Huxley-Wilberforce, round two

Dr. Irene Lancaster

It was a great programme and I've blogged on it here:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-moral-maze-do-science-and-religion-have-anything-to-say-to-each-other.html

Good to see Jewish views on the question getting a good airing from Lord Winston and yourself.

Dave M

I have a strong feeling science will deal global religion as a whole quite a blow if, and when, life is discovered elsewhere, either in this solar system or beyond. The essence of the Christian, Judaic and Islamic creeds place man in the centre of the cosmos. Yet, if apes had evolved in our place as opposed to homo sapiens, they would surely place apes as the centre of the cosmos and so on. Personally I don't think we are the centre of the cosmos in as much as God, Yahweh, Allah or Jesus made man in his own image. Or the idea God exists in any form of homo sapiens is somehow arrogant. My conviction is life almost certainly does exist elsewhere and not as we know it, Jim! In fact, I was watching the Sky At Night a couple of weeks ago where Patrick Moore was discussing the probability of water and other vital substances for life being available on some of our planetary satellites, let alone Mars. So, the question is how will world religion respond to such a situation? As for Dawkins, he's really a bit too dogmatic in his atheism for my liking but he does make some very good points. Many people wouldn't go as far as Dawkins in embracing atheism but religion is a different matter. It needs to be pulled apart and subjected to scientific reason. We need to embrace the fact science alone has helped mankind improve his lot and not prayer. Societies which substitute prayer for science inevitably decline and the situation now in the U.S. is rather worrying with the rise of religion and religious identification. Even more worrying to think a U.S. politician is now constrained to convince us of his (or her) belief in God, in order to be accepted. That kind of repeat of Middle Ages history is frightening somehow.

pete woodhouse

"the argument for faith is now being bolstered enormously by the remarkable developments in science."..............erm..........sorry.......i like you mel......i really do but......b*****ks"

sebastian

I've been reading Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" with a mix of admiration for what he knows; and concern for what he perhaps doesn't grasp. And what would that be? I put some of his central notions to a Middle Eastern muslim female student. Her response? "Who would he pray to if his plane was crashing?" That, I guess, most of us would want to know.
God clearly doesn't live at 37,000 feet among the clouds and hell isn't somewhere beneath the earth's crust. And "God" does indeed do some odd and inconsistent, improbable things that priests, rabbis, imams and others can't explain. Moreover, much blood and suffering has wrecked lives and demolished communities for a deity's sake. It's tempting therefore to believe in nothing. But people just don't: which is probably why thousands are turning to faith (Christianity and Buddhism) in the part of China where I now live. Is this tendency just an accidental side effect of an evolutionary trend in favour of something else? Dawkin's argument is pretty compelling (though not conclusively so), though at 37,000 feet and going down, it rather loses its persuasive appeal.
Whatever the final answer might be (and it could just be 42) the search is fascinating and the debates, as you say, are "gripping". At the very least it leads us to examine ourselves and to engage in a kind of mental process that appears quite fruitful.
In the meantime, most of us deluded believers will press ahead, dismantling religion's cordon sanitaire, refining our delusions and finding fresh comfort in them. Us simple laymen and women need elementary "truths" - even though they might alter - to cling to in this life and advanced science isn't one of them for most; which is why the Gideons don't place Quantum Physics text books in hotel rooms. This is what Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to hold on to.
And so we "believe" in something. But, that said, doesn't the contemporary world tell us that some things are better to believe in than others? That was a point I didn't raise with Noura. Though at some stage, it's sure to come up: especially when Dawkin's book is published in Arabic.

Greg W

Dave, no one says we have to substitute prayer for science. John Lennox is a good example of a man of faith and science. They are not mutually exclusive except in the minds of dogmatic atheists like Dawkins.

Ann

Lennox doesn't 'demolish' anything. He merely states his position, a slightly different thing except to those who have lost the power to reason. There is exactly nothing in his position that provides any evidence for the existence of (a) god, or that we should deduce from science any sort of argument for faith. He merely asserts this, from a position of someone who already believes so. Sorry, no cigar.

Dominic L-R

Greg W: you say Dawkins is a "dogmatic atheist", a common charge against him. Not so. Someone who is truly dogmatic is unwavering, stubborn and never willing to change their minds. Richard Dawkins has repeatedly stated he is perfectly willing to change his mind on this matter (and many others, like any decent scientist) if there were any good evidence to support the existence of God. How many religious fundamentalists would say they are willing to change their mind?

Dave

Of course if Mel can't accept that all religion is just a collection of pretty fairy stories because that removes a large pillar that supports pretty much her entire approach to life. Scary stuff for her.

Fabio P.Barbieri

Dominic L-R:
Yeah, right. He has said so. Sure. Absolutely. Positively. No reason whatsoever to doubt his word. It is not, after all, as if his very job depended on his pseudo-scientific atheistic propaganda.

Fran

Just watched this riveting video - and agreed with both parties that there just wasn't enough time for the debate to be developed.

Which I think, Ann, is why Dr Lennox did not have the opportunity to develop the arguments he undoubtedly has for his assertion that there is evidence for the existence of a moral creator.

Dave M, you ask

'My conviction is life almost certainly does exist elsewhere and not as we know it, Jim! .... So, the question is how will world religion respond to such a situation?'

Well, you might try reading C S Lewis' sci-fi trilogy Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength for a Christian's response to that question.

Given the lack of debate about the science, the arguments centred around the philosophical questions. I felt John Lennox had the edge because he correctly identified the importance of defining terms as 'faith' and 'God'. Dawkins conflated meta-ethics with semantics (and then dismissed its importance) - a serious flaw in an argument in which lack of proof either way inevitably leads one into the realm of philosophy. The result was that he could not see, for example, the contradiction of claiming that there appears to be a certain universal - and apparently independently held -set of moral values whilst denying any source for them. He argues that we should 'rise above' Darwinism. 'Rise above'? Where to? Why? How do we define 'above'?

Finally, I was delighted that John Lennox pointed out the destruction which atheistic regimes have caused wherever they have arisen both to their neighbours and to their own wretched citizens. Religion's opponents continually carp about its war-like tendencies: yet the numbers of people killed in religious wars over hundreds of years is dwarfed by the millions killed in the cause of atheistic ideologies over the past one hundred years alone.

Richard Dawkins might do well to heed the religious leader who famously quoted, 'Physician, heal thyself!'

Sergey

It is really strange that the participants in science&religion dispute never mention the most valuble contribution of Karl R. Popper "Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach". Popper has shown with extreme clarity what science is all about and why scientific method is completely inappropriate to solve any metaphysical problem and why metaphysics should not try to solve any scientific problem - these two disciplines study different and not overlapping realms. Dawkins is a clown, he used obsolete and totally discredited approach of 19 century materialism to problems beyond his field of competence and beyond what his deficient worldview can grasp.

Dan

Of course Dawkins can't accept that not all religion is just a collection of pretty fairy stories because that removes a large pillar that supports pretty much his entire approach to life. Scary stuff for him.

Dominic L-R

Fabio P: perhaps you could provide us with a selection of quotes to justify your contemptuous dismissal of Richard Dawkins' "pseudo-scientific atheistic propaganda". Just being sarcastic and slinging mud is not very convincing.

Lee

Sorry, I didn't have time to read all the comments, but after reviewing the debate, I would have to agree with Ann. Lennox didn't demolish Dawkins. DAWKINS demolished Dawkins. His argument that common morality relates is somehow connected to 'something in the air' (could he have possibly said that) was truly unbelievable. His assumption that there is some kind of common morality is absolutely refutable on its face. Dawkins line of reasoning on this was truly incoherent and actually quite sad in it's lack of intellectual rigor.

Dave M

There's a very good argument for intelligence being behind the phenomenon of life. Logic would dictate the entire universe is a product of intelligence. That kind of reasoning I can understand. Where I part company and agree with Dawkins is over man made religion. All global religions seem to turn the concept of God into a homo sapiens and lead all converts to the faiths as believing they alone possess the absolute truth. This whole adherence to blind conviction is more or less what led to anti semitism. Jews (like Jehova's Witnesses and many Gnostics) chose to doubt that Jesus taught he was the son of God. That very concept excludes Christians from the benefits of salvation so those people then subconsciously blame Jews for rejecting the new religion (or New Testament). Collectively all these religions set a very bad example and seem to promote the kind of qualities of intolerance and spite they were supposed to teach against.

Dr. Irene Lancaster

In response to Dave M, not all Jewish thinkers have placed man at the centre of the universe, as was pointed out on the programme. The great Spanish Jewish polymath, Abraham ibn Ezra, certainly didn't believe that we are the centre of the universe, and he was followed in these views by Maimonides, who was cited on the programme.

Ibn Ezra stated that we are a mere speck in the universe and that science is of huge importance to our understanding of how the universe works.

However, he also states that there are limits to science and that only the creator fully understands the workings of the universe entirely.

However, ibn Ezra deemed it very important to pursue the scientific endeavour, hand in hand with an intelligent and rational approach to interpretation of the Bible.

His dates are 1089-1164.

David Mason

Greg W: [ .. dogmatic atheists like Dawkins. ]
Er... atheism is the absence of dogma ancient or modern!

Fran, I also watched the video and it was like watching paint dry. Professor Dawkins was, as usual, quiet and self-effacing whilst Dr Lennox was several decibels louder. For a mathematician Dr Lennox's arithmetic in the deaths by Religion vs Otherh count is extremely poor. He repeated the familiar, tired and FALSE syllogism linking atheism to mass murder. In its realisation Communism ticks all the boxes required to qualify as a fully fledged religion with a death toll to make any desert dogma proud!

Ann: Well said. Formidable!

wonderer

Per Dave M, "Jews (like Jehova's Witnesses and many Gnostics) chose to doubt that Jesus taught he was the son of God. That very concept excludes Christians from the benefits of salvation". Actually, Jews do not maintain that Christians would be denied salvation. (Or in Jewish terms a place in the world to come.) Recently in the Jewish press, a well known rabbi, on being consulted by a would-be convert to Judaism, welcomed the approach but cautioned that the enquirer would not be loved more by God for becoming a Jew.
Also, according to Jewish teaching, for a non-Jew, salvation depends on simply observing the seven universal Noachide principles, which overlap in part with the Ten Commandments. The hurdle for Jews is set far higher, ca 613 commandments from what I recall.

John East

Faith in the existence of a god cannot differ in any respect to faith in the exitence of the tooth fairy, and yet many will attempt to reconcile science and reason with the former, whilst no one would dream of doing likewise with the latter.

This just goes to show how selective and illogical unreason can be.

Adherence to the sciencific method and reason there is no inherent conflict between science and faith

Dadmin

Dawkin's downfall is his irrational position of denying his own religiosity and faith. Hebrews 11:1 is a pearl on which Dawkins tramples incessantly.

david skinner

Dave M , I do not follow the logic of some of your claims. If apes had become the pinnacle of creation, why would that make them the centre of the universe, anymore than, say ,stick insects or ring worms? You are of course making the unproven assumption that evolution is fact as opposed to a theory ( something for which even Dawkins admits).

What evidence do you have for the existence of intelligent life in other parts of the universe apart from Patrick Moore’s “probabilities” and other science fiction works, like Planet of the Apes? Your credulity in believing in the “man in the moon” and other such myths and fairy tales would, in the words of Malcom Muggeridge, make a witch doctor green with envy.

Again, What scientific proof do you have for the fact that “science alone has helped mankind improve his lot and not prayer” or that “ societies which substitute prayer for science inevitably decline.?” Where did you get that? Have you tried praying?

The idea that man was made in the image of God is not, as you say, an arrogance but a truth that lays a tremendous burden and responsibility on all of us . It assumes that we ought to live lives of a humanly impossible moral perfection. Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, whilst claiming that man can in his own strength, become the creator of his own universe, will shrink and want to become a speck of amoebic dust when he is about to do something shabby. All the romance of evolution, but which, like an electric fire when he wants to get up to bit of adultery, can be switched off.

Pete Woodhouse. I would say that the argument for faith have always been bolstered enormously by developments in science.
http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/evidence.html. ( Scientists who were either Christian or informed by Chrsitianity)

Even Einstein, a deist, said;

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

Sebastian, You never mentioned the possibility that were Richard Dawkins to be in a plane, crashing from 37,000 feet, that he might in fact curse God rather than call out to Him. Often the last words of a pilot, recorded on a black box are full of obscenities and cursing, just as Satan will do when finally thrown into hell. Coming to faith in God is none of our doing but only through God’s grace.

Ann, as I have just said , belief followed by understanding is a gift of God. No matter how much “ reasoning you employ your will is determined to air brush God out of your life. You assert your opinion from the position of someone who already disbelieves. Not only no cigars but tragically no understanding either.

Dominic, it seems to me that you measure someone by how open minded they are and that if someone passionately believes in something with every fibre of their soul, it seems to me that you would accuse them of being fanatic or fundamentalist. I can assure you that the beliefs of a Christian are humanly speaking so unreasonable and foolish that they are constantly open to challenge from the world. Christ himself was tempted in the wilderness to deny the word of God by taking a short cut and to following the prince of this world. It is easy to be dogmatic, like Richard Dawkins from a position of safety and comfort. The Christian faith though giving the believer immeasurable inner security and assurance, leads him or her into trials and temptations about which the unbeliever has no conception. I am afraid the problem does not lie with a lack of evidence with which to believe but the hardness of the human heart. Pharaoh was shown plenty of evidence with the ten plagues of Egypt but it only hardened him.

Maybe someone could explain why if evolution is true, chimpanzees are still alive but all the various stages between them and us are not?

George Steiner

Richard Feynman put his view of this subject, sort of like this.

Science can not prove or disprove that God exists. Efforts in this direction are not science. And science can't be asked such questions.

There is however a moral and ethical dimension to life. Science can't be expected to provide it.

Contemplate this.

Commondog

As a lapsed atheist, it's my belief that, even if God does not exist, the human mind which does not seek such a deity, has already given up on life.

'Good night ladies, good night, good night.'

John William McGrath III

If there is no Go or after life why did my wife hug nd kiss me after she passed? She also did enough to write a book about. Some say it is my imagination, yet, we were in contact almost all of the time when she was alive. She could speak to me in an audible oice from home when I was in my car. When one was away from home and the other missed her/him, the absent one felt pure love from the spouse and headed right home to be greeted with kisses and hugs in the greatest joy... Yes, enough to write a book..

James C

When I heard that Dr Lennox had some new powerful points to make, I was intrigued. Was he going to reveal that the Hubble telescope had seen a man with a large white beard? Or that a radio telescope had picked up a loud, booming voice?

Not a bit of it. Instead we get the same old sophistry advanced on the same old grounds related to the naive idea that the structure of the universe reveals on intelligence. Now I’ve just had a look at the large scale structure of the universe, and it looks to me pretty much as I would expect a large collection of galaxies to look, given the character of the bodies involved and the laws which govern them. The same is true of the structure of the human body and its behaviour. Everything pretty much as I would expect from a highly evolved complex carbon based object. Nothing to suggest a supreme being at all. In fact, I think we can safely say that such supernatural entities are introduced for psychological rather than evidential reasons.

And if you think that the only way we account for the ultimate origins of the universe is by positing a God, then I must point out that the questions the positing is supposed to resolve can be asked with equal validity of the being posited, and so we are no nearer a solution yet have one more unobserved object in our inventory.

If we do introduce the Christian God, look at the other questions it raises – How can He consist of three distinct entities and still be one? How can he be localized and yet omnipresent? By what mechanism does He uphold the universe from day to day? Why does He reveal himself mainly to troglodytes?

The greatest question, of course, is why doesn’t He just reveal himself for once? We’re not asking for much. We don’t want the entire retinue of angels and so on. Just a sign. Ten minutes in front of reliable witnesses would do.

By the way, for anyone interested, some of the Christians involved with the above episode of the Moral Maze held a get together afterwards, footage of which may be found here via this link (I don’t know who was there, but that bloke centre-right in the dinner jacket and jeans looks like an intelligent design advocate, especially when he makes that short but very spirited contribution at 1 min 3secs):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07cmMhQxjfg

Dominic L-R

David Skinner: you ask "Maybe someone could explain why if evolution is true, chimpanzees are still alive but all the various stages between them and us are not?"
Oh dear. This is the kind of scientific howler that I hope a schoolchild would not make. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Human beings and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. If your grasp of evolution is this poor, how are we to take anything you have to say on this matter seriously?

Paul

I watched the debate.

John Lennox is a more fluent speaker than Dawkins and better at recalling clever lines, but ultimately the argument - the reason and logic - is with Dawkins.

Paul

However, Dawkins does come a bit unstuck by trying to claim religious faith is uniquely evil. If he just opposed both lennist Marxism and religion with the same vigour it would help him.

Andy

the theory of evolution itself is a religion with assumptions made by the scientists who subscribe to it, people like dawkins can't see the wood for the trees

Alcuin

he totally demolishes the Richard Dawkins position from the perspective of science

Well, I'm with Ann - that's not what I saw, having just watched it. I would give it 60/40 to Dawkins, not because he landed any punches - in fact neither landed a blow on the other - but Lennox was a bit more shifty: attacking subtly modified positions that were what he wished Dawkins had said, not what he actually said. Dawkins comes over much better (i.e. much less adversarial) in person than in print. Dawkins' fundamental point - that we should teach scepticism, not belief, to our children, is unanswerable - particularly with the current Islam problem.

The question "why is the Universe intelligible" is one that has exercised many scientists, notable David Deutsch. It is also necessary to realise that all scientific positions are provisional, and many current explanations are unsatisfactory. That does not damn science, as it is still by far the best way to answer our deepest questions, it merely says it is incomplete.

Enjoyable, but not that illuminating. I shared Dawkin's frustration at the rather rigid and stilted format of the meeting - it was scarcely a debate.

Who would he pray to? - no one, he would just shrug and say "so it goes", or perhaps "Now maybe I shall have some answers". What else can you do?

Alcuin

david skinner You are of course making the unproven assumption that evolution is fact as opposed to a theory

A common misunderstanding. Evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact in that it happens - AIDS, Ebola, SARS, H5N1, MRSA and rats resistant to warfarin tell us that. The theory is the descriptions of the mechanisms by which it works. And that is developing continuously, as recent discoveries in epigenetics show. But Darwin's original thesis - random mutation and natural selection - has been sufficient to explain all cases to date.

YA

Could somebody remind please when the last breakthrough, or milestone achievement in theology was made, what was it exactly, and why anybody else outside that religious group should care?

robzrob

How this woman got a degree from Oxford, I'll never understand.

robzrob

To David Skinner

Some apes are still alive, others aren't alive. They're just not alive. Like 99% of the species that have ever lived, they're extinct. Nothing odd or unusual about it, they're just dead.

Roy

After watching the debate I didn't think Dawkins was out-reasoned at all. Lennox was a more flamboyant speaker a stronger personality, trying to catch Dawkins out here and there. He would of course have the confidence of knowing the world's religious community would inevitably be on his side. Dawkins is on his own, very few wanting publicly to admit they can see -only too well- his side of the argument. The deep seated anger peeping through in Lennox's demeanor at the applause for a Dawkins remark, is a reminder that this is not just an ordinary debate. An whole world is being chipped away at its very foundations.

Zkharya

I watched the Lennox-Dawkins debate. Frankly I thought the latter was more impressive.

Dawkins is right in that there is no conventional g-d, though there is a place for metaphysics. That is the awe which the greatest science, it seems to me, inspires.

But he makes some mistakes about religion, its ethical force, and binding nature, the glue of communities and the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself.

david skinner

I believe I posted this link up before but there may be some who would be prepared to hear Dr John Lennox speaking about Richard Dawkins in 2005
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=290.

As for Roy's statement that the views of Dawkins are somehow those of an oppressed minority, flies in the face of the evidence . Evolution falls on education, in schools,the Open Univerity and TV like black atomic dust. Every nature programme from Bill Oddy to Attenborough assumes without a second breath that the theory is fact.

Max Kaye

"....he [Dr John Lennox] totally demolishes the Richard Dawkins"

Not according to the debate I saw on the link provided.

I agree with posters who think that the format of the debate was restrictive and, ultimately, boring.

As for god and religion: I am less patient and courteous than Dawkins and agree that it is not only a delusion - but a pathological one at that - in that otherwise wise, intelligent and sensible people willingly override reason to grasp at the straws of supernatural superstition.

Ann

"Dawkin's downfall is his irrational position of denying his own religiosity and faith"

Spoken like a true irrational theist, who simply can't grasp the fact that some people are atheists: to you, that simply doesn't compute.
Your statement is a bit like Berkeley's 'proof' of the existence of god, an irrational person playing with logic which he doesn't understand, trying to bend it into something it cannot be, and making himself look very foolish.
Dawkins is an atheist. Live with it.

Ann

James C, 8:21:
Absolutely!
We get the same old, same old nonsense about 'Some so-called atheists' [which you and I know were not really atheists at all but Messianic communists or Messianic Nazis, etc] 'killed more people than some theists, ergo atheism is the cause of mass-murder'. This pathetic 'syllogism' is so full of holes that a first year student should be failed on it in the first term of Logic 101. And yet it's trotted out with great fanfare, on and on and on. Sad, really.

Ann

PS. to my last one:
And why should it be a Christian god anyway? Other religions claim that their god is the true one. Nothing in the Lennox argument, quite apart from all its other elementary fallacies, contains evidence for Christianity's superiority.

Ann

"Every nature programme from Bill Oddy to Attenborough assumes without a second breath that the theory is fact"

Until it is disproved, it's the best we have. As a working hypothesis it's been remarkably successfull.
You really ought to read Popper, although I suspect that irrational and scientifically naive people like you and MP would find his rigorous analysis hard going.

Ann

"Ann, as I have just said , belief followed by understanding is a gift of God. No matter how much “ reasoning you employ your will is determined to air brush God out of your life. You assert your opinion from the position of someone who already disbelieves. Not only no cigars but tragically no understanding either"

What unmitigated nonsense, along with the predictable arrogance. It's you who starts by assuming that which you wish to prove, which is just silly. You say yourself: "belief followed by understanding" - you start from a position of believing, i.e. you believe a priori. And in your huge arrogance, you attempt to impose your a priori belief on others, e.g. me. That is evidence not of understanding, but of inability to understand.
You think you know where I come from. Well, you have no clue. I started off as a sceptic, and arrived at a position of atheism via a consistent chain of reasoning. But why do I think that you might understand this ...

Ann

Paul, as others have said, Marxism is a religion in every important way, with Messiahs and Messianic messages and visions of the glorious future, disciples, irrational and rigid dogmas with penalties for those who question the true faith, and so on. The same goes for Nazism.
The idea that evolution is a 'religion', as some have said, is ludicrous. Those people don't understand how science works, by adjusting hypothesis continuously to new knowledge: the very opposite of religion.

Dave

In terms of language it's important to know that the "Theory of Evolution" means something different to scientists. In this context the "theory" is fact.
A "Theory" as non scientists tend to use the word day to day is what scientists would call a "hypothesis"
As for Mel going to Oxford... well to misquote the wonderful Margaret from the Apprentice; "I don't think Oxford is what it was"

Kiwi

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." No 'Holy' books, Church, Mosque, Synagogue or Temple required.

Graham

I did not see all the video but what I saw was enough. Dawkins says that science is totally dependent on knowledge while religion is dependent on faith. Lennox maintains that faith can be proved to have a scientific basis. Balderdash. If it did it wouldn't then be faith. Faith has to do with belief, science with knowledge - there's a big difference.

Clive

I personally found the debate disappointing - I believe when time is limited you need to zero in on one or two core issues and then 'thrash' it backwards and forwards, with some approach to achieving substantial clarity on the subject in question.

A couple of points rising from the discussion here: firstly, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God scientifically. But what I am certain of is that for those who are willing to believe in at least the Judeo-Christian God, there is an enormous amount of hard evidence of every kind to encourage you in that direction. To be frank, never mind unbelievers, most believers are not aware of all of this data.

On the subject of faith: there is obviously such an animal as blind faith - the kind that believes in defiance of all the evidence. Perhaps not so obvious, is the kind of faith that someone defined as a 'logical response to a sufficiency of evidence'. All of us exercise this in different aspects of our lives. For example we climb into our cars on a daily basis and drive off without worrying about the wheels falling off because we (hopefully) check our wheel-nuts on a regular basis. This is what genuine Christian faith can and should be.

Let me add that the theory of macro, molecules-to-man evolution (as opposed to micro, or variation within a kind) type of evolution, has not been proved. It simply has not been observed. The AIDs virus is still an AIDS virus, the fruit-fly is still a fruit-fly, dogs are still dogs and cats are still cats. The systematic gaps in the fossil record are still there in spite of over 100 years of determined research (please don't mention the horse or obvious mosaics like archaeopteryx!). And nobody has demonstrated in a laboratory how the simplest living cell can spontaneously form from organic compounds, never mind inorganic matter.

Believe in evolution if you will, maintain your atheism if you will. Its your choice. But please don't be deceived, or deceive others, into supposing that all the evidence, scientific or otherwise, is all or even mainly, on your side. The claim that molecules-to-man evolution is a proven fact is simply false, and some of the most respected evolutionists have admitted as much. It could be argued that dogmatic evolutionists (like Dawkins?) are guilty of blind faith!

YA

Clive:

"..the evidence, scientific or otherwise.."

Wow, that made my day.

There are also

"..you may or may not know.."

and

"..to be honest with you..".

Great stuff, please write more.

david skinner

I agree most whole heartedly with Clive .The assumption that the exercise of faith and science are two irreconcilable approaches to life flies in the face of reality. People who say that must obviously be shut up in a sensory deprivation chamber. Those of us who live in the real world probably make thousands of experiments a day which were first carried out by scientists, but for which we, like they, need a faith -but for which there is no scientific proof.- in the uniformity and consistency of the apparent laws that govern the universe. A sky diver having faith in the scientific experiments of previous intrepid pioneers makes his or her 99th jump only on the probability that the 100th jump will pan out. And as Clive says this as true for going up and down stairs, boiling a kettle, riding a bike or even expecting the sun to rise in the east. When Peter was encouraged to get out of the boat, he did this, not on the basis of what normally happens when trying to walk on water, but on the basis that he had come to trust in the dependability and consistency of Jesus Christ.

I would also agree whole heartedly with Dr John Lennox that the issue of a conflict between science and faith is a smoke screen for a much more disturbing movement taking place within society and that is the camouflaging of the materialist’s world view with regard to metaphysics, ethics and epistemology, that is falling daily on our children.

We see an effect of it here, on this blogg, where those peddling the materialist’s world view assume a position that verges on the megalomaniac . Instead of relying on reasoned argument they discharge, from some infinite point of omniscience, a flow of contempt and disrespect against those who hold views at variance to their own. But worst of all, they turn truth into lies and lies into truth. According to them, Communist Russia was not an atheist regime; Carl Marx, Lenin and Stalin were promoting religion instead. To have such disregard for what they and other Russian leaders said about religion and atheism and the fact that great cathedrals and many churches, right across Russia were turned into museums of atheism, to disregard and deny the testimonies of millions who had to endure for decades such a godless regime demonstrates a bad attack of Dawkins Delusion Syndrome. Let us also not forget the reign of Terror in France when statues, dedicated to atheism and reason were erected throughout France. Bon Appetit : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

Dominic L-R

Clive:
You say that "some of the most respected evolutionists" have supposedly admitted that "The claim that molecules-to-man evolution is a proven fact is simply false". Would it be asking too much for a few names and quotes to back up this assertion?
Also you tell us that "there is an enormous amount of hard evidence of every kind..." to encourage us to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Again, would it be asking too much for you to actually provide this amazing "hard" evidence? Or perhaps you haven't got the time...?
In reality, what many religious people consider "hard evidence" is no more than personal experience. Anecdotal evidence. And indeed, we can find thousands, if not millions of similar anecdotes. The only problem is, there are thousands of equally "convincing" personal anecdotes for every religion under the sun, including all those religions whose Gods are now consiged to the status of mythology. Doesn't this at least give you some pause? What exactly is so special about a belief in the Judeo-Christian God that should demand our respect when a belief in Zeus or Thor doesn't?

Ann

Dave:
“In terms of language it's important to know that the "Theory of Evolution" means something different to scientists. In this context the "theory" is fact”

I can’t agree. To a scientist who thinks about what science is – i.e. a serious scientist – no theory is ever ‘fact’, only a working hypothesis, a hypothesis that can be supported and refined by further knowledge - or conversely, disproved by further knowledge.

In this sense, the flat earth theory was scientific because it was capable of disproof (unlike psychoanalysis or a belief in god, which can never be disproved by science hence they are not science but metaphysics, a point that Lennox seems incapable of grasping).
And disproved it was.
Newtonian mechanics was refined by quantum mechanics and by general and special relativity, and is now a special case that can be used under restricted boundary conditions.

Clive:
“But what I am certain of is that for those who are willing to believe in at least the Judeo-Christian God, there is an enormous amount of hard evidence of every kind to encourage you in that direction”

That I would love to see.

“Let me add that the theory of macro, molecules-to-man evolution (as opposed to micro, or variation within a kind) type of evolution, has not been proved”

A red herring. NO scientific theory can be ‘proved’. Read Hume and Popper on the limits of knowledge and proof.

“But please don't be deceived, or deceive others, into supposing that all the evidence, scientific or otherwise, is all or even mainly, on your side. The claim that molecules-to-man evolution is a proven fact is simply false, and some of the most respected evolutionists have admitted as much. It could be argued that dogmatic evolutionists (like Dawkins?) are guilty of blind faith!”

This is a complete misunderstanding of how science works. In fact, it’s a classic example of the Lennox fallacy, aka straw man: no serious scientist, certainly no philosopher of science, claims that the theory – ANY theory – is EVER ‘proven’, so your argument is irrelevant. Dawkins, for example, says no such thing. All that scientists are saying is that this theory (or any current theory in any science) is the best model we have AT THIS TIME. Until a better one arrives, a better one in terms of explaining the observable phenomena, we will have to use this one. As long as it correctly predicts what will happen, and is not rivalled by something better (at which point it would be DISproved), it’s the reigning hypothesis.

I really do wish the enemies of science stopped distorting what scientists say and then attack them with glee for those things that they’d never said: it’s not only dishonest – it’s boring.

Commondog

I had hoped by this stage of the proceedings, to have incontrovertible proof that there is or is not, a God.
Call yerself bloggers?

david skinner

A Christian does not believe in the existence of God or the existence of anything for that matter through the senses or scientific proof but solely through God’s Word .
It is the World that lines up with His Word, rather than the Word lining up with the World. It is the Word that judges the World rather than the World that judges the Word. No other book, apart from the Bible has been able to predict with pin point accuracy the future . It predicts that the debate that we are having here will one day be past its sell by date, when the whole of creation will be renewed and every knee will bow , either in joy or sheer terror.
To cut oneself off from the reality God’s Word is the same as trying to exist in a sensory deprivation chamber. Very rapidly one begins to hallucinate and if left in it long enough one would go mad. Britain is governed by the same philosophy as that which underlies the theory of evolution and indeed for many is mad and frightening place.

Ann

"To cut oneself off from the reality God’s Word is the same as trying to exist in a sensory deprivation chamber. Very rapidly one begins to hallucinate and if left in it long enough one would go mad"

Thank you for this comprehensive explanation of the theist's position: atheists are mad.

I can't think of a better example of the megalomania and pathological arrogance of theists.

david skinner

“Spoken like a true irrational theist…. an irrational person playing with logic which he doesn't understand …. I suspect that irrational and scientifically naive people like you would find his rigorous analysis hard going. But why do I think that you might understand this….. your argument is irrelevant.”

Thank you, Ann, for this comprehensive explanation of the atheist’s position: theists are irrational, lacking in understanding, naïve, slow witted, and irrelevant.

I cannot think of a better example of the megalomania and pathological arrogance of atheist, especially when they deny historically documented consequences of living out atheism in every single country that comes under the domination of so- called reason.

Perhaps at this point it might be worth reading this article:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/03/04/nothing-to-fear-from-the-new-atheist-crusaders/

Dave

Ann: "can’t agree. To a scientist who thinks about what science is – i.e. a serious scientist – no theory is ever ‘fact’, only a working hypothesis, a hypothesis that can be supported and refined by further knowledge - or conversely, disproved by further knowledge."

Try reading my post again. That's the very point I was trying to make. Scientifically speaking hypothesis is different to theory

Dave M

david skinner = some points. I'm pretty much certain life does exist on other planets, maybe even some forms of life in our own solar system. And there are thousands of solar systems elsewhere, billions of stars. Now Jesus was supposed to be the embodiment of God and, therefore, the highest being in the entire universe is supposed to resemble a man. That doesn't make logical sense and it places man as the centre of the cosmos, ignoring possibly far more advanced life forms elsewhere (which I'm sure do exist). I mean species constantly evolve into higher forms. It's just that time is such an obstacle to finding life since planets are born and die during the time it takes for some to pick up our signals. In another direction, yes, I believe science alone has helped humans and not prayer. We got into space itself via thinkers such as Einstein and astronauts like Yuri Gagarin. And the reason the Islamic World fell so far behind the West is down to their blind adherence to State religion. Now the U.S. is gradually taking this same path, it would seem, and I say that because I recently witnessed both Hilary Clinton, Obama and McCain all stand up and try to convince the American electorate they were all believers in God. Why do they need to do that? That was profoundly worrying. I think America should be concentrating on the science and technology that gave rise to the lunar landings and other advancements in the first place and they shouldn't take the same shaky path as Saudi Arabia and the Islamic World. Religion is fine as a personal, private conviction but when it becomes a State theology then we see societies stagnate. The Middle East, I'm afraid, is a classic example.

James C

Commondog 8.09am,

You have acted wisely, grasshopper, and chosen the middle way.

My own opinion, and I must stress that I’m only giving it because I’ve got nothing better to do at the moment, is that:

1. It is impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist since, even if we searched the entire universe – or the space-time continuum, as we pseuds call it – and found nothing, we still could not give a conclusive negative answer because, first, he might exist outside what we have taken to be the totality of things and spaces and, second, he might exist in a form which makes him undetectable.

and

2. It is impossible to prove that God does exist because he doesn’t exist.

Dave 3.50pm,

“In this context the "theory" is fact.” You meant by “fact”, I take it, a proposition which describes a sequence of events which has actually occurred. Unfortunately, David Skinner had already used the word “fact” in the sense where it means a proposition that is irrefutably true. Hence, Ann’s statement.

A large part of the confusion is due to the scientists themselves. Look, for example at The Big Bang Theory and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The first is particular, the second is general. It makes you wonder what they do all day. It’s as if a vet said “Yes, I’ve cured your cat…sorry, dog”

jdude

Honestly, I respect a reasonably fashioned debate but we all know the debate boils down to faith, so why bother with your antics?

James

Typically, this thread displays the usual mix of rational thinking (utilising factual knowledge and the unerring principles of logic) by those who clearly value reason, and the befuddled thinking by the usual suspects who have a somewhat less than adequate grasp of reality, apparently preferring the warm, cosy comfort blanket of the supernatural to the awesome yet purposeless majesty of what merely is.

Richard Dawkins is an undeniable giant among scientists and an invaluable populariser of Evolutionary Theory (the vast mountain of factual evidence upon which the latter largely stands being overwhelming and unchallengeable - those who would deny this urgently need to educate themselves on the subject); however, when it comes to debunking god and religion (whether through the written word or from the debating platform) Dawkins is a minnow. And for every College Professor of Mathematics who avows a belief in the supernatural, I’ll hazzard there are at least 20 who profess atheism.

In his book - Atheism: The Case Against God - George H Smith presents a rigorous philosophical refutation of all - yes, all - theological arguments for the existence of a god (or of the supernatural in general). If you read this book, rigorously applying reason to the arguments therein, you will surely (if honest and courageous enough) renounce all faith in the supernatural. And anyone who desires a procedure for arguing effectively the case against god and religion with those of a religious inclination should read Atheism, Ayn Rand and Other Heresies by George H Smith.

Those who believe that morality is a god-given gift to humanity are in a state of abject delusion - and, regrettably for the rest of us, they would appear to number in the billions. Morality has its basis in reason and the facts of reality and emerges from the simple fact that man's standard of value is man's life. Time and space preclude a detailed exposition of the nature and emergence of rational morality here; however, such an exposition is given by Craig Biddle in his book Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts That Support It, the opening chapters of which are freely available at his web site www.craigbiddle.com.

Lastly, those who delude themselves into believing that religious ideology is not responsible for the most murders by far in the history of humanity urgently need to read this book: The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims by Andrew G Bostom.

Dr. J. Llewellyn

Let's see, a debate on religion vs. science, over the origin of the universe and the existence of God, is that right?

What are the givens?

That all religions are the same, or just 'essentially the same'? Not quite.

I suspect most theologians, religious leaders and believers would take exception to that assertion. Some have, and are still killing, because they disagree.

That all religions have the same idea of God and worship the same God?

Hmmmmm ... same objection.

That all religions define the universe in the same way?

Again .... same objection.

That the world of religious belief exhibits the same degree of order and seeks to order itself in the same manner as the world of scientific belief transcends local, tribal, racial, geographic historical and logical differences?

No, again.

Am I being to fussy? I think not.

Religion is now, throughout the world, and throughout history has always been in, and seeks to perpetuate, a state of chaos.

Is not science just the opposite?

Yes, there are scientific disputes. But it is in the nature of science to try to resolve them and to increase the degree of coherence within science.

It is in the nature of religion to promote and exploit differences.

How can one make a coherent argument out of the Babel that is religion?

How can you have a debate when one side cannot bring forward terms that have a coherent definition?

What non-trivial generalizations can be made that will cover religion in all times and places.

What sense or meaning could such a debate have?

What reasonable ends would it serve and for whom?

No sense. No reasonable ends. No one is well served.

Clive

Hi David, Dominic and Anne! Thanks for your comments. Judging by the frequency of your contributions to this debate your are pretty passionate about the subject. Nothing wrong about that! I feel pretty strongly about it myself. I was practically weaned on evolution and the geologic column and seriously considered becoming a geologist. It was only years later that I stumbled on some of the arguments against the concept, which inspired a study that, off and on has lasted forty years.

Firstly, Dominic and Anne requested some hard evidence for the validity of the Judeo-Christian faith. If you're really serious about this a good start would be Josh McDowell's 'New Evidence that Demands a Verdict'. It doubtless has its critics, but it provides a good overview. For me the most powerful objective evidence for the Bible is prophecy, particularly messianic Old Testament prophecies of which there are about 300. Jesus fulfilled about 30 of them on the day of his crucifixion alone. (see Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) Also read Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7, Micah 5:2. The modern State of Israel is actually an amazing fulfillment of numerous OT prophecies. Do an internet search if you will.

Dominic: you asked for some quotes. For the sake of space here are a couple only:

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know" - Stephen J. Gould, 'Evolution as Fact and Theory', Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school'". Dr Colin Patterson ( Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981.

I have the quotes of many other scientists on different aspects of the theory. Also try and get a copy of Michael Denton's 'Evolution:A Theory in Crisis'. He is an Oz molecular biologist.

Anne:
One of the points I made previously is that the theory of evolution hasn't been proved, and you responded that no serious scientist believes any theory can be proved. Well, that may be, but it is not the impression anyone would get from reading the opinions of most people on blogs like this, or textbooks or the media. The fact is the vast majority of people, including scientists generally, assume that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. This is the fallacy that I was attempting to address. It is a theory that is not only not proven in any absolute sense - the bulk of the hard empirical evidence does not support it, or at least not the Neo-Darwinian model. But those who are aware of the problem continue to hold onto it because, as you suggest, they cannot find an alternative. A priori, they most certainly will not accept the model of Special Creation.

By the way, before Darwin came along, scientists did very well without the evolutionary model, which has now become a dogma, and woe betide anyone who questions it! You will probably be accused of being an enemy of science!

david skinner

Clive, as John Lennox pointed out, Galileo was not only challenging the Roman Catholic Church but the scientific community of the day that was ruled by the Aristotelian paradigm.

London Calling

The answers you seek cannot be proved or disproved, because spirit can only be experienced at a level beyond our physical comprehension because you are only one Russian doll in the spectrum of many Russian dolls.

If God is Atoms
And The Universe is God
Who are you?

The answer is 777

The Lamp stand – the physical body.

The Angel – the spirit of God

The stars – Universal Matter within the physical body. (can be proved)

As above, so below.

The Kingdom of Heaven is within you and without you.

david skinner

Dr. J. Llewellyn. In one sense the Bible does makes eminent sense, otherwise there would be no scientist of any note whose lives were/are guided by it - this includes scientists and astronauts who led the Apollo 11 mission to the moon, http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/evidence.html. And the not uncontroversial Australian Nuclear physicist Leslie Kemeny who led me personally to Jesus Christ, in 1970.

Neither would 33%of the worlds population adhere to Christianity as opposed to 2.3% of atheists, who obviously do not, if it made no sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

However, having said that, the claims of the Bible are so outrageously preposterous ( just as some scientific hypothesises are), that it must be completely thrown out - no half measures- or accepted as the truth for it allows for no middle way, no compromise. You will only know if it is true by getting out of the boat and putting your weight on it, not by dispassionately observing it from a distance.

You look for a unifying statement. Try this :

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Philippians1
(Jesus Christ) being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Graham

To call this a debate is a joke. Reading out a premise from The God Delusion, asking Dawkins to elaborate, and then allowing Lennox to have the final word is not a debate. Either the organisers do not understand what a debate is, or they deliberately structured the event in this way, to the disadvantage of Dawkins. If they had to insist on this structure it would have made far more sense to read an excerpt (Dawkins' opinion), have counterarguments from Lennox, then the response from Dawkins.

The only way any kind of debate emerged was when Dawkins overcame the structure of the proceedings. At one point the moderator suggested that Dawkins should weave his response to Lennox on the previous premise into his elaboration of the next one. This not only places a greater cognitive burden on Dawkins but also reduces his total time available. To Dawkins' credit he did his best to remain within this stifling structure, and still came out on top in my opinion.

I wonder if the Fixed Point Foundation are more used to coming to conclusions by listening to competing preachers vying for an audience, than two opponents debating with one another through reason.

Commondog

Kiwi.

You do know of course that your tenet is direct from the Bible, one of the holy books we don't need?

How little we give recognition to our Christian heritage whilst at the same time, how hard it is to escape that heritage in our language and most importantly, in the way we regard each other.

It didn't just put itself there your know.

Reminds me of the Beckhams when they wheeled out little Brooklyn for the world to see: when asked if he had any plans, David said that they would be getting him Christened but they had not decided on which religion yet.

David M

Religion seems to undermine the very basis of rational thought and logic we inherited from the Greeks and ancient philosophers. Religion tells us our salvation depends upon "believing" the accounts of events (the resurrection, for example) that took place 2000 years before we were born. Such events unfolded in a different society to our own modern era and were actually written down some 70 years after the event had taken place. To make matters worse, contradictory accounts that were classified as non Orthodox (Gnostic texts) were eventually stamped out so the Church could finally agree on a basic dogma and creed to pass down to the layman. To cut a long story short, however, we are told if we disbelieve the sole testimony of the Gospel we shall never be "saved". Thus, our salvation and survival according to religion isn't based on reason or an ability to actually think but on "belief". As a rational individual (the same as Dawkins), I do not believe I face hellfire and brimstone for using the intelligence that evolved in homo sapiens over many thousands of years to question. It's what sets us further apart from other animals. The same logic suggests the contradictions, myths, cultural ambiguities and uncertainty that religion dictates we should blindly embrace as fact should be subjected to scrutiny and skepticism. Just as in a court of law. Religion has always tried to exempt itself from such questioning and scrutiny which is why Dawkins has taken the bull by the horns, so to speak.

Kiwi

Commondog wrote:
"You do know of course that your tenet is direct from the Bible, one of the holy books we don't need?"
You do know of course that examples of the so called 'Golden Rule' can be found long before the advent of Christianity?
"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." - Pittacus, 650 BCE
"Do not unto another that you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest." - Confucius, 500 BCE
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." - Thales, 464 BCE
"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, be also to them." - Sextus (Pythagorean), 406 BCE
"We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us." - Aristotle, 384 BCE
"Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another's welfare as your own." - Aristippus of Cyrene, 365 BCE
"Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you." - Isocrates, 338 BCE
"This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." - Hinduism, 300 BCE
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." - Rabbi Hillel, 50 BCE
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." - Jesus of Nazareth, circa 30 CE (Mathew 7:12)

david skinner

David M, Huge claims indeed for the Greeks - what is more, where are they today? Bethlehem still lives, whilst Babylon, the Acropolis and Ancient Rome are a pile of ruins- the haunt of owls and stray dogs.

Clive made reference earlier to Josh McDowell’s book “Evidence that Demands a Verdict”. The Christian beliefs, for those who care to take the trouble -and not just accept what their Auntie Vera, Richard Dawkins, or the Lazy Man’s Guide to the Bible: “It’s Full of Contradictions” says- stand up to close scrutiny. One requisite for becoming a Christian is certainly not that you blow your brains out, though believing in Richard Dawkins would achieve the same result, but take that much longer- a billion years perhaps.

Doctor Luke right at the beginning of his book said:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

May I therefore, most excellent David M, submit to you, not only the Bible that continues, unabated, to be the world’s best selling book, but the transcript of a mock court case between Josh McDowell and a Muslim lawyer , Deedat (now deceased), which I am confident will answer many of your torments .
http://www.answering-islam.org/Debates/Deedat_McDowell.html

Kiwi, This may be true, but it doesn't matter, because Christ was deriving this moral law from the Old Testament, specifically the book of Levitcus, which was written a thousand or more years before Christ. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_true_that_Confuscius_wrote_the_Golden_Rule-_do_unto_others_500_years_before_Christ

Not withstanding this, the Ten Commandments from which the laws of Leviticus were written are written on the hearts of every human being so that none of has an excuse. Just as In the words of Hylda Baker, “She knows you Know,” we know you know.

Commondog, to summon God like demanding a genie, (or the Dawkins way: to demand a gene) would put Him at our disposal. He therefore would not be God but a Delusion. I believe it is God who takes the initiative in revealing himself to us. It is He who finds us and not the other way around; and if we choose to switch the receiver off or demand to listen to him only through earthquakes, tornadoes and tidal waves we will not hear His quiet voice that forever calls each one of us back home.

Kiwi

David Skinner wrote:
Kiwi, This may be true, but it doesn't matter, because Christ was deriving this moral law from the Old Testament, specifically the book of Levitcus, which was written a thousand or more years before Christ.
Ah yes, David, the same kindly God of the old testament who also decreed by the same book of Leviticus,
"If priests misbehave at the tabernacle by uncovering their heads, tearing their clothes, leaving with holy oil on them, or by drinking 'wine or strong drink', then God will kill them and send his wrath on 'all the people.'" 10:6-9
"Kill anyone who 'gives his seed' to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off." 20:2-5
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Couldn't we try spanking first? 20:9
"Both parties in adultery shall be executed." 20:10
"If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both." 20:11
"If a man 'lies' with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed.'" Little wonder then, many centuries later, that other man of God, Mohammed, received one of his special 'revelations', to solve a teeny weeny problem involving his adopted son's wife! 20:12
"If a man has sex with another man, kill them both." 20:13
"A priest's daughter who 'plays the whore' is to be burned to death." 21:9
"Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community." 24:16
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/cr_list.html
I believe David M got it right when he said, "I do not believe I face hellfire and brimstone for using the intelligence that evolved in homo sapiens over many thousands of years to question."
In short, basic human values such as not to murder, harm or commit violence against others, or steal their rightful property, are not the exclusive dictates of any religion. Surely they are universal values which, because of their universal nature and wide spread appeal, have also evolved as part of the human condition.

david skinner

Kiwi, I don’t know which planet you are writing from but does your human nature evolving to becoming more mature and humane include 200, 000,000 killed through wars in the 20th century that have nothing to do with religion but everything to do man- centred ideologies. Does this include 200,000 unborn babies murdered in their wombs in Britain alone , last year? Does this include the threat of nuclear annihilation? Does this include this :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/03/16/boy--murdered-for-his-dog--89520-18762535/ in a country that is ruled by Darwinian ideology.?

Commondog

Kiwi.

Impressive collation.

But who made it spread across the world? And much as I agree that it is central, more is needed,
and it's the same book again and again that has pointed the way.

david skinner

Kiwi, amongst the list of Levitical laws that you mentioned was the one that said "Kill anyone who 'gives his seed' to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off." 20:2-5

You do realise of course who Moloch was?

In the 8th-6th century BCE, firstborn children were sacrificed to him by the Israelites in the Valleye of Hinnom, south-east of Jerusalem . These sacrifices to the sun god were made to renew the strength of the sun fire. This ritual was probably borrowed from surrounding nations, and was also popular in ancient Carthage.
Moloch was represented as a huge bronze statue with the head of a bull. The statue was hollow, and inside there burned a fire which colored the Moloch a glowing red. Children were placed on the hands of the statue. Through an ingenious system the hands were raised to the mouth (as if Moloch were eating) and the children fell into the fire where they were consumed by the flames. The people gathered before the Moloch were dancing on the sounds of flutes and tambourines to drown out the screams of the victims.

What punishment would you present to someone who did this to children? Or would you prefer rather to seem them as socially disadvantaged victims of a capitalist society?

George Steiner

Just to remind you. Discussing what was said 2,500 or so years ago shows how clever you fellows are. But you have a problem today.

To restate. How to deal with moral and ethical problems to day in which science and the scientific method is no help. That is the question.

Dave M

Mr Skinner, the Greeks and Romans are not extinct today as modern Europe and also the U.S. founded their societies on the Greco/Roman legacy. So did Israel as Israel adopted democracy too. The only exception being ancient Greek democracy was far more advanced than the shallow lip service to democracy we see today in the E.U. At any rate, we inherited law and civilization from the Romans as well as philosophy, democracy, political science and arts from ancient Greece. Also, modern Greece and Rome still survive as European States, as do the ancient languages and literature of the people. Added to that, Christianity borrowed much from Greco/Roman religion. The breaking of bread and wine was, in actual fact, reflected by the Greek Mystery religions where eating and drinking had deep, religious significance. The Virgin Mary was probably borrowed from the Magna Mater and had pagan origins. Christmas day was influenced by the Roman Saturnalia - a festival where gifts were exchanged. However, history offers a stark warning. Most experts agree one of the fundamental causes behind the fall of the Roman Empire was linked to Christianity since Christianity existed also in extremist factions as is the case with Islam today. It could well have been the case the great fire of Rome was caused by a radical branch of early Christians and not by Nero as the Church has claimed for centuries. Even if that were not the case, we know The Roman Church frowned on military service or any connection with the State that helped to weaken it in the long run. Now, of course, we see a similar situation regarding Islam in Europe and the U.K. As a collective, religious body, the more radical Islam is seeking dominance in Europe by attemting to dictate full censorship towards criticism of Islam (for example, the cartoons and theatre). Clerics see the weakness and failings of modern society (that's abandoning democracy) and hope to incorporate Islamic values through the European political system. So, history seems to be repeating itself as religion attacks the fundamentals of reason, liberty and science.

Stephen

Evolution does not go from Molecule to man. Evolution does not claim to answer how life started. That is a completely different scientific problem. Evolution is what happened after the first spark of life.

Belief in a god or gods is not incompatible with evolution. The simple fact is that science has nothing to say about a god/gods existence. The way that god is described by the big 3 simply makes it impossible to investigate scientifically (if it is all powerful it can remain hidden it it wants to, and if something does reveal itself to us, we cannot know that it is god, rather than very powerful being that we are not yet able to explain).

The Bible cannot serve as evidence that it is right. Of course it says Jesus fulfilled 30 prophesies in one day... the writers of the New Testament knew of the prophesies of the Old, and so could easily write that Jesus fulfilled them.

Oh, and Hitler was not an athiest. Stalin, yeah, but not Hitler. And regardless, the deaths under their regimes have nothing to do with atheism. In Nazi Germany people were killed due to a belief that their race was undeserving of life, and in the USSR because they were the regimes political enemies, or because certain actions were taken due to a political ideology, none of which are incompatible with a belief in a god and gods. Not believing in god has never been a reason someone has for killing others.

James

Stephen, I like where you're coming from, but with all due respect, science has quite a bit to say about the viability or otherwise of a god (or, indeed, any supernatural entity). Have a read of this book: God The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J Stenger, emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado.

James

George Steiner said: To restate. How to deal with moral and ethical problems today in which science and the scientific method is no help. That is the question.

There's no easy answer to that one, George, but the teaching of rational morality might not be a bad place to begin; see my first posting in this thread.

Tony

I’m a little late to the party here, but never mind. Melanie says:

“He shows not only that there is no inherent conflict between science and faith..”

But of course there IS a conflict. Good science always demands evidence. Faith by very definition regards evidence as superfluous. How can there not be a conflict between there two world views?

Look, either the Archangel Gabriel really did visit Mohammed in the desert or he didn’t. Either Jesus really did come back to life again after dying on the cross or he didn’t. Which is it? Like it or not these are both claims about reality, and I don’t see why these claims shouldn’t be subjected to the same degree of critical scrutiny as any other claim.

“but that the argument for faith is now being bolstered enormously by the remarkable developments in science.”

Oh really? I would very much like to know more about these ‘remarkable developments in science’ I‘m perfectly serious. I have been a practicing biomedical scientist for the last twenty five years. If there really is evidence from my field, or any other science for any religious belief, then to put it mildly, it would profoundly change our understanding of nature and would be of considerable professional interest to me. So come on, be specific. Please note, just waving your hands about and saying “gosh, it all looks so amazingly complicated” is not good enough.

Let’s be honest Melanie, you’re not going to provide this evidence are you? Because said evidence does not exist.

James

The word ‘theory’