quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

That said, I think Atheists would argue that (at its best)it seeks to achieve(amongst other things) a world view based on evidence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On a day when UK atheists are whining about David Cameron calling this a Christian country I would like to ask, specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force. What is atheism actually FOR? What has it inspired? What cultural progress has been made in the name of atheism? What sacrifices have been made, what beauty has been created, what energy has been released where atheism has been credited as the driving force?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

That said, I think Atheists would argue that (at its best)it seeks to achieve(amongst other things) a world view based on evidence

---

It's own fabricated evidence. According to its own presuppositions: usually those of scientific materialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
. . . specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Secular democracy; questioning of religious norms and institutions; secular bills of rights; freedom for all of all religions and none. I am a Christian but can still appreciate all those things

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:
Fabricated evidence? Really? Could you give some examples where evidence has been fabricated (as opposed to being interpreted in a different way).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

Getting rid of the crap that prevents us focussing on what is actually important; this world, this universe, and our fellow human beings. We aren't praying to cure diseases any more, wasting our time and actively making those being prayed for edgier. We're curing diseases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Secular democracy; questioning of religious norms and institutions; secular bills of rights; freedom for all of all religions and none.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
you aren't pouring your energy into building ridiculously ornate churches, and into PCC meetings).

---

quote:

---

The abolition of slavery... Christians either began or were heavily involved in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A big part of the development of understanding our world and diseases came from educated priests that were amazed at the glory that the Lord had created and sought to examine it. The Catholic priest that formulated the big bang theory is but one example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
How does a Catholic Big Bang differ from a Protestant one? Or a Jewish one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

quote:

---

The abolition of slavery... Christians either began or were heavily involved in.

---

Indeed. It only took about 18 centuries for Christianity to decide it was not very nice. And even then there were Bible quoting Christians on the other side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A big part of the development of understanding our world and diseases came from educated priests that were amazed at the glory that the Lord had created and sought to examine it. The Catholic priest that formulated the big bang theory is but one example.

---

I'm not convinced this is a defining criterion. Are you arguing that Big Bang cosmology would be significantly different if someone like Edwin Hubble (a not particularly devout, only nominally Christian layman) had managed to publish his results before Georges Lemaître's much less well supported speculations? How does a Catholic Big Bang differ from a Protestant one? Or a Jewish one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

I find it difficult to see why Christians get so heated about the general run of atheists. It may be one thing to attempt to convert an atheist to your POV, but he is under no obligation to believe what you do. Also, that atheist has a right not to be harassed by you into whatever belief you may have.

Getting upset about someone's differing belief is your problem, not that other person's. get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I find it difficult to see why Christians get so heated about the general run of atheists. It may be one thing to attempt to convert an atheist to your POV, but he is under no obligation to believe what you do. Also, that atheist has a right not to be harassed by you into whatever belief you may have.

---

quote:

---

The study of what was going on with atheism before the mid-seventeenth century is not, and cannot be, the study of actual atheists. There are none for us to study. There may have been some, there may not, but in a period when saying “I think there is no God” led pretty directly to arrest and execution, no one said it. No one wrote it. If anyone thought it, not even private letters can confirm.

<snip>

I often compare late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century atheism to late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century homosexuality: there were circles in which one could let it be an open secret that one was an [atheist/homosexual] and it would be okay so long as one didn’t ruffle too many feathers or say anything in public or in front of civic authorities. One was always at risk of prosecution, and if one wanted to be safe and respected one kept it carefully hidden (as Diderot hid his atheist works), but there was enough sympathy within the apparatus of power that one could write of one’s [atheism/homosexuality] in private letters, and even hint at it in public works, and more often than not be safe. The pre-seventeenth-century atheist enjoyed no such safety, so not even in Renaissance private correspondence (where talk of homosexuality is quite commonplace) do we see even the most timid hand raised when the historian calls back: “Is anybody there an atheist? Anybody? Machiavelli?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Science does seem to be rather good at discovering cures for diseases, building better devices for easing labor, predicting possible disasters, helping us find out what is (how big is the universe, how old, why the diversity of life, etc).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Science alone isn't a life stance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
. . . specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force.

---

This last bit seems incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to parse. How do you separate individual accomplishment from underlying philosophy? For example, are most of the great strides made in physics in the early twentieth century really "Jüdische Physik", as a certain political movement would have it? Or can we conclude that the relatively non-observant status of many of the scientists involved means that the "driving force" was something else? And if general relativity and quantum mechanics are inherently "Jewish", does that imply that non-Jews necessarily have an inferior understanding of these fields?

To take a Christian example, Johann Sebastian Bach is noted for working Christian themes into his compositions. Does this make Christianity the "driving force" of his efforts, to the extent that we can confidently claim that if Bach had been raised as a Muslim or a Taoist that he'd have been tone deaf and had no interest in musical composition? Or is genius its own "driving force" that compels creative effort regardless of context?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A big part of the development of understanding our world and diseases came from educated priests that were amazed at the glory that the Lord had created and sought to examine it. The Catholic priest that formulated the big bang theory is but one example.

---

I'm not convinced this is a defining criterion. Are you arguing that Big Bang cosmology would be significantly different if someone like Edwin Hubble (a not particularly devout, only nominally Christian layman) had managed to publish his results before Georges Lemaître's much less well supported speculations? How does a Catholic Big Bang differ from a Protestant one? Or a Jewish one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Evensong - I'm not under the impression that the things I mentioned are exclusively atheist phenomenons, however many atheists have contributed to them. Yes, the abolitionist movement in England was largely Christian-based, but most things were then - including the anti-abolitionist movement!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Science does seem to be rather good at discovering cures for diseases, building better devices for easing labor, predicting possible disasters, helping us find out what is (how big is the universe, how old, why the diversity of life, etc).

---

All very true, but what has this to do with atheism? There are several scientists aboard this very Ship who profess Christianity (and others no doubt who do not). Science, as an endeavor, seeks to pose and answer questions on the basis of specific kinds of evidence. Atheism isn’t an endeavor at all (except for that group of atheists who seek converts to their view).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not convinced this is a defining criterion. Are you arguing that Big Bang cosmology would be significantly different if someone like Edwin Hubble (a not particularly devout, only nominally Christian layman) had managed to publish his results before Georges Lemaître's much less well supported speculations? How does a Catholic Big Bang differ from a Protestant one? Or a Jewish one?

---

The point was (again - contra much of the historical ignorance spouted above) that clergy and theists were a big part of the scientific revolution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM that we have the usual painting of groups as homogeneous "thems".

Some evangelicals are extremely helpful to the poor and disenfranchised; others are opposed to helping the poor at all, because "it is all their fault anyway".

Some Jews do science; some Jews do not. Some Christians do science; some do not. Some Christians are literalists; some (most) are not.

Similarly, some atheists are combative anti-religionists; some just don't see why people make a fuss about something the atheists don't actually believe in.

I find it difficult to see why Christians get so heated about the general run of atheists. It may be one thing to attempt to convert an atheist to your POV, but he is under no obligation to believe what you do. Also, that atheist has a right not to be harassed by you into whatever belief you may have.

Getting upset about someone's differing belief is your problem, not that other person's. get over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How can a lack of something be a driving force?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

Who says Atheism can't form communities? I find that statement quite astounding. I would like to see your evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Evensong - I'm not under the impression that the things I mentioned are exclusively atheist phenomenons, however many atheists have contributed to them. Yes, the abolitionist movement in England was largely Christian-based, but most things were then - including the anti-abolitionist movement!

---

Well why mention your points then? This is a thread about the contribution of atheism to society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... it's a matter of high profile cultural icons - Tatchell (has he been investigated yet?), Dawkins, Minchin, Toynbee, etc, etc, who openly and with hostile intent, try to diminish the presence and validity of Christian faith and culture within British society.

---

quote:

---

Atheism cannot even form communities; how can it benefit a whole society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

Who says Atheism can't form communities? I find that statement quite astounding. I would like to see your evidence.

---

And where are they?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I would love to see what atheisjm might do, it having no driving force and being merely a protest voice against belief and in favour of nothing other than self-contained individualism. Atheism cannot even form communities; how can it benefit a whole society?

---

But why should bands of atheists (for want of a better collective noun) get together and decide to do good based on their atheism? If it's defined as a lack of belief in God. Especially if the lack of belief in God isn't a big deal, as it isn't for any of the atheists I know.

"So, folks. Here we are today, non-believers in God. Let's make the world a better place. I think we should set up a food bank for the local poor."
"No, I think we should look to support the local school's gardening project."
"No, no, I think we should do some work to clear the canal of rubbish."
"No, no, no, I think we should be protesting to the government about their cuts to welfare."

[My imaginary band of atheists read the Guardian. ]

So I characterise, but you see what I mean. People may want to do good things for society (and not all people do, at least not in the way that I might define it). They have limited time to do the things they want to do. Why on earth should they set up another group, based on a shared characteristic most of them don't care about, to do things which may or may not be relevant to their beliefs of lack of them, when there are perfectly good organisations already doing those things, which they can join?

I'm left handed. It's not something that makes it into conversation much, unless I'm discussing tin openers. Why would I form a group of left handed people to do Good Works?
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
An additional thought following on from what Evensong was saying about science and churchmen. I'm no expert in the history of science, but could it be the case that, as well as or instead of God being the inspiration, the church-run institutions were where the money to conduct research was?

I'm thinking of the development of UCL in London http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl which I think was the first university which did not require students to declare a Christian faith. I could well be wrong about that though.

Laws, similarly. When the issue of Christian contribution was being shoutily debated on the Today programme, Evan Harris pointed out that of course laws were made by (at least nominal) Christians, as one wasn't allowed to be an MP if one were not a declared Christian.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Nice to see what observing the Holiest Day in the Christian calendar inspires Christians to.
I am confused, though. The OP only speaks of Christians and Atheists. What of the rest of us? Oh, that's right, we Might As Well Be Atheists. Or is it nuanced? Are we shades of Evil?
I do hope so, I do not feel motivated to abuse the servants, raid the Exchequer or shove a gerbil somewhere naughty. But perhaps I could manage to kick a puppy. Well, perhaps nudge it gently with my foot whilst thinking naughty thoughts.
Hope this is not too flippant a response to the OP (cough) straw man (cough).
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The OP is absurd, and also mean-spirited. What a poor reflection on Christian thinking!
 

---

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 
Don't worry, as a Nontheist (apologies if I'm wrong about that), your ability find purpose and meaning in life and form meaningful communities is well and truly giggered! Consider yourself the enemy strawman, about to be set alight in the name of Christian love.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, who could cease to wonder at the marvels of Christian love, so expansive, so generous, so ready to meet and relate to others, especially those who are different in some way.

<Here is a big fucking sarcasm alert.>
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
An additional thought following on from what Evensong was saying about science and churchmen. I'm no expert in the history of science, but could it be the case that, as well as or instead of God being the inspiration, the church-run institutions were where the money to conduct research was?

I'm thinking of the development of UCL in London http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl which I think was the first university which did not require students to declare a Christian faith. I could well be wrong about that though.

Laws, similarly. When the issue of Christian contribution was being shoutily debated on the Today programme, Evan Harris pointed out that of course laws were made by (at least nominal) Christians, as one wasn't allowed to be an MP if one were not a declared Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE

---

But I as a Christian agree with much of what the atheists and humanists are saying there. Do you think I am 'whining'? I see no whining, just a recognition that the UK is now largely non-religious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

I'm thinking of the development of UCL in London http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl which I think was the first university which did not require students to declare a Christian faith. I could well be wrong about that though.

---

I think Bentham was an atheist, wasn't he? He was certainly critical of many established views and traditions, and advocated the decriminalization of homosexuality, and called natural law 'nonsense on stilts'. I was at UCL for quite a while - have you seen his body there? He didn't actually found it, but supported it, partly because of its non-Christian beginnings.

---

Yes I think he was. I can't now find evidence online to support the idea that UCL was the first university not to require students to be of Christian faith, but t'Wiki does state that it was set up as an alternative to the religious Oxford & Cambridge. And that there was significant opposition from the Church of England (among others) to its establishment, which prevented the institution getting its Royal Charter in order to allow them to award degrees.

I've never seen Bentham, no. But then I was a KCL student....
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
Threads like this tend to founder on a failure to distinguish those who are anti-religion (in some or all its forms) and those who just don't believe in God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
Threads like this tend to founder on a failure to distinguish those who are anti-religion (in some or all its forms) and those who just don't believe in God.

---

There's also the fairly disturbing conflation of religious orthodoxy with patriotism. If the U.K. is "a Christian country", as the OP posits, that sort of brings into question the citizenship of atheists, Muslims, Jews, and anyone else who doesn't fall under the generic descriptor of "Christian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
Threads like this tend to founder on a failure to distinguish those who are anti-religion (in some or all its forms) and those who just don't believe in God.

---

There's also the fairly disturbing conflation of religious orthodoxy with patriotism. If the U.K. is "a Christian country", as the OP posits, that sort of brings into question the citizenship of atheists, Muslims, Jews, and anyone else who doesn't fall under the generic descriptor of "Christian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On a day when UK atheists are whining about David Cameron calling this a Christian country I would like to ask, specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force. What is atheism actually FOR? What has it inspired? What cultural progress has been made in the name of atheism? What sacrifices have been made, what beauty has been created, what energy has been released where atheism has been credited as the driving force?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

Who says Atheism can't form communities? I find that statement quite astounding. I would like to see your evidence.

---

And where are they?

---

quote:

---

Mystery Worshipper: Banana Fillets.
The church: Sunday Assembly, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Denomination: Sunday Assembly. [Editor's note: We have allowed this report due to the growing worldwide popularity of the Sunday Assembly movement and the similarity between the meeting in question and a more orthodox church service.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A couple of things come to mind:

1) Many faith systems (not only religious ones) do not like questions. Many atheists today are not afraid to question and that's a good thing. The problem comes when all structure is gone: that turns to meaninglessness. And everybody needs meaning.

2) It's an important rejection necessary for the spiritual development of someone that has been subjected to bad theology.

3) It cheers people up that are afraid of morality and consequences of their actions: at least temporarily. The old bus poster "There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy life" is a good description.

It's a crutch that helps some people get through life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

3 - If morality consists of doing right despite that moral action resulting in the actor incurring a penalty or forgoing a benefit it follows that anyone who believes in heaven/hell etc. is unable to claim their actions to be moral. Subconsciously they may be acting in self-interest to win favour/avoid punishment with their deity mayn't they?
It therefore follows that only those who do not believe in such ephemera (atheists) can truly be moral (note "can be" rather than "are").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:
a morality based on rational arguments

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
Threads like this tend to founder on a failure to distinguish those who are anti-religion (in some or all its forms) and those who just don't believe in God.

---

There's also the fairly disturbing conflation of religious orthodoxy with patriotism. If the U.K. is "a Christian country", as the OP posits, that sort of brings into question the citizenship of atheists, Muslims, Jews, and anyone else who doesn't fall under the generic descriptor of "Christian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE

---

But I as a Christian agree with much of what the atheists and humanists are saying there. Do you think I am 'whining'? I see no whining, just a recognition that the UK is now largely non-religious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE

---

But I as a Christian agree with much of what the atheists and humanists are saying there. Do you think I am 'whining'? I see no whining, just a recognition that the UK is now largely non-religious.

---

Maybe there is a difference between a Christian country (Christian as in laws, culture, ethics, heritage, etc...) and a country of Christians.

If every Christian emigrated to Australia this would still be a Christian country simply because of all those residual things.

Anyway, let's talk about what makes us a Christian country:
Our laws are based on 1500 years of Christianity.
Our music, still played, still popular, is very Christian - have you listened to Classic FM lately?
We all follow the Christian calendar, our holidays and celebrations are all Christian - They even played hymns before the news on Good Friday and Easter Sunday!
Our shops are closed on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day - by law!
When people die, the majority of them are given a Christian funeral
Many people still choose a Christian wedding or wedding blessing.
59.3% of the population of the UK self-identify as Christian - even when there were alternative designations on the census paper and it was the only voluntary, non-compulsory question.

That means that even though they didn't have to answer the question and even though there were other opinions available to them, 60% of the population of the UK specifically, willingly, clearly, said they were Christian.

Now, some of them might not be church goers and this raises the hoary old question 'do you have to go to church to be a Christian?' We might like to say yes. But many people go to church for festivals only. Some don't go for health reasons, some have other reasons. But no one - not even the humanist society can/should say that just because someone doesn't attend church 3 times on a Sunday, carry a bible to work and have a fish sticker on their car, that they are not a Christian!

My mother in law doesn't go to church but she is a Christian. I have at least 4 members of my congregation who never come to church but they are faithful Christian believers who, unfortunately, can only find work that entails Sunday hours.

Christianity is built into the fabric of this country in a way that no other faith, no other philosophy is. Even our ruling Parliament has Christian prayers every day, the speaker has a chaplain.

I could go on.
We are a Christian country.

Whaty worries me is that when the humanist society says they want a neutral country, they actually mean 'atheist'. Once religion is taken out, religion will then be outlawed.

And yes, there are precedents.

And has anyone investigated Tatchell yet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:
a morality based on rational arguments

---

You can no more have a rational ethic than you can have a clockwork orange.

It is a category confusion.

We have known since David Hume that it is impossible to derive an ought from an is, which means that issues in vast areas of life, such as love and relationships, beauty and aesthetics, and ethics and justice, casue decided by subjective preference or group consensus.

Or by an incontrovertibly authoritative someone or something above and beyond the natural world.

This is not an argument for Christianity, just a reminder that any criticism of Christianity on ethical grounds will always come up against a “Sez who – and on what grounds?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet you Americans still have a Baptist pastor to come along and pray over your new President. You have In God we Trust on your money and One nation under God wherever that's written.

The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life. What you mauy not know is that this letter is not a standalone event - it's part of a campaign that seems to be bubbling under the surface by the Humanist association and the National Secular Society to silence the religious voice in all aspects of public life. They want the Church removed and censored. Their campaigns are the antithesis of tolerance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:
The problem with using authority as grounds for a system of ethics is that you then run up against the problem of why we choose that authority rather than another.

---

quote:

---

Rational arguments such as eleviating suffering or promoting autonomy, or enhancing quality of life are perfectly good grounds for making ethical decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet you Americans still have a Baptist pastor to come along and pray over your new President. You have In God we Trust on your money and One nation under God wherever that's written.

The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life. What you mauy not know is that this letter is not a standalone event - it's part of a campaign that seems to be bubbling under the surface by the Humanist association and the National Secular Society to silence the religious voice in all aspects of public life. They want the Church removed and censored. Their campaigns are the antithesis of tolerance.

---

'You' Americans?? Mudfrog, again, look at my location! I am baffled as to why mentioning America = American person.

And religion of all kinds is removed from public life in the US, the Netherlands, France, Turkey etc etc. Doesn't seem to harm religious people in those countries. Removing religion from government and civic matters does not equal removing the Church and banning religion. Your argument is entirely illogical and plain scaremongering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:
a morality based on rational arguments

---

You can no more have a rational ethic than you can have a clockwork orange.

It is a category confusion.

We have known since David Hume that it is impossible to derive an ought from an is, which means that issues in vast areas of life, such as love and relationships, beauty and aesthetics, and ethics and justice, casue decided by subjective preference or group consensus.

Or by an incontrovertibly authoritative someone or something above and beyond the natural world.

This is not an argument for Christianity, just a reminder that any criticism of Christianity on ethical grounds will always come up against a “Sez who – and on what grounds?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life.

---

There's a lot of interesting subtext to the idea that not having a government endorsement is oppressive. In addition to equating "not showing favoritism" with "active oppression", there's the implication that all other religions (Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) have already been "removed from public life" (or were never meant to be part of "public life" to begin with).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... if someone (not necessarily a Christian) believes they have a revelation from an omniscient, eternal and sovereign intelligence, then on the face of it, there is more reason to believe that that revelation, rather than one's own, or some other human being's, mere opinion or feeling, is likely to be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There have been Jews in England since at least the Norman invasion (the first written record of a Jewish settlement is from 1070), but probably since Roman times as slaves - so there have been Jews in England for almost as long as there have been Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As a Christian, I would far rather live in a Tatchell-approved secular democracy than any Little Englander vision of Christian England that you'd come up with. Go back to your Daily Heil. Some of us like secular governments, it does not make us less Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The worry is this: if the humanist society and the authors of that letter get their way and Christianity is removed from the public sphere, how long before the opinions of Muslims and Hindus are also silenced?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There have been Jews in England since at least the Norman invasion (the first written record of a Jewish settlement is from 1070), but probably since Roman times as slaves - so there have been Jews in England for almost as long as there have been Christians.

---

Except for that unfortunate multi-century gap. I'm guessing that will be taken by Mudfrog and others as proof that Jews are less British than Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There have been Jews in England since at least the Norman invasion (the first written record of a Jewish settlement is from 1070), but probably since Roman times as slaves - so there have been Jews in England for almost as long as there have been Christians.

---

Except for that unfortunate multi-century gap. I'm guessing that will be taken by Mudfrog and others as proof that Jews are less British than Christians.

---

God forbid. But we are still a Christian country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except for that unfortunate multi-century gap. I'm guessing that will be taken by Mudfrog and others as proof that Jews are less British than Christians.

---

God forbid. But we are still a Christian country.

---

Legally we are a purely Anglican country - the state is still discriminatory towards other Christians. This is surely wrong (speaking as an Anglican myself).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I never quite understand what the 'public sphere' refers to - does it mean the political world? Or actually the public world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've long suspected that the use of the phrase is deliberately ambiguous in order to confuse people into thinking that what's being discussed is "the general public" (i.e. ordinary citizens) or being "in public", which can happen in either public or private property.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet you Americans still have a Baptist pastor to come along and pray over your new President. You have In God we Trust on your money and One nation under God wherever that's written.

The issue here is not how we allow people of different beliefs and none, it's whether the atheists should get their way and have Christianity actually removed from public life. What you mauy not know is that this letter is not a standalone event - it's part of a campaign that seems to be bubbling under the surface by the Humanist association and the National Secular Society to silence the religious voice in all aspects of public life. They want the Church removed and censored. Their campaigns are the antithesis of tolerance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I never quite understand what the 'public sphere' refers to - does it mean the political world? Or actually the public world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The [Presidential] oath of office is administered by the senior Supreme Court Justice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
What actually is a 'Christian country'? I assume it means a country which has Christian people living in it, rather than that the mountains and lakes accept Jesus as their saviour or something. And if so, how can the UK be called Christian? There are other people living here apart from Christians- most of whom appear to be so nominally only. And even the practicing Christians who live here disagree with one another about whether they are Truly Christian or not.

It's all a load of silly nonsense. We live in a land of individual people, some of whom are Christians and some of whom are not. That's it. Oh, and David Cameron is a fucking POLITICIAN, for fuck sake, so don't take the slightest notice of anything he says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh, and David Cameron is a fucking POLITICIAN, for fuck sake, so don't take the slightest notice of anything he says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well THIS is interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
]No, it's a country which has laws, culture, judiciary, parliament, government, calendar, etc, etc, etc all rooted and grounded in Christian faith, practice, worship and ethical standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Every Christian could leave and the country would still be identifiably 'Christian' (note, it's an adjective)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh, and David Cameron is a fucking POLITICIAN, for fuck sake, so don't take the slightest notice of anything he says.

---

O look, another intolerant atheist who cannot discuss a point without getting offensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well THIS is interesting.

---

Why? This information was already in the link you posted earlier. Or didn't you bother to read past the bit about the 50 signatories?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, it's a country which has laws, culture, judiciary, parliament, government, calendar, etc, etc, etc all rooted and grounded in Christian faith, practice, worship and ethical standards.

Every Christian could leave and the country would still be identifiably 'Christian' (note, it's an adjective)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
By that token there has never ever been a country that could say it was Christian or Jewish, etc. I think you're narrowing the definition down far too much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
By that token there has never ever been a country that could say it was Christian or Jewish, etc. I think you're narrowing the definition down far too much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
What actually is a 'Christian country'? I assume it means a country which has Christian people living in it, rather than that the mountains and lakes accept Jesus as their saviour or something. And if so, how can the UK be called Christian? There are other people living here apart from Christians- most of whom appear to be so nominally only. And even the practicing Christians who live here disagree with one another about whether they are Truly Christian or not.

It's all a load of silly nonsense. We live in a land of individual people, some of whom are Christians and some of whom are not. That's it. Oh, and David Cameron is a fucking POLITICIAN, for fuck sake, so don't take the slightest notice of anything he says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I understand the meaning of the words 'Christian' and 'country', but don't really understand the usage of them. I mean, what is being conveyed by saying that this is a Christian country?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I understand the meaning of the words 'Christian' and 'country', but don't really understand the usage of them. I mean, what is being conveyed by saying that this is a Christian country?

---

There's a bit of ambiguity there. It could mean, at its least expansive, a country where the demographic majority (or possibly just a plurality) are self-described Christians. Or it could mean a country (and its government) that deliberately promotes Christianity (and implicitly discourages all other religious positions), similar to the way the Islamic Republic of Iran is an Islamic country. It's this latter sense that Mudfrog (and, to a certain extent, David Cameron) argues applies to the U.K.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that makes it sounds quite nasty really, almost a theocratic position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

3 - If morality consists of doing right despite that moral action resulting in the actor incurring a penalty or forgoing a benefit it follows that anyone who believes in heaven/hell etc. is unable to claim their actions to be moral. Subconsciously they may be acting in self-interest to win favour/avoid punishment with their deity mayn't they?
It therefore follows that only those who do not believe in such ephemera (atheists) can truly be moral (note "can be" rather than "are").

---

No, no it does not.
I agree that someone whose actions follow a code their heart does not share is not moral if they do so out of fear or to win favour.
However, not all non-atheists do good out of those motivations.
To claim so is to speak the same fallacy as does the OP, you merely switch the players.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My worry with the last point that you make about a de-Christianised society and allowing the atheists to have a go at formulating culture is that atheism, being a negative rather than a positive philosophy, will simply not allow faith to be tolerated when it is in control. There is no tolerance within atheism. Look at the atheistic regimes of this world - do you really want atheism to be the founding philosophy of any future regime??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Where do you get the idea that atheism is a philosophy? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.

---

quote:

---

As to "atheist regimes," I'd argue they really aren't; they tend to be personality cults. Sure, they talk about religion being the opiate of the people (or however that line goes), but they promptly set up a human "Dear Leader" style replacement for a divine figure at the apex of their power structures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
By any stretch of the imagination, that is a majority of the population who declare themselves on the census to be Christians.

---

quote:

---

My worry with the last point that you make about a de-Christianised society and allowing the atheists to have a go at formulating culture is that atheism, being a negative rather than a positive philosophy, will simply not allow faith to be tolerated when it is in control.

---

quote:

---

In actual fact the figures in the 2011 census - therefore not including the immigration of Christians since that date and note including, for example, the 14% growth in one of the London Diocese recently - reveal that those who voluntarily self-declare themselves to be Christian in the UK is just about 60%

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
It may be that anyone can act morally, the belief in a reward/punishment consequent upon our actions means that those who so believe subconsciously......may be acting in self-interest - my original wording.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

*I recall (perhaps accurately) reading something to the effect that Sigmund Freud claimed that the only person he could not psychoanalyse was himself - simply because he could not reliably identify his own motives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, the problem here is that you - and some others here - are believing the lie that the only Christians in the UK are the 6% who go to church.

In actual fact the figures in the 2011 census - therefore not including the immigration of Christians since that date and note including, for example, the 14% growth in one of the London Diocese recently - reveal that those who voluntarily self-declare themselves to be Christian in the UK is just about 60%

By any stretch of the imagination, that is a majority of the population who declare themselves on the census to be Christians.


My worry with the last point that you make about a de-Christianised society and allowing the atheists to have a go at formulating culture is that atheism, being a negative rather than a positive philosophy, will simply not allow faith to be tolerated when it is in control. There is no tolerance within atheism. Look at the atheistic regimes of this world - do you really want atheism to be the founding philosophy of any future regime??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

[QUOTE] As to "atheist regimes," I'd argue they really aren't; they tend to be personality cults. Sure, they talk about religion being the opiate of the people (or however that line goes), but they promptly set up a human "Dear Leader" style replacement for a divine figure at the apex of their power structures.

---

That seems the mirror of the claim that the Inquisition and what not were No True Christians. I don't see why it's any more valid when atheists do it as when Christians do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, the problem here is that you - and some others here - are believing the lie that the only Christians in the UK are the 6% who go to church.

In actual fact the figures in the 2011 census - therefore not including the immigration of Christians since that date and note including, for example, the 14% growth in one of the London Diocese recently - reveal that those who voluntarily self-declare themselves to be Christian in the UK is just about 60%

By any stretch of the imagination, that is a majority of the population who declare themselves on the census to be Christians.


My worry with the last point that you make about a de-Christianised society and allowing the atheists to have a go at formulating culture is that atheism, being a negative rather than a positive philosophy, will simply not allow faith to be tolerated when it is in control. There is no tolerance within atheism. Look at the atheistic regimes of this world - do you really want atheism to be the founding philosophy of any future regime??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
It may be that anyone can act morally, the belief in a reward/punishment consequent upon our actions means that those who so believe subconsciously......may be acting in self-interest - my original wording.

---

May, might, could, etc. Not definitive, not conclusive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

*I recall (perhaps accurately) reading something to the effect that Sigmund Freud claimed that the only person he could not psychoanalyse was himself - simply because he could not reliably identify his own motives.

---

I agree that we can never completely be objective about ourselves. But, for the same reason (as well as others) we cannot be completely objective about others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, the problem here is that you - and some others here - are believing the lie that the only Christians in the UK are the 6% who go to church.

In actual fact the figures in the 2011 census - therefore not including the immigration of Christians since that date and note including, for example, the 14% growth in one of the London Diocese recently - reveal that those who voluntarily self-declare themselves to be Christian in the UK is just about 60%

By any stretch of the imagination, that is a majority of the population who declare themselves on the census to be Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Where do you get the idea that atheism is a philosophy? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.

---

Oh come. If that's true and sufficient, then Mudfrog's challenge wins by default. Because a lack of belief is by definition incapable of any contributions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
When right-wing politicians start talking about a Christian nation, I get nervous, as it seems to me that they are heading towards the idea of a hegemony, or if you like, a theocratic set-up.

---

To be fair though, if DC secretly wanted to install a theocracy, who would he get the do the job? The CofE??? How many quiet, thoughtful, gay-friendly, bookish types who pursue interfaith dialogue and go on about social justice would he have to kick out of the way to get to a scary 'con-evo' bishop with fist of iron??



(Sorry for the hopelessly inaccurate stereotypes, but I think the Conservatives would have to go headhunting from another denomination if they wanted a serious theocracy worthy of the name! It would probably be easier to hire a Conservative cabinet full of atheists!)
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Quoting from today's comment section in The Guardian:

quote:

---

I'm an atheist and getting fed up with the term 'militant atheist' being screamed at the likes of me for quietly not wishing to have Christianity (or any other religion) imposed upon me in public places. No religion 'owns' morality

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
When right-wing politicians start talking about a Christian nation, I get nervous, as it seems to me that they are heading towards the idea of a hegemony, or if you like, a theocratic set-up.

---

To be fair though, if DC secretly wanted to install a theocracy, who would he get the do the job? The CofE??? How many quiet, thoughtful, gay-friendly, bookish types who pursue interfaith dialogue and go on about social justice would he have to kick out of the way to get to a scary 'con-evo' bishop with fist of iron??



(Sorry for the hopelessly inaccurate stereotypes, but I think the Conservatives would have to go headhunting from another denomination if they wanted a serious theocracy worthy of the name! It would probably be easier to hire a Conservative cabinet full of atheists!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Quoting from today's comment section in The Guardian:

quote:

---

I'm an atheist and getting fed up with the term 'militant atheist' being screamed at the likes of me for quietly not wishing to have Christianity (or any other religion) imposed upon me in public places. No religion 'owns' morality

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I'm not sure that it's entirely honourable for Christians to worry too much about that. Did the missionaries of bygone times worry about being safe when they travelled around the world to spread the gospel? I don't think so. We're very comfortable here, which is probably why we're so flabby and ineffectual these days. It's not that I want to persecuted (!!!) but something's missing. To my mind, it's rather distasteful for Christians to be begging atheists and agnostics for respect!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, the problem here is that you - and some others here - are believing the lie that the only Christians in the UK are the 6% who go to church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We must assert the validity of Christian faith and heritage in this country - and others too.

---

quote:

---

The attacks will become more frequent, more vocal and more hostile.

---

quote:

---

We need to be prepared to 'stand up for Jesus', at it were. The fact is that regardless of the low levels of church attendance, our country is a Christian-based society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Could I put in a plea here for the Nonconformist position? We recognise the strong historic place that Christianity has had in shaping our society and we believe strongly that all religious viewpoints have the right to be expressed in both public and private life. But we do not feel that any one religion should be privileged in the structures of the State. That, to us, is the true position of a "secular" society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Where do you get the idea that atheism is a philosophy? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.

---

Oh come. If that's true and sufficient, then Mudfrog's challenge wins by default. Because a lack of belief is by definition incapable of any contributions.

---

And if you care to read my actual post above, I defined atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods, NOT as a lack of belief, end of. The two statements are very different, and I would submit that a human who lacks all belief is probably either fictitious or profoundly mentally or emotionally disabled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've yet to have an atheist tell me I shouldn't be allowed to believe or attend church. Now, sure, atheistic regimes have indeed done that, but that's not because they were atheist, it's because they were authoritarian. Stalin persecuted the church for the same reason Nero did - diversion of loyalty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've yet to have an atheist tell me I shouldn't be allowed to believe or attend church. Now, sure, atheistic regimes have indeed done that, but that's not because they were atheist, it's because they were authoritarian. Stalin persecuted the church for the same reason Nero did - diversion of loyalty.

---

Maybe we (Christians generally, I mean) are more tolerant than we should be of authoritarians who happen to be on our side of the argument, or who see morality in a similar way to us...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My experience is that if atheists have a movement, it's rationalism - and since they find no rational reason for believing in a God, they don't - in the same way they don't believe in pink unicorns, orbiting teapots and flying spaghetti monsters. This is why I don't get this sense of threat - I've yet to have an atheist tell me I shouldn't be allowed to believe or attend church. Now, sure, atheistic regimes have indeed done that, but that's not because they were atheist, it's because they were authoritarian. Stalin persecuted the church for the same reason Nero did - diversion of loyalty. Atheists qua atheists couldn't give a monkeys what I or you or Muddy believe, as long as we don't restrict other people's beliefs or practices as a result of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...they don't believe in pink unicorns, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Where do you get the idea that atheism is a philosophy? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.

---

Oh come. If that's true and sufficient, then Mudfrog's challenge wins by default. Because a lack of belief is by definition incapable of any contributions.

---

And if you care to read my actual post above, I defined atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods, NOT as a lack of belief, end of. The two statements are very different, and I would submit that a human who lacks all belief is probably either fictitious or profoundly mentally or emotionally disabled.

---

That is I think pretty much part of the point I was making. If you substitute 'lack of belief in god or gods' in thoughout my post it will still make sense.

All 'lacks of belief' are per se exactly equivalent if you exclude consideration of any positive philosophy. You can't tell the difference between a 'lack of belief' in little grey aliens abducting people and a 'lack of belief' in astrology if you exclude consideration of positive beliefs in little grey aliens or astrology. If somebody 'lacks belief' in both little grey men and in astrology you can't ascribe any actions they take to one lack or the other.
A lack of belief in little grey aliens cannot make contributions. A lack of belief in astrology cannot make contributions. A lack of belief in god cannot make contributions. A lack of belief in Darwinian evolution cannot make contributions. For all X, a lack of belief in X cannot make contributions.

Any absurdities in the above formulations are entirely down to the formulation 'lack of belief'. I do not think talking about beliefs as entities that can be positive or absent, present or lacked, is actually constructive or helpful. It leads to the kind of absurdities in Mudfrog's OP. The rhetorical move 'atheism is a lack' can only generate more confusion that it dispels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
...I would submit that a human who lacks all belief is probably either fictitious or profoundly mentally or emotionally disabled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't see rationalism as a trademark of Atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't see rationalism as a trademark of Atheism.

---

You don't. They do. That's the point.

---

I was just pointing out they're wrong in their belief.



[ 23. April 2014, 12:41: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


We need to be prepared to 'stand up for Jesus', at it were. The fact is that regardless of the low levels of church attendance, our country is a Christian-based society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

The evangelicals seem to have changed the hymn sheet. Back when I was one, the received wisdom was that many churches were full of "nominal Christians" and in fact the number of "real Christians" was less than the numbers of people in the churches, because the churches, especially the (spit) Liberal and (sneer) High (and dead) ones were full of nominal Christians who weren't Christians at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I'm not sure that it's entirely honourable for Christians to worry too much about that. Did the missionaries of bygone times worry about being safe when they travelled around the world to spread the gospel? I don't think so. We're very comfortable here, which is probably why we're so flabby and ineffectual these days. It's not that I want to persecuted (!!!) but something's missing. To my mind, it's rather distasteful for Christians to be begging atheists and agnostics for respect!

---

I entirely agree with you on that. I have no illusions about what's going on and we will never get atheism ion bed with Christianity - or the other faiths. By the very nature of atheism it is always going to criticise, ridicule and attack faith. That letter, for example, is woefully predictable and that's why I used the words 'whining' because I don't believe Christians and the Church should just roll over without a fight. We must assert the validity of Christian faith and heritage in this country - and others too. The attacks will become more frequent, more vocal and more hostile.

We need to be prepared to 'stand up for Jesus', at it were. The fact is that regardless of the low levels of church attendance, our country is a Christian-based society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
...I would submit that a human who lacks all belief is probably either fictitious or profoundly mentally or emotionally disabled.

---

Agreed. As an atheist, I have a vast number of beliefs, but I say with confidence after a long life, all are based on evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Svitlana - I am in the CoE because I'm an Anglican, not because I support the idea of a state church. I would very much support disestablishment, but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Svitlana - I am in the CoE because I'm an Anglican, not because I support the idea of a state church. I would very much support disestablishment, but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Svitlana - I am in the CoE because I'm an Anglican, not because I support the idea of a state church. I would very much support disestablishment, but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

Why do you support disestablishment? It's not like Anglicans are tyrants that don't let others worship as they wish.

If you support disestablishment, you lot will probably become as godless as our lot here in Australia that dispensed with disestablishment in the early 1800's.

Lord have mercy.

---

Because Establishment is inherently unfair (to even other Christians) and undemocratic, and the idea of a state church is Constantinian rather than Christian. And religion is a much bigger deal in Australia than in the UK so I'm not seeing what the problem is!

It's pretty rude to dismissively label your fellow Australians as 'godless'.

Edited to add that I'm not sure what me personally supporting disestablishment has to do with England becoming 'godless'. I'm not going to single-handedly make the CoE disestablish It's very unlikely to happen anytime soon, most CoE Anglicans do not support it.

[ 23. April 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Svitlana - I am in the CoE because I'm an Anglican, not because I support the idea of a state church. I would very much support disestablishment, but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

Perhaps the big upcoming 'atheist contribution' will be to sort this out!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

But the fact is, individual atheists frequently make very positive contributions - and some demonstrate a 'nobility of spirit' which puts those of us who have inspirational beliefs, to shame. As a Christian, I am far more concerned why my faith - which should be the ultimate motivation - has failed to change the world, than I am with comparing my input to that of those who don't have my advantages.

---

I have been trying to compose my answer to the OP - you have put it in a nutshell here.


 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Jade Constable:

Well, if no one's sufficiently offended by the 'Christian country' discourse to go to the trouble of disestablishing the CofE then Mudfrog really doesn't have too much to worry about.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Unless I am wrong, a greater percentage of people in the U.S. go to church regularly than in Britain, but we have no established church. So if Britons disestablish and stop going to church I suspect that not going to church is more likely cause the disestablishment rather than vis versa!
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Surely, nobody can deny that there has been a 'turn away from God' historically, and this led, amongst other things, to science. Go back to the comment by Laplace, 'we have no need for that hypothesis', and this symbolically marks a turning point in European thought, away from theism.

This does not mean that science is atheistic, but (as Laplace comments), it has no need of God in its methods. This was shown vividly, after Newton had invoked God to explain some anomalies in planetary orbits, since Laplace showed a mathematical solution, sans God.

So this is not strictly speaking, a contribution by atheism, but it is a contribution by disciplines which leave God on one side.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, nobody can deny that there has been a 'turn away from God' historically, and this led, amongst other things, to science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, nobody can deny that there has been a 'turn away from God' historically, and this led, amongst other things, to science.

---

Surely the reverse? Science does not preclude deity, but neither does it need it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, nobody can deny that there has been a 'turn away from God' historically, and this led, amongst other things, to science.

---

Surely the reverse? Science does not preclude deity, but neither does it need it.

---

I don't get your 'reverse'. Science shows a turn towards naturalism, away from theism; hence Laplace's comment to Napoleon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just don't see 'atheism is a lack' as a rhetorical move. I've known quite a lot of atheists in my life, partly because my whole family are, and I can't see that they have anything in common.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
All 'lacks of belief' are per se exactly equivalent if you exclude consideration of any positive philosophy. You can't tell the difference between a 'lack of belief' in little grey aliens abducting people and a 'lack of belief' in astrology if you exclude consideration of positive beliefs in little grey aliens or astrology. If somebody 'lacks belief' in both little grey men and in astrology you can't ascribe any actions they take to one lack or the other.
For all X, a lack of belief in X cannot make contributions.

---

Rubbish. Do you believe in the tooth fairy? No? Does this "lack of" obviate your belief in, say, democracy as a form of governance? Does it prevent your following the Golden Rule? Does it interfere with your writing poetry praising the trinity, painting pictures to express your joy in the resurrection, etc.? What I'm taking exception to is your characterization of atheism as a philosophy.

---

quote:

---

However, it is perfectly possible for any random atheist to develop and adhere to some alternative philosophy, and make positive contributions to his/her community or to culture on that basis. I don't claim that said contribution is on the basis of his/her atheism. It's simply that belief in supernatural divinity is not relevant to that individual's belief system (assuming s/he has one).

---

quote:

---

I think it's just as likely that Bach's contributions to music are due solely to his passion for music as they are due to any religious feelings he might have had; that his cantatas contain lyrics with religious themes could be due entirely to that fact that his employers included the church and/or people with obligatory relationships to the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On a day when UK atheists are whining about David Cameron calling this a Christian country I would like to ask, specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force. What is atheism actually FOR? What has it inspired? What cultural progress has been made in the name of atheism? What sacrifices have been made, what beauty has been created, what energy has been released where atheism has been credited as the driving force?

---

What is Atheism for?

Getting rid of the crap that prevents us focussing on what is actually important; this world, this universe, and our fellow human beings. We aren't praying to cure diseases any more, wasting our time and actively making those being prayed for edgier. We're curing diseases.

What energy has been released? Enough energy to create genuinely secular documents like The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Once you've got the invisible pink unicorn out of the way you can start worrying about things that are actually important. Most atheists don't ultimately care about the difference between atheism, secularism, and deism - just that we can get on with making this world a better one. Or that we can get on with looting this world (I'm not claiming that being an Atheist makes you a good person - merely that it means that you aren't pouring your energy into building ridiculously ornate churches, and into PCC meetings).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, not just David Cameron after all...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, not just David Cameron after all...

---

Sigh. I'm completely happy with Nick Clegg's description of the UK as a country that is 'founded on Christian values', but a 'Christian country'? No thank you. I'm not so fussed with a non-theologian like David Cameron using the phrase, but it alarms me to see it used by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, not just David Cameron after all...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So when the Christian majority you're so fond of citing drops below 50% is it first past the post?
Do you simply not count non-believers or have to form coalitions with the other Abrahamic religions in order to be the national religion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
.... and the National Anthem will be scrapped in favour of 'There'll always be an England.' ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

quote:

---

The abolition of slavery... Christians either began or were heavily involved in.

---

Indeed. It only took about 18 centuries for Christianity to decide it was not very nice. And even then there were Bible quoting Christians on the other side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
.... and the National Anthem will be scrapped in favour of 'There'll always be an England.' ...

---

A lot of us atheists, would prefer "Jerusalem" - and not just the ones in the WI.

---

Jerusalem? Seriously?
The poem that reflects on a possible visit by Jesus to England and the idea that the Kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation, can be built in England's green & pleasant land?

I specifically chose There'll always be an England because of its non-religious theme.

But, ah well, if you want to believe Christian aspirations as part of your atheist dream, so be it. Welcome to the yearning we have for God's Kingdom to come on earth as it is in Heaven.

[ 26. April 2014, 07:26: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

quote:

---

The abolition of slavery... Christians either began or were heavily involved in.

---

Indeed. It only took about 18 centuries for Christianity to decide it was not very nice. And even then there were Bible quoting Christians on the other side.

---

Not really. Paul's letters create the uncomfortable situation of masters being forced to recognise their slaves as equals (you can argue with Sarah Ruden's Paul among the People who extends that setting). Robin Fox's Pagans and Christians points out that Christians regularly freed slaves in church and in front of the bishop. Melania, Ovidius, Chromatius, Hermes and many other Christian bishops emancipated thousands of slaves as "an act of piety" (Lecky). Constantine for all his faults, issued the death penalty for those who kidnapped children to bring up as slaves.

Lactantius argued from a theological perspective that there were no slaves in God's eyes, Chrysostom preached that Christ came to annul slavery, and suggessted that not only was it not necessary to have slaves, but you should buy them, teach them a skill by which they could earn a living, and then set them free. Gregory of Nyssa called for abolition in his Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes denouncing both ownership and the institution of slavery. Augustine said it was a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan.
Pope Callixtus I was an ex-slave.

That's all by the 5th century. It was pretty much seen as bad thing from the start.

---

Who are you? You should post more often.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

That's all by the 5th century. It was pretty much seen as bad thing from the start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

And yet, by the late 6th century, we have another pope making
disturbing puns about slaves, rather than expressing outrage. And remind me what religion was ascribed to by the majority of the European beneficiaries of the Triangle trade.
Yes, by the end of the 11th century, England finally got around to banning it in England. But kept serfdom. Yay progress?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

If you want to say that Christians are inconsistent, I’m all for that, but you can’t argue that Christianity has been pro-slavery. There are some Christians who are pro-slavery but there are some who are not. Everything else is moral presentism.

---

quote:

---

If you want to say that Christians are inconsistent, I’m all for that, but you can’t argue that Christianity has been pro-slavery. There are some Christians who are pro-slavery but there are some who are not. Everything else is moral presentism.

---

quote:

---

There is a more disturbing aspect to this discourse. This discussion has turned towards slavery. Yet right now there are at least 20 million people enslaved. Bear in mind that a substantial proportion of those provide us in the west with cut-price goods and services. If this discourse does not even address that fact, yet continues with finger-pointing at other ages, then there is only one conclusion to be drawn. That is that we of all all people are the rankest hypocrites

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I am not arguing that Christianity is pro-slavery. I am arguing against the Premise of the OP that Christianity is morally superior and that atheists, and presumably the rest of us heathens, have no positive contribution to society without scabbing onto Christian virtue.

---

quote:

---

As far as Christianity having no mechanism, seriously? Henry VIII divorced himself and the state for precisely that reason, that the church had far too much influence and control.
Did the barons and princes jump on the Protestant bandwagon through religious piety, No, they did so because it removed power from the church and placed it more directly in their own hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

Maybe, just maybe, countries' values, politics and cultures are shaped by things other than a single religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:
OP's initial question actually was "what has atheism done as a driving force?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:
OP's initial question actually was "what has atheism done as a
To argue against that premise means that you need to prove that Christianity either isn't a driving force or if it is, hasn't done anything worthwhile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

monolithic complete power purely

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

and that the period was noted for the angling between Church, monarch, and nobility. It starts to solidify around the 13thC, (after slavery is essentially gone) but kings regularly challenged it all the way to and through the Reformation (cf Worms, the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Magna Carta, Henry III etc.,)

---

quote:

---

It might be slow, inconsistent, or haphazard, but slavery is one thing it attempted to eradicate twice, once during the mediaeval period, and once in the Victorian.

---

quote:

---

A counter-argument should at least show the early mediaeval atheist movement shouting for abolition.

---

quote:

---

If you can show that within the early mediaeval period, go ahead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Given the OP hasn't proved anything, why is their need to prove counterclaims?

---

quote:

---

Did not use any such terminology. Absolutes are rarely appropriate and erroneously assigning strengthens not your counter.

---

quote:

---

How does this do aught but reiterate my contention that the church had power?

---

quote:

---

As far as Christianity having no mechanism, seriously?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jerusalem? Seriously?
The poem that reflects on a possible visit by Jesus to England and the idea that the Kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation, can be built in England's green & pleasant land?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

Well, it certainly was slow and inconsistent. Aquinas reckoned that servitude was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, but appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin. And as late as 1866 Pope Pius IX thought it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged.

---

quote:

---

Between the 6th and 12th century there was a growing sentiment that slavery was not compatible with Christian conceptions of charity and justice; some argued against slavery

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A counter-argument should at least show the early mediaeval atheist movement shouting for abolition.

---

What medieval atheist movement?

---

quote:

---

I don't know who's arguing that the whole of our national identity, culture, ethics and political thought formed in the early medieval period,

---

quote:

---

so I'll go back a bit and name only one. Who put the Classical into Classical Theism? Small hint, they gave us our philosophy, lots of our maths, art, architecture and much more besides. As much if not more than Christianity ever did.
Edited the URL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:
The abolition of the slave trade (having roots in 1 Timothy 1:10, possibly the sole text that is absolutely clear) and slavery was entirely a Christian endeavour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The passage you cite isn't as "absolutely clear" as you argue. It doesn't argue against slave owning or slave trading, but slave-taking. Those three were regarded as different (though obviously inter-related) things in the ancient world. An eighteenth century example of a nation parsing this distinction is the U.S. Navy contributing ships to the efforts to suppress the African slave trade. This was despite the fact that at the time the U.S. was a slave owning and slave trading nation. Slave-taking was seen as wrong in a way not true of slavery generally.

---

By that I mean it's one of the few texts that is clear about slaves regardless (rather than being clear about abolition, that's just my poor wording). I did throw in a 'possibly' but that would be more for the later years. I'm working on the assumption that the mediaeval church is relying on the Latin Vulgate on this(plagiariis), or kidnappers, but the most common pronouncement against slavery is usually about slave-trading, and that goes for both Continental and Anglo-Saxon rulings (cf the Third General Council of the Lateran).
Interestingly, there are a number of papal grants in the 15th century for slave-taking (mostly Saracens, hostiles, and non-Christians), and this extends into the 16th century for African slaves.
 

---

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :
 

quote:

---

The modern abolition of the slave trade was essentially Christian in nature and action, even if some freethinkers also thought it wasn't a good idea.

---

quote:

---

Do you know who gave the theoretical justification and legislative framework for slavery into Classical Theism? Those very same people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I don't think of atheism as a "lack of belief, " as mentioned upthread: rather, as a belief that there is no God. Atheism is used to mean both an absence of belief and a disbelief in god(s). The common base line is the lack of belief - if you wish to define it to suit your preferences you, of course, can do so - but you leave yourself open to misunderstanding and ridicule. But I would still say atheism is a belief-system. And for some (sometimes referred to as antitheists to distinguish them from the rest of us) it may be, but it doesn't have to be and therefore extrapolations based upon that definition are somewhat akin to calling all christians "snake-handlers" just because some hold to a minority interpretation of Mark 16:18

As a Christian, I am far more concerned why my faith - which should be the ultimate motivation - has failed to change the world, than I am with comparing my input to that of those who don't have my advantages. Sounding a bit Luke 18:11 ? though I have to admit that I once would have said something very similar - mea culpa

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Science (in terms of experimentation) not only doesn't require god(s) it specifically excludes the supernatural

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Science (in terms of experimentation) not only doesn't require god(s) it specifically excludes the supernatural

---

I'd quibble with this wording.

Doesn't "excluding" something imply it exists? You can't exclude something that isn't there in the first place. Rather, I'd say that science investigates the natural, along with theories and predictions arising from the natural.

After all, quite recently in human history, all kinds of natural phenomena we take completely for granted -- electric light or microwaves or cell phones -- would be seen by a resident of 14th-century Paris (should you somehow transport her and drop her into our midst) -- as supernatural, and probably not in a good way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:
Interestingly, there are a number of papal grants in the 15th century for slave-taking (mostly Saracens, hostiles, and non-Christians), and this extends into the 16th century for African slaves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Fascinating quote from Haldane above. I don't think you can say that 'atheism led to science', but you can say that the turn away from God led to modern science, which ignores the supernatural completely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:
It is said that Galileo's inquisitors refused to look through his telescope and see with their own eyes what he had described. But for them this would be almost a category error: knowledge didn't come from mechanical toys but from prayer and philosophical reflection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
Science (in terms of experimentation) not only doesn't require god(s) it specifically excludes the supernatural

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Science (in terms of experimentation) excludes the principles of "something arising from nothing" and the laws of nature (of physics and chemistry) not being constant and universal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Therefore there is a huge contradiction between philosophical naturalism associated with atheism - and on which atheism appears to depend

---

How. Many. Times. Must. We. Go. Through. This?
There is but one thing necessary for atheism. No believing in God. End of.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Therefore, despite the denials of most of its practitioners, science depends on the theistic idea of intelligent design,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...Therefore there is a huge contradiction between philosophical naturalism associated with atheism - and on which atheism appears to depend - and mere methodological naturalism, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Could you give us an example of how some, one, or all atheism(s) depend on philosophical naturalism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Therefore there is a huge contradiction between philosophical naturalism associated with atheism - and on which atheism appears to depend

---

How. Many. Times. Must. We. Go. Through. This?

There is but one thing necessary for atheism. No believing in God. End of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

If 'God' is a concept without any implications then you would be right. But clearly the idea of an eternal, supreme, personal and intelligent, all-powerful creator of the universe has profound implications, and therefore the position of not believing in such a being has implications.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha
How on Earth can anyone even think this makes sense? God only has any implications if one believes god(s) exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How on Earth can anyone even think this makes sense? God only has any implications if one believes god(s) exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
To suggest that our view of reality is completely unaffected by non-belief in God is absurd, because 'God' is not a trivial idea that is just tacked onto reality like a fairy down the bottom of the garden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

It sounds to me like you have a particular erroneous and trivialised view of God and are imposing it on the discussion. Perhaps you think that 'God' is just a kind of superficial idea that Christians embrace as nothing more than an intellectual construct (the 'crutch' argument), and therefore the removal of it makes little or no difference? If so, then it's a straw man argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Science (in terms of experimentation) excludes the principles of "something arising from nothing" and the laws of nature (of physics and chemistry) not being constant and universal.

---

Accepting conservation of mass or rejecting the spontaneous generation of life are not just baseless presumptions. They're the result of some fairly laborious (and moderately famous) experimentation.

---

quote:

---

Now there is one property that animals are found to have in common with plants. For some plants are generated from the seed of plants, whilst other plants are self-generated through the formation of some elemental principle similar to a seed; and of these latter plants some derive their nutriment from the ground, whilst others grow inside other plants, as is mentioned, by the way, in my treatise on Botany. So with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside of animals out of the secretions of their several organs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First, I am arguing from an atheists viewpoint here, not my own.
Second, from that viewpoint, it appears you have an inflated idea of the importance of a deity and are imposing it on the argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[Science (in terms of experimentation) excludes the principles of "something arising from nothing" and the laws of nature (of physics and chemistry) not being constant and universal. If something could just spring into existence from nothing, then no prediction could ever be made or conclusion drawn from a scientific experiment, because we could never be sure that our experiment reflects the nature of reality, because in some other context the same experiment could produce a different result due to some new factor coming into being from nothing or due to the laws of nature changing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:


However, the dogmatic philosophy of naturalism does not exclude these two principles, but has come to depend on them, hence Krauss' cosmological claims, and also Hawkins' view of the laws operating at the moment of the Big Bang. Furthermore, Michio Kaku has claimed that there exist parallel universes with different laws of physics. Why does science feel the need to cut off the branch on which it sits?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Therefore, despite the denials of most of its practitioners, science depends on the theistic idea of intelligent design.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Frankly, if philosophical naturalist epistemology is true, then everything we know about the universe could be wrong, because we could never trust a tool (reason), which has simply been made up by the allegedly evolving human brain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:


If 'God' is a concept without any implications then you would be right. But clearly the idea of an eternal, supreme, personal and intelligent, all-powerful creator of the universe has profound implications, and therefore the position of not believing in such a being has implications.

If you think I am wrong, then consider this statement:

"I am an atheist, who believes in the existence of an eternal, personal, intelligent and supreme creator of the universe. I just don't call this being by the sequence of phonemes 'G-O-D' and equivalent in other languages. Therefore my atheism is nothing more than the position of not believing in 'God'. End of."

Clearly such a position is nonsensical.

"God" is not a trivial concept like the invisible pink unicorn or Russell's teapot. This is why Russell's argument - and the contemporary equivalents so beloved of the New Atheists - are invalid and fallacious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First, I am arguing from an atheists viewpoint here, not my own.
Second, from that viewpoint, it appears you have an inflated idea of the importance of a deity and are imposing it on the argument.

---

I agree. I don't think, in an atheist worldview, that the non-existence of God is any more important than the non-existence of dragons.

The only reason that the non-existence of God is more relevant is that it is a point of difference between atheists and theists, whereas there's no large dragon-believing community out there.

The non-existence of God is only important to atheists when considered in opposition to theists. Atheists left to themselves do not think "there is no God, so something else must have caused xxx", they think "xxx happened. Can we tell what caused it?"

---

quote:

---

EE "science depends on the theistic idea of intelligent design"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
EE "science depends on the theistic idea of intelligent design"

---

This would be the sort of intelligence which screws up the connections between mouth + nose and lungs + stomach so badly that people choke to death when a four year old kid would get it right? And then realises that it got it wrong so invents the (imperfect) epiglottis even though it's incapable of imperfection.

Whilst we're about it perhaps you'd care to explain the intelligence behind

sinuses,

the route of the laryngeal nerve,

why our eyes are inside out (and octopi's aren't)

the route of the vas deferens

and why koala pouches have the exit in the once place that guarantees that a baby which looses its grip will almost certainly fall to it's death - there are four choices - getting the wrong one doesn't seem to say much for intelligence does it?

---

quote:

---

On each side of the neck, one of the branches of the laryngeal nerve goes straight to the larynx, following a direct route such as a designer might have chosen. The other one goes to the larynx via an astonishing detour. It dives right down into the chest, loops around one of the main arteries leaving the heart (a different artery on the left and right sides, but the principle is the same), and then heads back up the neck to its destination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
science depends on the theistic idea of intelligent design

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Al-Ghazali describes the connection between two things or events, which appears to be a cause/effect one, as 'due to the prior decision of God, who creates them side by side'; cue much discussion in Islamic literature about fire, which appears to show secondary causation, accepted by some thinkers, such as Avicenna.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Al-Ghazali describes the connection between two things or events, which appears to be a cause/effect one, as 'due to the prior decision of God, who creates them side by side'; cue much discussion in Islamic literature about fire, which appears to show secondary causation, accepted by some thinkers, such as Avicenna.

---

Interesting. I wonder if that had any influence, direct or indirect, on Hume?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although on Newton, I've mentioned before that he did suggest at one point that some perturbations in planetary orbits, may be corrected by God, so that the whole system doesn't collapse. This was in turn amended by Laplace, who demonstrated a mathematical solution to the anomalies. So Newton's idea of God's correction is to some extent an occasionalist one, I suppose. Also, God of the gaps?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although on Newton, I've mentioned before that he did suggest at one point that some perturbations in planetary orbits, may be corrected by God, so that the whole system doesn't collapse. This was in turn amended by Laplace, who demonstrated a mathematical solution to the anomalies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although on Newton, I've mentioned before that he did suggest at one point that some perturbations in planetary orbits, may be corrected by God, so that the whole system doesn't collapse. This was in turn amended by Laplace, who demonstrated a mathematical solution to the anomalies.

---

Laplace solved some of the anomalies. I believe the orbit of Mercury had to wait until Einstein.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

As I recall the anomalies in the orbit of Mercury were not detected until after Einstein proposed them as a consequence of his theory and an expedition was mounted to measure them as a confirmation of that theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As I recall the anomalies in the orbit of Mercury were not detected until after Einstein proposed them as a consequence of his theory and an expedition was mounted to measure them as a confirmation of that theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although on Newton, I've mentioned before that he did suggest at one point that some perturbations in planetary orbits, may be corrected by God, so that the whole system doesn't collapse. This was in turn amended by Laplace, who demonstrated a mathematical solution to the anomalies. So Newton's idea of God's correction is to some extent an occasionalist one, I suppose. Also, God of the gaps?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0