a more likely explanation for the universe than any explanation including God.

And I think Fraser was entitled to demonstrate that knowledge of a particular detail can't be readily linked to the authenticity of the decision on what to believe. Some of those Christians who don't read the bible enough to remember the first book of the NT may nevertheless have very good reasons for believing.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The questions aren't in the same league. Dawkins was thrown a disingenuous question and got overconfident.

It wasn't disingenuous. It was clear what point Fraser was trying to make by asking it. And, while it might have been more irrelevant to the point than the question in the poll, it did at least make the point that that kind of question can be irrelevant.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Calvin Beedle
Shipmate
# 508

 - Posted      Profile for Calvin Beedle   Email Calvin Beedle   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Darllenwr said

quote:
unless I am very much mistaken, Prof. Dawkins is not God.
What if he self identifies as God? [Big Grin]

--------------------
There has been an alarming increase in the number of things about which I know nothing

Posts: 71 | From: Kent, the garden of England | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
followed by a spiel about how it's not a Holy Book, science doesn't have Holy Books and so on, then he'd have successfully rebutted the question.

I'm not sure he would.
He'd have rebutted it rhetorically. I agree that in print or on a bulletin board, Fraser would have been able to advance supplementary questions. But there was a reply to that particular question that would have held up for the purpose of radio debate.

quote:
likewise I suspect many who self-identify as atheists, freed from superstition by evolution, have very little understanding of what evolution is about.
It's not really likewise. Evolution isn't to atheism as Christian doctrine is to Christianity. Someone could perfectly well be an atheist and believe that the universe has lasted for ever, or that there is no such thing as truth except for social consensus, etc. And many Christians accept that all life evolved from an ancestral self-organising cell by a process of differential reproduction.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That wasn't my likewise. The likewise was that someone can believe in evolution and yet have a very sketchy idea of how it works. That doesn't invalidate the fact that they've decided evolution is a reasonable explanation for their existence.

(I'm not very much into rhetorical rebutting that doesn't hold water on supplementary questioning by the way!)

[ 27. February 2012, 20:54: Message edited by: mdijon ]

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Full of Chips
Shipmate
# 13669

 - Posted      Profile for Full of Chips   Email Full of Chips   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the Sheldonian debate, Dawkins twice appeared to argue that there was some sort of equivalence between a programmed computer and living organisms - he regards humans (and all plants and animals) as machines programmed by DNA.

We know of no programs that "write themselves" in any meaningful way, i.e. without the action somewhere of a programmer, so the analogy between software and DNA seems to me a strange one for Dawkins to draw. If DNA is a program, it seems more logical to posit a programmer than not.

[In case anyone brings up evolvable programs / genetic algorithms, I write them for a living. The point is I write them!]

Posts: 136 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Kevin   Author's homepage   Email Sir Kevin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having read damn-all none of the previous posts I predict the ABC will win. Professor Dawkins is an arse, even if a well-educated arse!

--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.

Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well I watched the whole 1 1/2 hours. Rowan ran rings round him and he did not seem to notice. In particular I liked how Prof. Dawkings described one of Rowans arguments as have a diminishingly small chance of happening. Rowan then took each argument Prof. Dawkins put forward after that and made him admit that it was a very small chance of being true.

Excellent stuff. Like watching a WWF wrestler being hypnotised and castrated by a bunny with a sharp carrot and a soft shoe shuffle. Poor bloke did not have a chance.

AtB Pyx_e.

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.

Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions. (Today's announcements from the 'Clearing The Ground Enquiry' indicate that there is a problem for the Christian faith in modern Britain - God only knows what it must be like if you are a minority religion!) I've seen the same thing happen with 'protestantism' in Northern ireland. They thought they were being driven to a smaller area of land, but what in fact was happening was that a fairer balance was being given. They felt persecuted, got at, even victimised - but the reality was of course very different. They had it so good for so long, and they were able to cast aspersions about everyone else who differed from them without ever thinking that the 'others' might suddenly find voice; and oh did they find a voice. Even 'protestants' disgusted at the behaviour of their own brothers and sisters found their voices, and this time they would not be silenced.

Now I know some of you will jump on me for using an example that is real and involved real lives taken, many murdered - but I can only speak out of my own experience, and frankly what many atheists who are so vocal in public appear to want is some kind of division in society - albeit presented as a totally rational system of society and seemingly good, at least on the surface. But I've seen it before. It's called sectarianism - 'new atheism' is a mirror image of what it claims to hate, but only manages to be successful in spreading the same form of hate and division. I didn't care much for it then, I care even less for it now. All I can say is be careful what you wish for. For a very long time I couldn't figure out why this 'new atheism' disturbed me so much - but it has finally appeared in all its sticky glory - it's sectarianism dressed up in the guise of rational thinking.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.

When did your "always" begin? Does a state church mean a more honoured position for atheism? Recusancy laws to force you to go to church? Heresy laws to make sure you believe the right thing once you get there? State-backed Church courts to pry into your private life and punish you if you don't follow Christianity's idea of morality? Test Acts to exclude anyone who doesn't believe in the right sort of Christianity from local government or the universities? Deliberately framed oaths to exclude non-Christians from Parliament? State-enforced prayers and religious education in schools? That's a funny history if atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour.

If atheists get hostile it's because we can see that for 1400 years it was "always" Christianity that demanded and received a place of honour at the expense of every one else, and we're damned if we going to let you pretend it never happened or cry persecution whenever you don't get your own way.

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
In the Sheldonian debate, Dawkins twice appeared to argue that there was some sort of equivalence between a programmed computer and living organisms - he regards humans (and all plants and animals) as machines programmed by DNA.

We know of no programs that "write themselves" in any meaningful way, i.e. without the action somewhere of a programmer, so the analogy between software and DNA seems to me a strange one for Dawkins to draw. If DNA is a program, it seems more logical to posit a programmer than not.

[In case anyone brings up evolvable programs / genetic algorithms, I write them for a living. The point is I write them!]

That's what I noticed too....

As for materialism explaining existence? I just don't see how it can.

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
If atheists get hostile it's because we can see that for 1400 years it was "always" Christianity that demanded and received a place of honour at the expense of every one else, and we're damned if we going to let you pretend it never happened or cry persecution whenever you don't get your own way.

I realise that Dawkins has back tracked a bit on his meme theory but I can't see how an atheist is in a position to complain about this at all.

If ideas (or memes) are nothing more than impersonal bits of data then I can't see what difference it makes how they ensure they are transmitted.

From your world view all you seem to be doing is drawing our attention to the fact that for most of human history atheism has had its butt kicked.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Johnny S, you seem to be confusing describing how things are with approving of them. Describing the process of natural selection due to disease and pestilence doesn't mean one approves of early death due to infectious agents.

Neither, for instance, does believing a biblical account of genocide, rape and/or blasphemy mean one approves of the same.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.

If atheists get hostile it's because we can see that for 1400 years it was "always" Christianity that demanded and received a place of honour at the expense of every one else, and we're damned if we going to let you pretend it never happened or cry persecution whenever you don't get your own way.
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?

--------------------
'

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.

If atheists get hostile it's because we can see that for 1400 years it was "always" Christianity that demanded and received a place of honour at the expense of every one else, and we're damned if we going to let you pretend it never happened or cry persecution whenever you don't get your own way.
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?
For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Johnny S, you seem to be confusing describing how things are with approving of them. Describing the process of natural selection due to disease and pestilence doesn't mean one approves of early death due to infectious agents.

Correct, but surely that means that we cannot simply disapprove of how things are either?

I think Dawkins speaks a lot of sense in parts of A Devil's Chaplain but I cannot get round his treatment of this issue in chapter 1.

Commenting on Huxley, Shaw and Wells, Dawkins calls for an acceptance of natural selection as the dominant force in biological evolution, admit its unpleasantness but still fight against it as a human being.

He then says, "If you seem to smell inconsistency or even contradiction, you are mistaken." ... he says it's like an academic Doctor accepting evolution on the one hand but fighting against cancer as a surgeon.

But in that paragraph all he does is give examples of those who have it both ways, he never actually explains why it is not a contradiction - i.e. he does exactly what you accuse me of doing - confusing how things are with how things should be.

[ 28. February 2012, 09:00: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I realise that Dawkins has back tracked a bit on his meme theory but I can't see how an atheist is in a position to complain about this at all.

If ideas (or memes) are nothing more than impersonal bits of data then I can't see what difference it makes how they ensure they are transmitted.

From your world view all you seem to be doing is drawing our attention to the fact that for most of human history atheism has had its butt kicked.

One atheist postulates a hypothesis about how religion spreads and suddenly all atheists are tied to that view? If I said a Christian can't complain about being called stupid because some Christians believe in Young Earth Creationism you would be screaming "Strawman" before my words hit the screen.

Actually, I am drawing your attention to the fact that for most of the time since Christianity arrived in Britain it has used its own power and allied itself to state power to lord it over people and marginalise any other point of view. I.e., it is Christianity that has been doing the butt-kicking, not just of atheists but of anyone who doesn't fit. The tone of your response (oh well, it's just victims making a fuss) makes me think that you probably don't see anything wrong with that.

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The tone of your response (oh well, it's just victims making a fuss) makes me think that you probably don't see anything wrong with that.

Not at all. I think there is something very wrong with that ... but then my world view gives me reason to do so.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055

 - Posted      Profile for Pre-cambrian   Email Pre-cambrian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The tone of your response (oh well, it's just victims making a fuss) makes me think that you probably don't see anything wrong with that.

Not at all. I think there is something very wrong with that ... but then my world view gives me reason to do so.
Given the history forgive me if I take a Christian world view with a very considerable degree of distrust.

--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."

Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.

Remind me. Who are the atheists in the House of Lords who are there just for being prominant atheists? Is the Queen head of the Atheist movement or just the head of the Church in England? Did we recently give a massively expensive state visit to the head of a specifically secular organisation? Is the minister for education trying to get documents for the National Secular Society given out to all schools?

quote:
I've seen the same thing happen with 'protestantism' in Northern ireland. They thought they were being driven to a smaller area of land, but what in fact was happening was that a fairer balance was being given. They felt persecuted, got at, even victimised - but the reality was of course very different. They had it so good for so long, and they were able to cast aspersions about everyone else who differed from them without ever thinking that the 'others' might suddenly find voice; and oh did they find a voice.
And you are in precisely this position. The atheists are finding a voice and Christians have had it so good for so long. Equality is something you desperately fear. You're just taking part in the age old Christian habit of claiming to be oppressed. You've had it so good for so many centuries that equality rather than being handed a priveliged position is terrifying you.

quote:
But I've seen it before. It's called sectarianism - 'new atheism' is a mirror image of what it claims to hate, but only manages to be successful in spreading the same form of hate and division.
You have a point. In a few rare cases Atheists are firing back using sectarianism that is a pale shade of but still reflects that used by Christians.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.

If atheists get hostile it's because we can see that for 1400 years it was "always" Christianity that demanded and received a place of honour at the expense of every one else, and we're damned if we going to let you pretend it never happened or cry persecution whenever you don't get your own way.
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?
For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
Well I'm with you 100% on that one.

--------------------
'

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.

Remind me. Who are the atheists in the House of Lords who are there just for being prominant atheists? Is the Queen head of the Atheist movement or just the head of the Church in England? Did we recently give a massively expensive state visit to the head of a specifically secular organisation? Is the minister for education trying to get documents for the National Secular Society given out to all schools?

quote:
I've seen the same thing happen with 'protestantism' in Northern ireland. They thought they were being driven to a smaller area of land, but what in fact was happening was that a fairer balance was being given. They felt persecuted, got at, even victimised - but the reality was of course very different. They had it so good for so long, and they were able to cast aspersions about everyone else who differed from them without ever thinking that the 'others' might suddenly find voice; and oh did they find a voice.
And you are in precisely this position. The atheists are finding a voice and Christians have had it so good for so long. Equality is something you desperately fear. You're just taking part in the age old Christian habit of claiming to be oppressed. You've had it so good for so many centuries that equality rather than being handed a priveliged position is terrifying you.

quote:
But I've seen it before. It's called sectarianism - 'new atheism' is a mirror image of what it claims to hate, but only manages to be successful in spreading the same form of hate and division.
You have a point. In a few rare cases Atheists are firing back using sectarianism that is a pale shade of but still reflects that used by Christians.

So tell me something good Christianity brought to the world.

--------------------
'

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?

For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
As such stoning is prohibited by law in this country, shall I assume that our current societal structure represents your ideal?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Given the history forgive me if I take a Christian world view with a very considerable degree of distrust.

You seem to be deliberately not engaging with my question.

This thread is not about all atheists it is about a debate between one particular atheist and one particular Christian.

I can see how someone, as a purely personal preference, may make these comments. I can't see how someone like Dawkins could make them though, without being inconsistent.

I come from a Christian tradition that helped bring about the Act of Toleration. If I had been born just 200 years earlier I would not have been allowed to go to University either.

ISTM that if Dawkins had his way then atheism would be privileged in the way that Christianity has been in the past.

[ 28. February 2012, 11:39: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Justinian; equality is not something I desperately fear. One of the characteristics of sectarianism is to assume the position and the thinking of 'the other'. I hope you are right when you say that among atheists it is rare. I know it isn't rare among Christians: as a Christian in Ireland, I don't really need you to be stating the obvious for me.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Justinian. You asked 'Is the Queen head of the Atheist movement or just the head of the Church in England? Did we recently give a massively expensive state visit to the head of a specifically secular organisation? Is the minister for education trying to get documents for the National Secular Society given out to all schools?'

Well she was proclaimed as "Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith"

So she's not queen because she's head of the church. And as Queen she's head of state of a democracy which actively allows people like me and thee to both hold and express our views. I could think of other places where we could have a different kind of monarch, in a different kind of relationship to a national government, taking a different approach to these matters.

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So tell me something good Christianity brought to the world.

What's that got to do with anything? But as a first answer, the St Matthew Passion by J.S. Bach.

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So she's not queen because she's head of the church. And as Queen she's head of state of a democracy which actively allows people like me and thee to both hold and express our views. I could think of other places where we could have a different kind of monarch, in a different kind of relationship to a national government, taking a different approach to these matters.

Oh, I'm not saying that as countries go, Britain has been bad. I'm saying that the reason Christians are complaining is that they are now no longer being praised and massively rather than just minorly favoured. Which means that although the actual situtation is still significantly in your favour it feels worse than it used to be.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

Did we recently give a massively expensive state visit to the head of a specifically secular organisation?

That would be the Premier of China then [Biased]

--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France

Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But in that paragraph all he does is give examples of those who have it both ways, he never actually explains why it is not a contradiction.

You need an explanation of why a surgeon can't fight against cancer but also accept the biological facts of its existence? It seems such a bizarre thing to want an explanation of before accepting it I'm lost as to where to start. I'm as thrown as if you asked me to explain why 2+2 didn't equal 5.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?

For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
As such stoning is prohibited by law in this country, shall I assume that our current societal structure represents your ideal?
The question was addressing history/Christianity as a whole. If we suddenly narrow it down to just once country that loses the point.

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

Did we recently give a massively expensive state visit to the head of a specifically secular organisation?

That would be the Premier of China then [Biased]
Point. But comparing the Premier of China as an atheist to the Pope as a Christian is comparing apples to oranges.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I noted in the discussion that Dawkins was quite happy to say "he didn't know".

And that that didn't mean you should ascribe a supernatural explanation.

Yet people that believe in God are not allowed to say "they don't know" are they?

There's a brilliant conversation about this on the Examiner:

quote:
When asked for a response on the “Big Band Theory,” they can not answer where the particles came from to begin with? How did they form? How does SOMETHING come from absolutely NOTHING?

They have no answer. Why……. because it doesn’t fit their agenda! [ellipses in original]

An Atheist responded thusly:

It is perfectly fine to say, “We don’t currently know the answer.” When the answer isn’t known, it makes no sense to place a magical explanation in its place. Humanity has done this since the first person came up with the “it must be something beyond us causing it” ideologies, thousands of years ago.

To which this Examiner replied:

God created the universe but do not ask me how because “We don’t currently know the answer.”

“In the beginning [time] God [a transcendent being existing outside of, beyond and not subject to the universe’s constraints] created [volitionally brought into being] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”

When we know that the universe had a cause it makes no sense to deny it by claiming materialistic agnosticism in its place.

It is the logical fallacy of the ad hominem aka generic fallacy to refer to that which “Humanity has done….thousands of years ago” as who and when are not relevant to truth.

Supernaturalism is the default position and materialism is not. Since the universe, life and everything do not explain themselves, that is do not account for themselves, then materialism is not the default position. Yet, since God is a philosophically necessary being then supernaturalism is the default position.

True Freethinker

I think the point about default position is a really good point!

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I noted in the discussion that Dawkins was quite happy to say "he didn't know".

And that that didn't mean you should ascribe a supernatural explanation.

Yet people that believe in God are not allowed to say "they don't know" are they?

There's a brilliant conversation about this on the Examiner:

quote:
When asked for a response on the “Big Band Theory,” they can not answer where the particles came from to begin with? How did they form? How does SOMETHING come from absolutely NOTHING?

They have no answer. Why……. because it doesn’t fit their agenda! [ellipses in original]

An Atheist responded thusly:

It is perfectly fine to say, “We don’t currently know the answer.” When the answer isn’t known, it makes no sense to place a magical explanation in its place. Humanity has done this since the first person came up with the “it must be something beyond us causing it” ideologies, thousands of years ago.

To which this Examiner replied:

God created the universe but do not ask me how because “We don’t currently know the answer.”

“In the beginning [time] God [a transcendent being existing outside of, beyond and not subject to the universe’s constraints] created [volitionally brought into being] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”

When we know that the universe had a cause it makes no sense to deny it by claiming materialistic agnosticism in its place.

It is the logical fallacy of the ad hominem aka generic fallacy to refer to that which “Humanity has done….thousands of years ago” as who and when are not relevant to truth.

Supernaturalism is the default position and materialism is not. Since the universe, life and everything do not explain themselves, that is do not account for themselves, then materialism is not the default position. Yet, since God is a philosophically necessary being then supernaturalism is the default position.

True Freethinker

I think the point about default position is a really good point!

I don't quite get that. Surely saying "God created the universe but do not ask me how because “We don’t currently know the answer".

Is nothing like saying “We don’t currently know the answer"

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I noted in the discussion that Dawkins was quite happy to say "he didn't know".

And that that didn't mean you should ascribe a supernatural explanation.

Yet people that believe in God are not allowed to say "they don't know" are they?

There's a brilliant conversation about this on the Examiner:

quote:
When asked for a response on the “Big Band Theory,” they can not answer where the particles came from to begin with? How did they form? How does SOMETHING come from absolutely NOTHING?

They have no answer. Why……. because it doesn’t fit their agenda! [ellipses in original]

An Atheist responded thusly:

It is perfectly fine to say, “We don’t currently know the answer.” When the answer isn’t known, it makes no sense to place a magical explanation in its place. Humanity has done this since the first person came up with the “it must be something beyond us causing it” ideologies, thousands of years ago.

To which this Examiner replied:

God created the universe but do not ask me how because “We don’t currently know the answer.”

“In the beginning [time] God [a transcendent being existing outside of, beyond and not subject to the universe’s constraints] created [volitionally brought into being] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”

When we know that the universe had a cause it makes no sense to deny it by claiming materialistic agnosticism in its place.

It is the logical fallacy of the ad hominem aka generic fallacy to refer to that which “Humanity has done….thousands of years ago” as who and when are not relevant to truth.

Supernaturalism is the default position and materialism is not. Since the universe, life and everything do not explain themselves, that is do not account for themselves, then materialism is not the default position. Yet, since God is a philosophically necessary being then supernaturalism is the default position.

True Freethinker

I think the point about default position is a really good point!

And I think that it is a vast step backwards in philosophy, in science, and in human knowledge. The position you are supporting and claiming is a good point is "We don't know but Goddidit!" - a disingenuous flip. It's not claiming ignorance. It's claiming unproven knowledge then using ignorance to deflect criticism.

As for Supernaturalism being the default explanation, sure. But let's look at its track record. It has been demonstrated to be right and materialist explanations to be wrong about... Maybe if I think hard enough I will come up with something? Um... Nope. I'm going to go with "Every time a supernaturalist explanation has been able to be investigated in detail it has been demonstrated to be wrong."

So your "default position" is one with a 0% demonstrated success rate. Now me, I prefer to learn from my mistakes, and given the quite spectacular success rate of supernaturalism I'll go with the default position of "The supernatural explanation is wrong".

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
TurquoiseTastic

Fish of a different color
# 8978

 - Posted      Profile for TurquoiseTastic   Email TurquoiseTastic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But in that paragraph all he does is give examples of those who have it both ways, he never actually explains why it is not a contradiction.

You need an explanation of why a surgeon can't fight against cancer but also accept the biological facts of its existence? It seems such a bizarre thing to want an explanation of before accepting it I'm lost as to where to start. I'm as thrown as if you asked me to explain why 2+2 didn't equal 5.
It requires an explanation because if you have a worldview which excludes anything transcendental, what are the grounds on which you declare something "good" or "bad"? What are the grounds on which you "approve" or "disapprove" of what happens in Nature? Why should we fight "as human beings" against these things?

This is exactly C.S. Lewis's argument in "The Abolition of Man" of course. I was interested to see this editorial in the New Scientist which exactly corresponds to the "conditioned" morality he criticises.

Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But in that paragraph all he does is give examples of those who have it both ways, he never actually explains why it is not a contradiction.

You need an explanation of why a surgeon can't fight against cancer but also accept the biological facts of its existence? It seems such a bizarre thing to want an explanation of before accepting it I'm lost as to where to start. I'm as thrown as if you asked me to explain why 2+2 didn't equal 5.
It requires an explanation because if you have a worldview which excludes anything transcendental, what are the grounds on which you declare something "good" or "bad"? What are the grounds on which you "approve" or "disapprove" of what happens in Nature? Why should we fight "as human beings" against these things?
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, but I'm mystified. It looks like you're trying to open up the hoary old chestnut about atheists having no basis for morality, but that's a) irrelevant , b) nonsense, and c) irrelevant nonsense.

Like mdijon, I'd have thought it self-evident that one can accept the biological fact of cancer while fighting to eradicate it, which is what Johnny S (for some reason) wanted evidence for. I just can't see that the source of atheists' morality has even the slightest relevance to it.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
posted by Justinian:

quote:

And I think that it is a vast step backwards in philosophy, in science, and in human knowledge. The position you are supporting and claiming is a good point is "We don't know but Goddidit!" - a disingenuous flip. It's not claiming ignorance. It's claiming unproven knowledge then using ignorance to deflect criticism.

Do you ever read poetry? I mean really, do you read it and enjoy it? I believe the world isn't all governed by mathematics, equations, scientific theory and physics and chemistry and biological pathways. Sure, this helps explain a lot and it can be fascinating and wonderful, but there are some things that only poetry will explain, that only story can capture and that only music can express fully, and it often does it without ever touching scientific fact, dry theories or equations and physics. Maybe you think everything can be explained in this way, but I don't. I live in a different world where spirituality breathes life into poetry, story, art and music, but you seem to want to examine all these things with scientific tools - but you can't. It's not comparing like with like. It's utterly futile.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
unless you choose to follow the readings in a pew Bible, you are unlikely to have any idea where in the Bible the readings come from, far less how the books are positioned in relation to each other.

We announce the page numbers in the pew bibles at the start of each reading

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?

For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
As such stoning is prohibited by law in this country, shall I assume that our current societal structure represents your ideal?
The question was addressing history/Christianity as a whole. If we suddenly narrow it down to just once country that loses the point.
No, the question was "now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?"

Thus far, you haven't given any indication that 21st century Britain - religion and all - is incompatable with your idealised society.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I noted in the discussion that Dawkins was quite happy to say "he didn't know".

And that that didn't mean you should ascribe a supernatural explanation.

Yet people that believe in God are not allowed to say "they don't know" are they? ...

Of course they are. It just seems they rarely do; whether it's faith or insecurity I couldn't guess. Instead, we get theology. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I haven't found that actually. A lot of Christians I know are quite happy to say, 'I don't know'. When you think about it, to claim to know what God is, is mind-boggling. How could anyone know that?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It requires an explanation because if you have a worldview which excludes anything transcendental, what are the grounds on which you declare something "good" or "bad"? What are the grounds on which you "approve" or "disapprove" of what happens in Nature? Why should we fight "as human beings" against these things?

The presence or existance of a Divine entity does absolutely nothing to answer this question. It just adds unwarranted authority to whatever answer you decide. "God said so" is simply a claim to authority that is not fundamentally different from "Because I say so", and "God exists" is not a moral position.

When God clearly and unequivocally speaks then things will be different.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Justinian:

quote:

And I think that it is a vast step backwards in philosophy, in science, and in human knowledge. The position you are supporting and claiming is a good point is "We don't know but Goddidit!" - a disingenuous flip. It's not claiming ignorance. It's claiming unproven knowledge then using ignorance to deflect criticism.

Do you ever read poetry? I mean really, do you read it and enjoy it? I believe the world isn't all governed by mathematics, equations, scientific theory and physics and chemistry and biological pathways. Sure, this helps explain a lot and it can be fascinating and wonderful, but there are some things that only poetry will explain, that only story can capture and that only music can express fully, and it often does it without ever touching scientific fact, dry theories or equations and physics. Maybe you think everything can be explained in this way, but I don't. I live in a different world where spirituality breathes life into poetry, story, art and music, but you seem to want to examine all these things with scientific tools - but you can't. It's not comparing like with like. It's utterly futile.
I live in a world of love and beauty. I also live in a world where poetry works with meter, and music is based on scales and chords. I believe that the human mind needs to be a step more complex than anything it genuinely can understand, therefore the human mind can not be fully comprehended by itself. I live in a world where many propositions are unprovable - and it is provable that even in a realm as limited as arithmetic there are unprovable propositions. And that not only can we not know the position and velocity of things with perfect accuracy, if we don't know them perfectly then the end results are going to be far beyond those we have forseen.

I live in a world where there is beauty in art, from the sublime of the St Matthew Passion to the ridiculous (and in its own way sublime) of the Muppets Christmas Carol (just to mention some of the most recent works I've watched or heard). I live in a world where there is beauty in nature from the inside of an orchid to the Iguazu Falls to the sky at night and the photos taken by the Hubble Telescope. I live in a world where there is beauty in science from the emergent complexity of Langton's Ant and the Mandelbrot Set to the look on someone's face after life saving surgery.

And poetry and art are often an attempt to grapple with that which is beyond our scope of direct knowledge. As I have illustrated above, the scope of our knowledge is not just practically limited but also theoretically limited in many ways. And art often attempts to grapple with that the human mind will never completely understand. This is in no way a less noble endeavor than trying to extend the boundaries of human knowledge, knowing all the while that you will never know it all.

I live in a world not just richer, deeper, and more beautiful than I comprehend, but one that is richer, deeper, and more beautiful than I can comprehend. The addition of a large and fundamentally simple supernatural being (and yes, I do consider God to be fundamentally simple as I do any other entity that can be described as platonic ideals) is at best an attempt to gild refined gold. At its more common manifestations it is an attempt to pour cheap perfume on the violet or to paint the lily with poster-paints. At its best it is an assertion that the universe is bigger than we are and we should appreciate it for what it is and study it. More normally, the concept of God is so overwhelming that it is like walking out into the middle of somewhere five hundred miles from the nearest light source, looking up at the star-strewn night sky, and then turning on the floodlights.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools