Friday, August 29, 2008 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Times Online

Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4635192.ece

The argument that God exists based on design figures nowhere in the Hebrew Bible

There are some even in this sceptical age who still believe that God is an old man with a long beard. His name is Charles Darwin, patron saint of scientific atheists.

Next year will be a double anniversary for followers of Darwin: the 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species. We will no doubt hear it asserted that Darwin dealt a death blow to religious belief.

That, it should be said, is quite untrue. What it dealt a death blow to was one very poor argument for the existence of God, namely the argument from design. This argument figures nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. It does not even belong to its world of thought. It belongs instead to the tradition of Ancient Greece and to the idea that the most important truths are those that can be proved.

In fact none of the most important truths can be proved: that right is sovereign over might, that it is better to be loved than feared, that every human being however poor or powerless is worthy of respect, that peace is nobler than war, forgiveness greater than revenge, and hope a higher virtue than resignation to blind fate. Lives have been lived and civilisations built in defiance of these truths, yet they remain true.

What might a religious believer say to Darwin's heirs? The following thoughts are purely hypothetical, but he or she might say, first, that Darwin helped us to understand the "how" of God's "Let there be". The Creator created not just life but life that is in itself creative.

That may be the meaning of the otherwise untranslatable phrase in Genesis ii, 3, that on the seventh day God rested "from all His work that God had created la'asot", which means literally "to do, act, make". Jewish commentators understood this to mean that God implanted creativity into nature. God creates something from nothing. Nature creates something from something. Darwin brought new depth to this idea.

The believer might continue that Darwin helped us to understand one of the key ideas of the Bible: the kinship between humans and animals. The first humans were forbidden to kill animals for food. The covenant with Noah after the flood was made also, as Genesis ix states five times, "with every living creature". The Bible forbids cruelty to animals. This is the polar opposite of the view of Descartes, that animals lack souls and therefore can be used as we will.

The believer might go on to say, as does Matt Ridley in his book Genome, that we now know, having deciphered the genetic code, that all life in its seemingly endless variety has a single source. In his words: "There was only one creation, one single event when life was born." The miracle of monotheism is that unity up there creates diversity down here.

The believer might wonder, as does Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, in his Just Six Numbers, at the extraordinary precision of the six mathematical constants that determine the shape of the Universe, such that if even one were fractionally different neither we nor the Universe would exist.

The believer might mention other mysteries, such as how did life evolve from non-life? How did sentience emerge? How was the uniquely human capacity for self-consciousness born? How did life evolve at such speed that even Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was forced to suggest that it came from Mars? And the ultimate ontological question: why is there something rather than nothing?

We might refer to the arguments that persuaded the philosopher Antony Flew, late in life, to abandon his atheism. She might cite the curious paradox, noted by Richard Dawkins, that selfish genes get together and produce selfless people. We might wonder at the fact that Homo sapiens is the only known life form in the Universe capable of asking "Why?" And we might add, in the spirit of Godel's Theorem, that there are truths within the system that cannot be proved within the system.

We would then say: None of these is a proof. Each, rather, is a source of wonder. The Psalm does not say, "The heavens prove the existence of God". It says, "The heavens declare the glory of God". Darwin helped us to understand how the many emerged from one. The more we know about the intricacy and improbability of life, the more reason we have to wonder and give thanks.

Sir Jonathan Sacks is Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, August 29, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 98 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #239558 by hobar on August 29, 2008 at 11:28 pm

If people are willing to make so many concessions concerning god, in the process forcing him into a highly more likeable name like "Nature," one wonders why you'd need to believe in (much less pray to) him at all.

Other Comments by hobar

2. Comment #239566 by Shuggy on August 29, 2008 at 11:48 pm

We will no doubt hear it asserted that Darwin dealt a death blow to religious belief.

That, it should be said, is quite untrue. What it dealt a death blow to was one very poor argument for the existence of God, namely the argument from design.

Or rather, it dealt a death blow to the idea that the argument from design made God necessary. With hindsight, Rabbi Sacks may call the argument from design "one very poor argument" but when the Beagle sailed it was the main argument, and considered compelling. It is only thanks to Darwin that he can call it "very poor".

In fact none of the most important truths can be proved: that right is sovereign over might, that it is better to be loved than feared, that every human being however poor or powerless is worthy of respect, that peace is nobler than war, forgiveness greater than revenge, and hope a higher virtue than resignation to blind fate.

All noble sentiments in general, but all with particular exceptions. The God of the Hebrew scriptures seems to disagree with all of them at some time or another. They can't be proved because they aren't universally true at every time and place. Exploring the exceptions is an interesting excercise.

The Bible forbids cruelty to animals. This is the polar opposite of the view of Descartes, that animals lack souls and therefore can be used as we will.

Not quite polar. Evolution demonstrates that we are not a separate creation from animals but related to them in the same way we are to our cousins, only (much) more distantly. The biblical view says we are fundamentally different from them and our considerations take absolute precedence over theirs. Our duty to them is only one of "stewardship".

The believer might wonder, ...
The believer might mention other mysteries ...

Rabbi Sacks is having a bob both ways, flirting with the argument from design without either embracing it or rejecting it. These questions are amenable to the scientific method, and may well be answered quite soon. What will he do then? Find a narrower Gap to put his G-d in?

he might cite the curious paradox, noted by Richard Dawkins, that selfish genes get together and produce selfless people.

Is this really any more mysterious than the curious paradox that a colourless liquid like water, spread sufficiently thin, generates rainbow-coloured patterns?

Other Comments by Shuggy

3. Comment #239567 by SteveN on August 29, 2008 at 11:51 pm

This article is so full of cherry-picked half-truths , straw-men and woolly thinking that I am, not for the first time, appalled that it is given space in the Times. The Rabbi obviously didn't get his knighthood for his intellectual contributions. Another fine example of religious belief destroying the ability for rational thought.

Other Comments by SteveN

4. Comment #239569 by irate_atheist on August 29, 2008 at 11:52 pm

The more we know about the intricacy and improbability of life, the more reason we have to wonder and give thanks.

The more we know about the intricacy and improbability of ~~life~~ any proposed god, the more reason we have to wonder ~~and give thanks~~ why so many people are stupid enough to belive in them.

There. That's fixed it.

This article is full of misrepresentations, wilfull ignorance, arguing from false premises and strawmen.

Thank fuck I saw through all this bullshit even as a young child.

And yes - my usual epithet applies about this man.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

5. Comment #239570 by jeremynel on August 29, 2008 at 11:54 pm

I love how he uses the nebulous, abstract God in this article. As P.Z. Myers said of this "confusion between different concepts of this god-thingie":

Theologians play that one like a harp, though, turning it into a useful strategem. Toss the attractive, personal, loving or vengeful anthropomorphic tribal god to the hoi-polloi to keep them happy, no matter how ridiculous the idea is and how quickly it fails on casual inspection, while holding the abstract, useless, lofty god in reserve to lob at the uppity atheists when they dare to raise questions...It gets annoying. We need two names for these two concepts, I think. How about just plain "God" for the personal, loving, being that most Christians believe in, and "Oom" for the bloodless, fuzzy, impersonal abstraction of the theologians? Not that the theologians will ever go along with it�quot;the last thing they want made obvious is the fact that they're studying a completely different god from the creature most of the culture is worshipping.

With this God in tow, he can happily admit that the argument from design is awful - he has a thousand more "mysteries" with which to prop God-the-latter up.

The second half of the article alternates between vacuous and erroneous. For instance, "the curious paradox, noted by Richard Dawkins, that selfish genes get together and produce selfless people" is only superficially a paradox, and has been resolved by (amongst others) the very same author, in his very first book.

Other Comments by jeremynel

6. Comment #239572 by irate_atheist on August 29, 2008 at 11:55 pm

3. Comment #239567 by SteveN -

Fuckit. I may be forced to by The Guardian today. At least it has an in-depth interview with Alastair Darling. As a bit of a politico myself, I've more interest in what he has to say than having a paper with this bilge in it.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

7. Comment #239575 by Stormkahn on August 29, 2008 at 11:59 pm

I have pondered your whole article at length Mr Sacks and formulated the following well considered response....Bollocks.

Too many holes, just can't make up my mind which one to go for!!!

Other Comments by Stormkahn

8. Comment #239576 by 8teist on August 30, 2008 at 12:01 am

The believer might continue that Darwin helped us to understand one of the key ideas of the Bible: the kinship between humans and animals. The first humans were forbidden to kill animals for food. The covenant with Noah after the flood was made also, as Genesis ix states five times, "with every living creature". The Bible forbids cruelty to animals.

Does this mean that Jews and Christians are supposed to be vegetarians?
Well there`s the first rule broken right from the start.I don`t think this will go down to well in certain regions of the western world.

Other Comments by 8teist

9. Comment #239578 by irate_atheist on August 30, 2008 at 12:10 am

8teist -

He talks about the flood. So he claims it happened. Exactly as it states in the old testament. He is therefore a complete idiot.

Moreover, having dismissed the argument from design, the entire article is an argument from design.

Humans were designed to have consciousness - how else could we have evolved to be like this!

Life was designed - simple self-replicators could never have arisen due to natural chemical processes!

The universe was designed - nothing to do with vacuum wuantum fluctuations. No Hawking radiation involved. Nothing like that. Just an immense bieng that somehow popped into existence - knowing everything - and then created everything.

He is either mad, stupid or a liar. For his sake I hope he's just a liar.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

10. Comment #239581 by Laurie Fraser on August 30, 2008 at 12:19 am

Sorry, irate - you're wrong. Mad and stupid - a nominee for the Golden Fucktard award.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

11. Comment #239584 by NMcC on August 30, 2008 at 12:49 am

"That, it should be said, is quite untrue. What it dealt a death blow to was one very poor argument for the existence of God, namely the argument from design."

I was under the distinct impression that, far from being 'one very poor argument', the argument from design was just about their only argument.

What other arguments do they have? The argument from design impacts on every one of their claims. And, certainly, as noted by another poster above, before Darwin, would have constituted THE argument for the existence of God.

People like Jonathan Sacks have simply been forced to make the best of a bad job by bending further and further in their theology in order to (try and) accommodate more and more contrary evidence.

I believe that for people like Sacks and the Archbishop of Canterbury, it would be a blessed relief for them to throw up their hands in defeat and proclaim, Basil Fawltyesque fashion, 'Right, OK, you win! It's a lot of stupid nonsense and I'm not going to defend it anymore!'

Other Comments by NMcC

12. Comment #239585 by Sargeist on August 30, 2008 at 12:59 am

She might cite the curious paradox, noted by Richard Dawkins, that selfish genes get together and produce selfless people.

What? I just find myself sitting here at the laptop so often these days, struggling to find something else to say other than a gob-smacked "what?!"

Articles like this worry me greatly. Like most people, I presume, I like to think that I think sensibly and rationally, but articles such as this demonstrate that one can be an absolute fuckwit, seemingly without realising it.

Other Comments by Sargeist

13. Comment #239586 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 30, 2008 at 1:04 am

This argument figures nowhere in the Hebrew Bible.

I am not aware of any argument for God's existence in the Bible. No wonder since it was written when most people took the existence of gods for granted. But the Bible does make claims about God's nature and his plans for his creation. Unlike this deluded rabbi I am not able to see how these claims can be compatible with evolution by natural selection. I wish "advanced theologians" would stop writing drivel like the piece above.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

14. Comment #239588 by nalfeshnee on August 30, 2008 at 1:13 am

This is what I love about RD.net: an apologist "amuse bouche" as a starter and then the main course: a whole slew series of intelligent, funny and knowledgeable commentaries on it.

RD.net: apologetics exegesis at its finest!

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

15. Comment #239591 by Chris Davis on August 30, 2008 at 1:26 am

Verily, a wise man hath said: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Sacks uses his partial ignorance as a weapon - Look, I agree with Darwin! See, I read Ridley! Therefore what I say is scientific.

And then he falls straight back into wooliness: I can't prove that right is better than might, or compassion better than hate; therefore goddidit!

Perhaps if he'd read more of Ridley's work - like 'Origin of Virtue' - he would see that Good is a convention, not a universal; and it's wired into our genes because what we call Right Action is beneficial to the social animals that we are.

It's perfectly possible to 'prove' that 'good' is 'better' than 'bad'. You just have to analyse their effects on society and its individuals. It's not necessary for God to have declared Right and Wrong - the axioms are built into the structure of social animals.

Which is why we value compassion, fairness and trust, and leopards think they're stupid notions.

Other Comments by Chris Davis

16. Comment #239594 by rod-the-farmer on August 30, 2008 at 1:36 am

the Bible forbids cruelty to animals.

Unless you ARE god, in which case feel free to drown most of those alive at the time of the flood. Different strokes for different folks.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

17. Comment #239597 by AllanW on August 30, 2008 at 1:48 am

Paraphrase of this article;

Scene; Mob of religious believers worried about the intrusion of scientific facts and the application of reason into their universe.

Enter; Jonathan Sacks in costume.

Waves hands.

"You don't need to listen to these ideas."

Response; We don't need to listen to these ideas.

"They're not the ideas you're looking for."

Response; They're not the ideas we're looking for.

"You can go back to sleep now."

Response; We can go back to sleep now.

"Move on."

The mob moves on.

Other Comments by AllanW

18. Comment #239598 by DamnDirtyApe on August 30, 2008 at 1:59 am

Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

19. Comment #239601 by Logicel on August 30, 2008 at 2:05 am

Sachs, I am feeling in a generous mood today, so here's a tool that will come in handy for your next 'article':

www.mtmultipleuse.org/public_access/images/big shovel close.jpg

The crapball that you are rolling down the hill of irrationality demands a bigger shovel for transportation from one vacuous article to the next.

Other Comments by Logicel

20. Comment #239605 by Shuggy on August 30, 2008 at 2:35 am

And the ultimate ontological question: why is there something rather than nothing?

I seem to remember that RD deals with it in TGD but I can't find the reference. I would like to ask some metaquestions about it:
1. Does there have to be a reason?
2. What would an answer look like?
3. What kind of answer is "Because something that is not something conjured something into existence"?
4. Doesn't the previous answer imply that God is not something, i.e. does not exist?

Other Comments by Shuggy

21. Comment #239608 by Logicel on August 30, 2008 at 2:47 am

Shuggy, from River Out of Eden:

"I have lost count of the number of times a member of the audience has stood up after a public lecture I have given and said something like the following: 'You scientists are very good at answering 'how' questions. But you must admit you're powerless when it comes to 'why' questions.'

"Behind the question there is always an unspoken, but never justified implication that since science is unable to answer 'why' questions, there must be some other discipline that is qualified to answer them. This implication is, of course, quite illogical. . . . Questions can be simply inappropriate, however heartfelt their framing."

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/riverla.shtml

Other Comments by Logicel

22. Comment #239609 by ImagineAZ on August 30, 2008 at 2:52 am

This article is really just a classic example of: "Hopefully none of my readers have ever read the Hebrew Bible, so if I'm vague enough, everyone will assume that I'm making a point, and that my point is right."

A couple people have already mentioned these ideas, but I couldn't sit still without saying something:

"peace is nobler than war..." Rabbi, have you ever read Numbers? The Book of Joshua? Please give us your summary of how God commanded the Israelites to peacefully take over Canaan.

"God forbids cruelty to animals." Rabbi, have you ever read Leviticus? (Genesis has already been mentioned.) How many times did God say that he enjoys the smell of burning animals?

After you finish reading the Hebrew Bible (for the first time, apparently), please read some Victor Stenger and Steven Weinberg, lest you come across as a moron when it comes to the "fine-tuning argument."

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

23. Comment #239614 by RichardofYork on August 30, 2008 at 3:38 am

Sacks your a noob, nothing there of any substance just a banal claim to knowledge you cant possibly have .

Other Comments by RichardofYork

24. Comment #239616 by Duff on August 30, 2008 at 3:46 am

The rabbinical version of "thats not my god" shtick.

Other Comments by Duff

25. Comment #239618 by Vaal on August 30, 2008 at 3:56 am

What Bible has he been reading? It isn't the one I read from cover to cover. Talk about cherry-picking. He should be ashamed of himself.

We might wonder at the fact that Homo sapiens is the only known life form in the Universe capable of asking "Why?"

YOU might wonder. Yep, as you have said, the "only known life form in the Universe", but as we only know about life in our microscopic backyard and have barely explored a minuscule part of our own solar system, it is the height of arrogance and stupidity to assume we are the only sentient being in the ENTIRE universe. It is a bit like a crab in a puddle in England speculating that they are the only crabs in the known universe, yet to them a crab in a puddle in Australia is something they will never be able to detect, just speculate about.

The heavens declare the glory of God

Really, how is that? Most of the Universe is an extremely unfriendly place, even on Earth we are regularly smashed with asteroids, are at the mercy of any titanic astronomical or geological event that could end life instantly on the planet. Most of the Universe is nothing more than violence on a colossal and unimaginable scale.

the kinship between humans and animals

Again, how long does it take to get in your thick skull that we ARE animals, not separate from them, we are placental mammals (primates) who evolved large brains, and all animals on the planet are related to each other. Wakey wakey eggs and bacey! Credulous fool.

All the rest of it is the usual straw man drivel that has been dissected again and again and again on this site, and elsewhere. Honestly, if these are the best arguments for the existence of God(s), then these guys are living in Disney land. It is utterly embarrassing, and deserves nothing more than contempt.

EDIT: Man, the religites really are on full retreat.

Other Comments by Vaal

26. Comment #239620 by tkdvipers on August 30, 2008 at 4:01 am

What makes my brain so fuzzy is it seems he's essentially saying.

"There's stuff we don't yet know, so therefore we know that god did it."

What was the point in mentioning Descartes? Does he think the reader will read between the lines and decide that every atheist lives by Descartes ideas?

Since there is negligible scientific evidence for the flood he shouldn't assert it to be true.

With an article like this I just wish somebody with more experience than myself could sit down with the writer and go through each point until their only defence of their belief is just that, belief.
Not "well atheists are attacking something I don't subscribe too, therefore I'm safe."

Other Comments by tkdvipers

27. Comment #239623 by ergaster on August 30, 2008 at 4:08 am

The believer might wonder, as does Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, in his Just Six Numbers, at the extraordinary precision of the six mathematical constants that determine the shape of the Universe...

The good name of Martin Rees is dishonestly besmirched here. It's been years since I read Rees's book but AFAIK, he never implied a goddidit solution to the universal constants. Rees is a proponent of the many universes theories and it's preposterous the see his name in the same article as stuff like "the covenant with Noah".

Is the Rabbi similarly dishonest about using Matt Ridley's name?

The believer might go on to say, as does Matt Ridley...

I haven't read Ridley's book but I've seen his name many times in other books and made a mental note that he is a real scientist.

The Rabbi's choice of words suggets to me at least that Ridley (and Rees) shares the Rabbi's views.

Other Comments by ergaster

28. Comment #239625 by Beusfalus on August 30, 2008 at 4:20 am

the Bible forbids cruelty to animals

What compendium was Leviticus in again then.....??

(Chapters 1 - 9)
God's instructions for animal sacrifices

God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. Such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord."

Maybe the Rabbi hasn't read the bible....doesn't surprise me though....how many times has TGD been ciritcised by the fundies with out even the decency of having read it.

Other Comments by Beusfalus

29. Comment #239626 by JanChan on August 30, 2008 at 4:21 am

Why does this stupid kind of argument keep popping up from bishops and rabbis and all the other people who say "evolution is true, but somewhere out there there must be something..."?

"...at the extraordinary precision of the six mathematical constants that determine the shape of the Universe, such that if even one were fractionally different neither we nor the Universe would exist. "

Don't they realise that there is nothing to compare the fundamental constants of the universe to? That we only know about THIS universe and not any others? That a slight change doesn't cause all life in all possible universes to not exist, just that it would not cause the kind of universe with the kind of life we see today to appear. The most anyone can say is that we wouldn't be here if the constants were different, which doesn't seem like a big deal. It's like saying "if I didn't eat that rotten food, I wouldn't get that stomach ache", so what? Big Deal! It's not as if not eating rotten food would cause all stomach aches to cease to exist.

Any statistician can tell you that it is a terrible argument, you can't predict all possible universes with different constants by just using 1 data point. You can't even draw a line on a graph with 1 data point!!! And then these idiots try to tell us that we can discern what will happen for all other data points on the graph, and all you want to do is find some way to strangle the stupidity out of their heads. Hmm, I wonder what these people were doing in Math class or in school.

Other Comments by JanChan

30. Comment #239627 by Ygern on August 30, 2008 at 4:25 am

The good old: Argument from Ignorance, therefore God of the Gaps.

*sighs*

I wish such a respected scholar could come up with a more original idea.

But I guess he can't. Or can't be bothered.

Other Comments by Ygern

31. Comment #239628 by stephenray on August 30, 2008 at 4:25 am

The rabbi is conflating some rather complex issues in the paragraph in which he cites Matt Ridley.

AFAIK there are two important events (probably others as well): the creation of organic molecules from inorganic precursors - subject of the famous Miller-Urey experiments. That is likely to have happened millions of times.

And the creation of information molecules - RNA, or something that preceded it - making evolution possible by creating inheritance of characteristics.

That is also likely to have happened millions of times.

It is certainly possible, indeed likely, that all life currently on earth is descended from a single organism. But how many other organisms were around at the same time as that one was born, but which no longer have any descendants, is anybody's guess.

So the rabbi's feeble attempt to suggest that 'if science postulates a single origin for organic life - why! That's what the bible says too! ' doesn't work. Genesis doesn't say anything about a multitude of other creation events happening around the same time but which didn't lead to our current crop of all living things...

Other Comments by stephenray

32. Comment #239629 by Marcus Hill on August 30, 2008 at 4:30 am

Anyone who tries to apply Godel's Theorems to any field outside of formal mathematical proof doesn't have the first clue about what they say.

Other Comments by Marcus Hill

33. Comment #239630 by PaulJ on August 30, 2008 at 4:30 am

The believer might mention other mysteries, such as how did life evolve from non-life? How did sentience emerge? How was the uniquely human capacity for self-consciousness born? How did life evolve at such speed that even Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was forced to suggest that it came from Mars? And the ultimate ontological question: why is there something rather than nothing?

Tempting though it might be to dismiss this article along with all the others that simply don't stand up to even superficial scrutiny, the fact that Sacks is held in some esteem for his intellectual pronouncements (though probably not here on RD.net), leads me to suggest that we of unbelief should not shirk our duty to point out the weaknesses of his argument.

And so:

The believer might indeed mention other mysteries, but would do well to formulate the questions better. For example, how do we define "life"? What do we mean by sentience? As for self-consciousness, it's my understanding that recent animal studies have shown that this capacity is by no means uniquely human. And the speed of evolution can't be considered without some measure of the supposed limits on its rate. Arguing from authority proves little. How much of a 'mystery' is it, actually?

Why there is something rather than nothing has been shown to be a non-question (see "Why Is There a Universe at All, Rather Than Just Nothing?" by Adolf Grunbaum, Free Inquiry June/July & August/September 2008).

Other Comments by PaulJ

34. Comment #239632 by Opisthokont on August 30, 2008 at 4:47 am

Interesting... Sir Jonathan starts off with saying that the argument from design is useless, and then makes the argument from design, just a few steps farther back. Does he not see this? If he did (and he was honest) he should at least admit that.

Meanwhile, someone in the UK should start suing people like this for libel every time that they imply that atheists lack a sense of wonder. The libel laws there are ludicrously unfair, and could well result in a victory for the plaintiff. Should that be the case, either the apologists will stop implying that atheists are deficient in basic humanity, or the unjust libel laws might get reassessed. Either way, we win. And even if the case does not go in favour of the plaintiff, it would raise consciousness.

Finally, given that this man still expects us to believe in miracles: "Silly rabbi, tricks are for kids!"

Other Comments by Opisthokont

35. Comment #239636 by 4horsefins on August 30, 2008 at 5:21 am

"If the universal laws of physics were even slightly different, we would not exist."

These are the statements that effect me the most. The answer seems so easy, yet difficult to explain.
For the theist, this is their proof, for me, it just
seems logical that if the laws were different, we wouldn't be here. I need not insert a law creator.
The laws of physics are simply labels we have placed on universal constants, what is confusing is why the theist believes because they are constant, therefore they are created, QED. It makes no sence.

Other Comments by 4horsefins

36. Comment #239654 by SPS on August 30, 2008 at 6:20 am

It appears to be a recurring theme of religious apologists that scientific understanding is to be excluded if scientific understanding doesn't explain and precede every aspect of existence, somehow requiring an understanding and explanation of mechanism, else demanding that 'religious faith' and 'god-given' is the answer. And, then there's the other recurring theme, where, if there is a great deal of understanding through science with 'x' explaining 'y', the apologist will credit god for both. But, as far I know, existence always precedes understanding, understanding itself being subject to evolution.

Other Comments by SPS

37. Comment #239661 by Vinelectric on August 30, 2008 at 6:33 am

Shuggy

No. 239566

Shuggy you're a Genius.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

38. Comment #239669 by Clappers on August 30, 2008 at 6:54 am

I once saw a debate (at Jewish Book Week)between Jonathan Sachs and Steven Pinker. During the questions afterwards, every answer SP gave was direct and illuminating, every answer from JS was humerous or anecdotal. "Well the sages say, or that reminds me of the story"

At book signings afterwards, one or 2 people buying the Rabbi's books, a queue of people buying SP's book

I judge people by wht they do, not what they say

Other Comments by Clappers

39. Comment #239673 by Border Collie on August 30, 2008 at 7:10 am

'followers of Darwin' ... gee, I wonder why ... possibly because he made almost perfect sense from evidence? Just another attempt by religion to cash in on Darwin anniversaries and to try to own Darwinism ... It's all about religion, it's all about religion!

Other Comments by Border Collie

40. Comment #239674 by Haymoon on August 30, 2008 at 7:12 am

This is mostly poetic language and metaphor; nice to meditate on but damn all to do with reality. After seeing a recent TV programme about the Heaven's Gate cult and the seemingly nice "sane" people (apart from the leaders!) involved with it, it strikes me that a good proportion of humanity is beyond rational reach.

Other Comments by Haymoon

41. Comment #239688 by NormanDoering on August 30, 2008 at 7:55 am

In fact none of the most important truths can be proved: that right is sovereign over might, that it is better to be loved than feared, that every human being however poor or powerless is worthy of respect, that peace is nobler than war, forgiveness greater than revenge, and hope a higher virtue than resignation to blind fate. Lives have been lived and civilisations built in defiance of these truths, yet they remain true.

No, they do not remain true. They remain vague platitudes that people who can't face reality want to be true. Peace is not nobler than war if the cost of peace is giving into tyranny. Right is not automatically "sovereign" over might in the real world, not until you can use reason to argue enough people into seeing what is "right" and by so doing become mightier as a group. If every human being however poor or powerless is worthy of respect, then define what respect entails. Hope is not a higher virtue than resignation to blind fate if you have to deny reality in order to feed your hope.

Beliefs have consequences:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/consequences-of-belief.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

42. Comment #239693 by Jesus was a zombie on August 30, 2008 at 8:04 am

"How was the uniquely human capacity for self-consciousness born?"

I'm sorry, when did we come to the concensus that self-consciousness is uniquely human?

"The Bible forbids cruelty to animals"

Then what the hell did I spend a year reading in R.E class?

And as for the reason behind it all, the meaning of life ect. the only honest reply I can give to that question is "why does there have to be a reason?" I've never really seen a need for one.

Other Comments by Jesus was a zombie

43. Comment #239700 by defaithed on August 30, 2008 at 8:11 am

Oh, that wacky rabbi! "The Bible forbids cruelty to animals", he bleats. No, the Bible *revels* in the mindless slaughter of animals, in all those times Yahweh tells "His people" to destroy every inhabitant of the next village on His death list, right down to the farm animals.

And even when Yahweh tones down the war for a chapter or two, he demands the butchering and burning of animals - with the pieces to be hacked in such-and-such a way, and the blood splattered just so - for no reason other than that He gets off on the smell.

Oh, and then he drowned every land animal in the world, except for two of each kind. God hates animals.

Animals still got off easy compared to people, though. In the rabbi's holy guide to morals and clean living, Yahweh commands genocides right and left (sometimes with virgin girls spared for later rape), slays men and women and children with plagues, demands that pregnant women and infants be butchered with swords, gives a thumbs-up to slavery, decrees executions for idiotic reasons... etc., etc., everyone here knows the atrocity list.

Then there's that flood again: killed nearly every animal, AND killed every human fetus on earth. (God: Abortionist par excellence. No child left behind, indeed!)

Rabbi Sacks! I know that's all off your intended topic of pretending to have some wise religious insight into biology. But since you're the one bringing up the "God is kind to animals" tangent, perhaps you can comment on the seething, bloodthirsty hatred that your holy books say He actually holds toward all his creations?

Other Comments by defaithed

44. Comment #239705 by carbonman on August 30, 2008 at 8:17 am

Like other theistic articles, this one doesn't suggest to me that its author actually believes the rubbish he has written. Rather, against the current climate in which theistic drivel is guaranteed a warm reception, he knows he can get away with it. But in the words of Roger Waters - albeit slowly - the tide is turning. One day articles like this will attract the same ridicule as those claiming the reality of fairies and witchcraft, and disingenuous intellectuals like Sacks will have to stop writing them.

Other Comments by carbonman

45. Comment #239707 by phasmagigas on August 30, 2008 at 8:22 am

so what is the rabbi actually trying to say??

non life>life, thats almost naive, its assuming some magical event.
crick of course didnt discover DNA and that business of forcing a notion that life came from mars sounds like a serious misquote or some idea probably long rejected. sounds like the rabbi is trying for half truths to persuade.

The believer might continue that Darwin helped us to understand one of the key ideas of the Bible: the kinship between humans and animals. The first humans were forbidden to kill animals for food. The covenant with Noah after the flood was made also, as Genesis ix states five times, "with every living creature". The Bible forbids cruelty to animals.

forbidding cruelty to animals, well thats a great idea although i dont see the point hes making, and most christians arent vegetarian anyway. many believers do not accept evolution and use this as the cornerstone of their ignorance generally, the rabbi ought to be persuading them with this rather important notion than wishy washying us with this godidit business.

theists seem to be 'experts' at saying very, very little.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

46. Comment #239710 by Ishruul on August 30, 2008 at 8:26 am

I had to read that article twice just to be certain I didn't misinterpret it. I was sure it was about Darwin and is review on Genesis.

Alas, no Phil Collin around at the time it seem, therefore he had to settle down for the Bible. Then again, this article is not about Darwin's view on the genesis, but rather another bullshit attempt by creationism to get Darwin under the warm wing of biblical ignorance.

Hitler was a catholic, 'in God we trust' was their fucking motto. Denial and imagination land, fuck it, they just want to rewrite history to suit their stupid beliefs.

I really wonder if the pope and other church leaders know there's no god and supernatural world, but why close a business that rake the money in?

Other Comments by Ishruul

47. Comment #239711 by Cartomancer on August 30, 2008 at 8:26 am

I often wonder about rabbis. People keep telling me they have some kind of formidable intellectual tradition behind them. I hear all kinds of talk about how the jews are a scholarly people, how yesheva schools inculcate a strongly critical, rational approach to the world, how jewish thinkers have played a massive part in the transmission of knowledge over the centuries.

I have seen very little evidence that their scholarship is of any value to the modern world whatsoever. If this is representative of it then they are among the most over-hyped thinkers there have ever been. Now, of course, I'm not dismissing all intellectuals who happen to be of jewish origin. Petrus Alfonsi, Spinoza, Einstein and Woody Allen have all had some important things to say, though one of those was a convert of convenience to christianity and the others were all atheists of some stripe. I'm even willing to praise the scholastic contributions of Moses Maimonides on their own terms. But I have seen nothing of talmudic scholarship or jewish religious thought that distinguishes it in any way, shape or form from any other kind of religious scholarship. It's all unadulterated pointless rubbish.

In fact, it seems to me that the materials the jewish religious scholar has to hand are singularly dull and unpromising. At least the new testament has some attempt at a radical ethics of cooperation, albeit spoiled by the obsessive interest in the meaningless concept of sin throughout its later chapters. At least the buddhist suras and hindu sutras have a measure of contemplative wisdom to impart, and they're not really canonical in quite the same way. Only the koran seems to rival the old testament for sheer primitivism, obscurantism without purpose, bigotry, weirdness and lack of good ethical teaching. No wonder rabbis tend toward puff and abstraction given such a meagre starting point.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

48. Comment #239715 by carbonman on August 30, 2008 at 8:39 am

Ishruul wrote

I really wonder if the pope and other church leaders know there's no god and supernatural world

I think they do. I really think they do. Or I should say they are about 6 on RD's scale.

Other Comments by carbonman

49. Comment #239717 by huzonfurst on August 30, 2008 at 8:41 am

Does anyone else ever wonder that perhaps we're asking the wrong question when we say "Why?" The other side of "Why?" is Why not?" - an equally valid question.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

50. Comment #239718 by Mark Barratt on August 30, 2008 at 8:42 am

Why do monotheists ever talk about "right being sovereign over might"?

They worship their god, whom they believe to be the mightiest entity in existence, and they think anything it says is right. Surely this is the ULTIMATE example of "might equals right".

Other Comments by Mark Barratt

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last