Print
Jesus saves
by TheAustralian
Thanks to Gordon YK Wong for the link.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23398999-38856,00.html%3Ffrom%3Dpublic_rss
Jesus saves
DEMONSTRATING the Lord works in mysterious ways, University of Oxford academics have received a research grant of pound stg. 1.9 million (which equals the Tasmanian budget on the present exchange rate) to investigate why people believe in God.
That the question has come up at all is a sign, not necessarily a divine one, of the times.
A century ago the answer would have been obvious: people believed in God because the supreme being's existence was manifest, what with him (never her) being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
Two hundred years back, believing in God was also essential to stay out of the slammer, what with the way atheists tended to end up under arrest whenever the state was short ofscapegoats.
Before then, believing in God, particularly the version the king was keen on, was essential to avoid heresy charges: never a good career move.
But today there is no script to stick to. Everybody has to work out whether they believe in God and academics are to ask questions that once would have seemed silly, or suicidal.
According to The Times, the Oxford scholars will spend the money on working out whether believing in God is a matter of nature or nurture.
The nurture argument says we believe what we are told.
This will appeal to the sorts of clergy who are more interested in revolution than the resurrection. People who believe in God are reared in families where they are taught compassion for others, responsibility for their actions and to have faith that people of goodwill can work together for the greater good. As such, believers are obviously sinners, damned because they clearly do not need divine assistance as much as individuals who don't know or don't care if God exists.
These people do not get a go in the nature theory, which holds that humanity is genetically hard-wired to believe in gods. Apparently since the dawn of time, a belief in a supreme being, who keeps a note on what we are up to, has given individuals a reason to live and get along with each other.
Maybe this is so. After all, people have faith in things much lighter on for evidence: that Brendan Nelson will be PM, that Wayne Swan will work out what NAIRU means.
As for the evolution argument, that religion helped humanity survive, maybe hymn singing among our ancient ancestors kept the sabre-toothed tigers outside the cave and the threat of human sacrifice to appease the gods kept everybody in tune. Who knows? But the problem with this argument is that, rather than die out, there are more non-believers than there were when atheism was a capital crime.
When you take into account the cost of international travel to conferences to consider these weighty questions, it's obvious the boffins will battle to manage on a mere two million quid.
So it's a good thing they will not have enough money to get into the doctrinal detail. Because finding people to explain the Albigensian heresy and scholars who are across the finer points of Socinianism is not cheap. And this is before anybody gets interested in other religions, which have doctrinal differences of their own.
An even better reason to leave the detail alone is that people get worked up over it. It's not that long ago that Europeans went to war over whether there should be statues in church, and fanatics of many theological flavours are still keen to kill everybody who does not agree with them. So we should praise whoever that it's only the reason religion exists that is on the agenda.
This also means there is one idea that will definitely not get a guernsey. That's the possibility that people believe in a supreme being because a large voice told them to sit up spiritually straight or because they have a deep faith in a divine presence. This is an obviously absurd idea. After all, it makes as much sense as believing the sacred religious texts are divinely inspired. And what theological scholar could come at that?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23398999-38856,00.html%3Ffrom%3Dpublic_rss
Jesus saves
DEMONSTRATING the Lord works in mysterious ways, University of Oxford academics have received a research grant of pound stg. 1.9 million (which equals the Tasmanian budget on the present exchange rate) to investigate why people believe in God.
That the question has come up at all is a sign, not necessarily a divine one, of the times.
A century ago the answer would have been obvious: people believed in God because the supreme being's existence was manifest, what with him (never her) being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
Two hundred years back, believing in God was also essential to stay out of the slammer, what with the way atheists tended to end up under arrest whenever the state was short ofscapegoats.
Before then, believing in God, particularly the version the king was keen on, was essential to avoid heresy charges: never a good career move.
But today there is no script to stick to. Everybody has to work out whether they believe in God and academics are to ask questions that once would have seemed silly, or suicidal.
According to The Times, the Oxford scholars will spend the money on working out whether believing in God is a matter of nature or nurture.
The nurture argument says we believe what we are told.
This will appeal to the sorts of clergy who are more interested in revolution than the resurrection. People who believe in God are reared in families where they are taught compassion for others, responsibility for their actions and to have faith that people of goodwill can work together for the greater good. As such, believers are obviously sinners, damned because they clearly do not need divine assistance as much as individuals who don't know or don't care if God exists.
These people do not get a go in the nature theory, which holds that humanity is genetically hard-wired to believe in gods. Apparently since the dawn of time, a belief in a supreme being, who keeps a note on what we are up to, has given individuals a reason to live and get along with each other.
Maybe this is so. After all, people have faith in things much lighter on for evidence: that Brendan Nelson will be PM, that Wayne Swan will work out what NAIRU means.
As for the evolution argument, that religion helped humanity survive, maybe hymn singing among our ancient ancestors kept the sabre-toothed tigers outside the cave and the threat of human sacrifice to appease the gods kept everybody in tune. Who knows? But the problem with this argument is that, rather than die out, there are more non-believers than there were when atheism was a capital crime.
When you take into account the cost of international travel to conferences to consider these weighty questions, it's obvious the boffins will battle to manage on a mere two million quid.
So it's a good thing they will not have enough money to get into the doctrinal detail. Because finding people to explain the Albigensian heresy and scholars who are across the finer points of Socinianism is not cheap. And this is before anybody gets interested in other religions, which have doctrinal differences of their own.
An even better reason to leave the detail alone is that people get worked up over it. It's not that long ago that Europeans went to war over whether there should be statues in church, and fanatics of many theological flavours are still keen to kill everybody who does not agree with them. So we should praise whoever that it's only the reason religion exists that is on the agenda.
This also means there is one idea that will definitely not get a guernsey. That's the possibility that people believe in a supreme being because a large voice told them to sit up spiritually straight or because they have a deep faith in a divine presence. This is an obviously absurd idea. After all, it makes as much sense as believing the sacred religious texts are divinely inspired. And what theological scholar could come at that?
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 52 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #146513 by Alkal on March 19, 2008 at 6:48 am
.... and I thought it was a promo for MS word.. "Jesus Saves, so his work is always current"Other Comments by Alkal
3. Comment #146520 by epeeist on March 19, 2008 at 6:57 am
Comment #146513 by Alkal
.... and I thought it was a promo for MS word.. "Jesus Saves, so his work is always current"
You could also try "Jesus saves, Ferdinand scores on the rebound".
Or "Jesus saves at Northern Rock" (trying to make it topical).
Other Comments by epeeist
4. Comment #146526 by Animavore on March 19, 2008 at 7:00 am
Maybe they should do a study on why atheists DONT believe. I know it seems obvious to you or me but I'm just calling for a balance. Other Comments by Animavore
5. Comment #146534 by SPS on March 19, 2008 at 7:13 am
Jesus saves...you from thinking for yourself.Other Comments by SPS
6. Comment #146535 by irate_atheist on March 19, 2008 at 7:16 am
Er...Why do I get the feeling of deja vu again? Other Comments by irate_atheist
7. Comment #146537 by Geoff on March 19, 2008 at 7:18 am
2. Comment #146513 by Alkal .... and I thought it was a promo for MS word.. "Jesus Saves, so his work is always current"
Jesus copies & pastes from older religions?
Other Comments by Geoff
8. Comment #146543 by Lucas on March 19, 2008 at 7:22 am
Yeah, read this one already, right? Maybe I said this then, but I'll say it again. Obviously, to some extent, its both nature and nurture. Why they try to argue one or the other exclusively is beyond me. And yes, Animavore, (you eat souls?!) they should do one on non-believers. I'm on it. Give me a year or two. But I can say right now, I won't be suprised if I find that people don't believe because of both their genetically inherent cognitive capabilities AND their environment growing up. How that will pan out exactly, I don't know. Other Comments by Lucas
9. Comment #146545 by 82abhilash on March 19, 2008 at 7:24 am
4. Comment #146526 by Animavore on March 19, 2008 at 7:00 am
Maybe they should do a study on why atheists DONT believe. I know it seems obvious to you or me but I'm just calling for a balance.
That would be a very interesting academic exercise. And just like studying identical twins can help us learn about ordinary people, so too learning about unbelief could shed light on the nature of belief.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
10. Comment #146551 by Pattern Seeker on March 19, 2008 at 7:28 am
Beelzebub clears the puck along the boards on the far side delivering a hard forecheck to the face of Moses...Lucifer has the puck and passes to Mammon on the left side, who quickly passes back to Lucifer...two minutes left for Abraham in the penalty box for a minor...Lucifer swings the puck to Mephisto, who just cleared the blue line, charging hard down the right wing after planting a vicious hit on the unsuspecting Virgin Mary... Mephisto sweeps the puck back across the middle to Lucifer leaving King David to go crashing hard into Jesus behind the nets...Whoa! Lucifer unleashes a one-timer from 15 feet...nothing is gonna touch that-Holy Crap-Jesus Saves! Jesus Saves!-I f#ckin' can't believe! He was just knocked down by David and lost his stick, somehow got to his feet, turned and blindly dove and made the most incredible glove save I have ever witnessed...Lucifer had a clean shot on goal, they had the powerplay...Hell, I thought this game was tied...Incredible-Jesus Saves-Hallelujah... Other Comments by Pattern Seeker
11. Comment #146575 by Animavore on March 19, 2008 at 7:49 am
To answer Lucas, yes, I eat souls. Other Comments by Animavore
12. Comment #146651 by Duarf Dog on March 19, 2008 at 8:57 am
Jesus saves green stamps.Other Comments by Duarf Dog
13. Comment #146654 by Madmaili on March 19, 2008 at 9:01 am
It's a complicated question. The fact that most religous people follow the religion of their parents means that there is a nurture aspect to it . Since religion has been found throught the spectrum of human culture there might be an adaption aspect to it , or it might be a by product of another adaption. There is also the fuzzy angle of need. It seems at least to me clear that some people need faith in purpose and a almighty creator to survive . Other Comments by Madmaili
14. Comment #146659 by Mitchell Gilks on March 19, 2008 at 9:04 am
I hope they come up with an answer, because I haven't a clue. Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
15. Comment #146682 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 9:20 am
Jesus Saves. Moses Invests. Other Comments by Bigorra
16. Comment #146699 by artemisa on March 19, 2008 at 9:34 am
People believe because life is full of uncertainties and frequent tragedies and in those times it's easy to succumb to a "higher power". I remember the priest frequent comment that when things are going well we forget about god but in times of need the church fills up and its treasure coffins.Other Comments by artemisa
17. Comment #146707 by Double Bass Atheist on March 19, 2008 at 9:42 am
Pattern Seeker -
Nice play-by-play! I was laughing out loud!!!
Kept waiting to see if Moses and Lucifer were going to drop the gloves?
Worth 5 for fighting, don't ya think?
;-D
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
18. Comment #146709 by Geoff on March 19, 2008 at 9:48 am
two minutes left for Abraham in the penalty box for a minor
Shouldn't that have been Mohammed? Or was Abraham a paedophile, too?
Other Comments by Geoff
19. Comment #146727 by DamnDirtyApe on March 19, 2008 at 10:14 am
*Jesus saves.
*Paladin takes 5 damage.
*Halfling takes 5 damage. Halfling has fallen.
There's a time and place for Jesus. And it's D&D.
Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe
20. Comment #146749 by Bigorra on March 19, 2008 at 10:59 am
This will appeal to the sorts of clergy who are more interested in revolution than the resurrection. People who believe in God are reared in families where they are taught compassion for others, responsibility for their actions and to have faith that people of goodwill can work together for the greater good. As such, believers are obviously sinners, damned because they clearly do not need divine assistance as much as individuals who don't know or don't care if God exists.
On other hand, non-believers teach their children to be unempathetic, irresponsible and told that everybody is a complete bastard who works only for selfish ends against the greater good. As such, Kant's Categorical Imperative has had no positive influence on secular thought or ethics. Anything the children of non-believers do isn't wrong because no Imaginary Man in the Sky is watching and assisting them.
Other Comments by Bigorra
21. Comment #146753 by ACJames on March 19, 2008 at 11:01 am
Who cares about god/Jesus. I'd rather see that money spent to on reasearch to find out why people eat Brussel's Sprouts. Other Comments by ACJames
22. Comment #146782 by Eric Blair on March 19, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Witticisms aside, surely it's all grist to the mill.I'm not sure this particular pot of money will be well spent but it seems to me if you want people to stop doing something (like, say, hitting themselves on the head with a hammer) you might look at why they do it.
If their ancestors and in fact many people's ancestors hit themselves on the head with hammers (different shapes and sizes, different strokes, etc.), all the more reason to try to find out what's at the root of this head-hammering.
This is assuming, of course, that direct appeals - from the subtle "That must hurt" to "Stop hitting yourself on the head!" -- have fallen on deaf, if not crushed ears, and that you don't want to simply take away the hammers, believing this is a decision they must make themselves.
Then once you have some inkling of why they persist in this activity, then maybe you can offer something less harmful that addresses the same need.
(Or give them a helmet, if they're not Sikh...)
EB
Other Comments by Eric Blair
23. Comment #146801 by Ilovelucy on March 19, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I thought this article was going to be about a Brazilian goalkeeper. Other Comments by Ilovelucy
24. Comment #146812 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Apparently since the dawn of time, a belief in a supreme being, who keeps a note on what we are up to, has given individuals a reason to live and get along with each other.
Funny...it fails to mention the bloodshed wrought by those of different faiths. That faith is a polariser, and essentially exclusive. How does this enable us to get along?
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
25. Comment #146813 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Jesus saves sinners...and redeems them for valuable prizes! Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
26. Comment #146817 by forksmuggler on March 19, 2008 at 1:00 pm
"Jesus saves...big bucks at Wal-Mart!"
(Seen scrawled in the local Wally World bathroom.)
Other Comments by forksmuggler
27. Comment #146870 by mmurray on March 19, 2008 at 1:54 pm
$4 million cannot be the Tasmanian budget.Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
28. Comment #146920 by D'Arcy on March 19, 2008 at 2:52 pm
"JESUS SCORES"!!!
Was the DaVinci Code right all along?
Other Comments by D'Arcy
29. Comment #147038 by Ed-words on March 19, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Side by side bumper stickersJESUS SAVES BANK of AMERICA
Other Comments by Ed-words
30. Comment #147042 by Opisthokont on March 19, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Wow. What a disorganised piece of writing! I started losing track of the author's meaning with the confusing paragraph mentioned in comment #20 (and had the same reaction myself), and it only went downhill from there. What point is it trying to make? That study of religion is a waste of money and effort? Such arguments are often applied to research of all stripes, and should be dismissed as strongly as possible whenever encountered.On the other hand, I do truly appreciate the comments here! I will be passing them on to friends.
Other Comments by Opisthokont
31. Comment #147047 by GordonYKWong on March 19, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Sorry all RD.netters, this was indeed a repost, my bad. Other Comments by GordonYKWong
32. Comment #147069 by MelM on March 19, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Great! We need some solid research into the psychopathology of religion. It could be used to develop strategies for springing people loose--I'm serious.But, will they even get as far as to suggest the factor that people are trying to escape the need for thought which can't be done? Fear of being totally responsible for one's own conclusions is not easy to overcome. People believe there's intellectual safety in herds.
Other Comments by MelM
33. Comment #147075 by MelM on March 19, 2008 at 6:40 pm
People just like a powerful ruler who will tell them what to think, tell them what to do, and take care of them.Other Comments by MelM
34. Comment #147077 by MelM on March 19, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Reason saves!Way back when, "Jesus saves" was a slogan one saw a lot. Then the car model Datsun came out with the "Datsun saves" ad slogan and I don't remember seeing much of "Jesus saves" after that. Maybe "Reason saves" would work the same way now--or maybe not.
Other Comments by MelM
35. Comment #147125 by dragonfirematrix on March 19, 2008 at 9:40 pm
So, from what does Jesus (and other gods) save us?
I guess history is replete with the horrors of religious beliefs carried out against the innocent who did not believe in the approved gods of the times. "Acts against god," which resulted in beheadings, or being burned to death alive.
Jesus does not save. There are no gods saving anyone. We must save ourselves from ourselves and from our obviously unforgiving natural environment.
I get agitated every time some goon says… JESUS SAVES!
We have natural disasters killing everyone regardless of their religious and non-religious beliefs, we have decease killing everyone regardless their religious and non-religious beliefs, we have wars killing people regardless their religious and non-religious beliefs, we have unfortunate accidents killing people regardless their religious and non-religious beliefs. NOW, if the religious believe their god created everything and if the religious believe their god controls everything then the religious must approve of their god's actions against even the most innocent (including innocent children) of humanity.
MY OPINION: Science has done more, in its relatively short history, to save and help people than all the religions combined have ever done. Science has done wonders to cure childhood deceases like polio, and more.
God(s) do not save anyone from anything because gods do not exist. That said: Why do the intelligent of humanity continue to allow the psychology of religious beliefs to rule the Earth?
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
36. Comment #147142 by Justanotheratheist on March 19, 2008 at 11:40 pm
MY OPINION: Science has done more, in its relatively short history, to save and help people than all the religions combined have ever done. Science has done wonders to cure childhood deceases like polio, and more.
Ah, but who created the scientists who did all this...Okay, just joking. I couldn't agree more.
And anyway, if everything was created then who created the polio in the first place? I want to be saved by whoever is responsible for such horrors about as much as I want to be savaged by a pack of hungy pitbull terriers.
Other Comments by Justanotheratheist
37. Comment #147145 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Jesus saves? Is that a new discount store? Woo hoo!Other Comments by Bonzai
38. Comment #147176 by lievemebe on March 20, 2008 at 1:47 am
Jesus saved science and reason 'til last.Other Comments by lievemebe
39. Comment #147179 by clodhopper on March 20, 2008 at 2:05 am
...and the funding comes from, where exactly? Other Comments by clodhopper
40. Comment #147190 by irate_atheist on March 20, 2008 at 2:46 am
39. Comment #147179 by clodhopper -...and the funding comes from, where exactly?The proceeds from selling your socks.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
41. Comment #147194 by clodhopper on March 20, 2008 at 2:56 am
Irate:
The proceeds from selling your socks.
Oh....my Templeton Foundation motif socks you mean?
Other Comments by clodhopper
42. Comment #147198 by Dinah on March 20, 2008 at 3:06 am
Re Comment #147047 'I'd rather see that money spent on research to find out why people eat Brussel's Sprouts.'To get the wind up? (Or down?)
Other Comments by Dinah
43. Comment #147201 by irate_atheist on March 20, 2008 at 3:09 am
41. Comment #147194 by clodhopper -Oh....my Templeton Foundation motif socks you mean?No. Not the socks you can always find - even when you don't want to - but the socks you can never find. The ones you actually paid for. And wanted.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
44. Comment #147276 by Ramases on March 20, 2008 at 5:22 am
For those of you who don't know the newspaper this article was published in (The Australian), I should explain it a Rupert Murdoch owned sensationalist pile of garbage.The reliability of what is printed in it is hardly greater than that of a fundamentalist christian discusssing biology.
It would be interesting to find a more reliable source concening this study and what it aims to do.
Other Comments by Ramases
45. Comment #147583 by dlitt on March 20, 2008 at 11:36 pm
What a waste of money! We tend to believe what we are told, until we grow up. Some people never grow up. Other Comments by dlitt
46. Comment #147604 by JuxtaMonkey on March 21, 2008 at 12:37 am
Pattern Seeker, I was already laughing at your avatar...
Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey
47. Comment #147611 by adamhaar on March 21, 2008 at 1:20 am
Also, for those who don't know, this was taken from The Wry Side column. That title ought to be sufficient to indicate its intentions (though not whether it's successful at achieving them).Other Comments by adamhaar
48. Comment #147638 by LeroiJones on March 21, 2008 at 3:34 am
I think we should take issue when you hear them refering to 'why do people believe in *God*'. Surely it should be God(s) or something like that. The first statement seems to imply that God is real but some don't believe in it. Other Comments by LeroiJones
49. Comment #147643 by Dr Nev on March 21, 2008 at 3:47 am
...you know how sometimes socks just vanish and you end up with odd pairs - That's where they get the money to fund research like this... The bastards!! Other Comments by Dr Nev
50. Comment #148293 by D'Arcy on March 22, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Dr Nev Says:
...you know how sometimes socks just vanish and you end up with odd pairs - That's where they get the money to fund research like this... The bastards!!
Was it Douglas Adams who had a line on this? All those missing socks, paper clips, pens, keys ..... you name it, had gone to assemble themselves into an alternate universe?
I have a special part of a drawer where single socks are put, in the hope of making a pair. At the moment there are about 16 lonely batchelors in there looking for a mate but are too racist to consider co-habitation.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."
Bertrand Russell
Other Recommended Reading
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #146509 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 6:45 am
Topic Already Posted, reported by The TimesOther Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad