Print
Do the laws of God trump those of man?
by Globe and Mail
Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071214.wsaundersreck1214/BNStory/International/home
DOUG SAUNDERS
Globe and Mail Update
EDINBURGH — We may never know exactly why 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was strangled in Msissauga this week. Her father, Muhammad, has been charged with murder, and he is, by all accounts, a very religious man, whereas his daughter didn't want to cover her head in the style favoured by Muslims in his native Pakistan.
Whether her death was a direct result of this theological schism, or of some more prosaic explosion of family rage, is now irrelevant. It has become a story about the limits of tolerance. A national debate has erupted around poor Aqsa, and it is largely a debate about the place of extreme religious belief in a liberal society.
This happens to have been the central topic of a dramatic argument that has inflamed Europe's leading thinkers for much of this year and it would be useful to ship some of its rhetoric across the Atlantic.
A lot of people have been using the words "integration" and "multiculturalism" to discuss the Parvez case. These concepts, I would argue, are somewhat beside the point. Members of the family are, in most important respects, fully integrated and fluent Canadians. And they don't seem to have been stuck in a cultural ghetto; if there really were pressures inside the father's head, they didn't come from the varied and mostly secular people around them.
What we are really concerned about here is the question of how to deal with those in our midst who are antinomians — that is, people who believe the laws of God should trump the laws of man. Ever since we first built societies out of reason and mutual respect during the Enlightenment, the presence of religious true believers has been a problem. Should renunciation of spiritual authority be a prerequisite for membership in a free society?
Antinomians can be nothing more than charming nuisances, like William Blake, whose poetry was a long manifesto of antinomianism. Or they can be Osama bin Laden.
"What to say," Voltaire asked three centuries ago, "to a man who tells you he prefers to obey God than to obey men, and who is consequently sure of entering the gates of heaven by slitting your throat?"
That quotation opened this year's debate, in January. It was used by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner to launch a long, wild attack on Dutch-American writer Ian Buruma (his essay, and the rest of this debate, can be found on the excellent Berlin website signandsight.com).
Mr. Buruma had just published a fantastic book titled Murder In Amsterdam, in which he returns to his native Holland to explore the slaying, by a Muslim extremist, of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.
The central figure in his book is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch activist and MP whose childhood in Africa resembled that of Aqsa Parvez in Mississauga, but who succumbed, embracing fundamentalist Islam, and was horribly abused by men.
Still, she was luckier than Aqsa: She fled, turned her back on the faith and in the end became an impressive and world-famous voice of anti-religious passion.
She occupies a largely heroic position in Mr. Buruma's book, but he notes toward the end that she has undercut her own cause: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali was no Voltaire," he writes of her more extreme provocations. "For Voltaire had flung his insults at the Catholic Church … while Ayaan risked offending only a minority that was already feeling vulnerable in the heart of Europe."
British writer Timothy Garton Ash made the point more strongly a few weeks later: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now a brave, outspoken, slightly simplistic Enlightenment fundamentalist."
That brief caveat launched a furious debate. To Mr. Bruckner, the suggestion that Ms. Hirsi Ali should have reached out to believers was apostasy: "How could we tolerate in Islam that which we no longer tolerate in Catholicism? ... Thus the defenders of liberty [i.e. Ms. Hirsi Ali] are styled as fascists, while the fanatics are portrayed as victims."
That was one of his milder comments. He ended with a rambunctious mixed metaphor: Mr. Buruma and Mr. Garton Ash, by suggesting that the religious faithful should have any place in a tolerant society, "are the symptoms of a fatigued, self-doubting Europe, one that is only too ready to acquiesce at the slightest alarm. Yet their good-willed rhetorical molasses covers a different tune: that of capitulation."
A dozen German, Turkish, Dutch, Swedish, French and British intellectuals then piled on, and soon became coiled in a misleading debate about "cultural relativism" and multiculturalism (though none of the original participants was either a relativist or a radical multiculturalist). "The question," Swedish writer Lars Gustafsson argued, "is whether irrationality deserves the same amount of tolerance as rationality." No, he concluded.
Mr. Bruckner scored a good blow: The creed of cultural "tolerance," he wrote, was in fact the opposite, since by tolerating "cultures" you are denying individuals the chance to exist outside of them; you are "denying them the freedom to liberate themselves from their own traditions. … Multiculturalism is a racism of the anti-racists: It chains people to their roots."
But Mr. Buruma offered a defence: "Does living in a free society also imply that people should be able to choose the way they look, or speak, or worship, even if we don't like it, as long as they don't harm others? A free-spirited citizen does not tolerate different customs or cultures because he thinks they are wonderful, but because he believes in freedom."
Acts like Aqsa Parvez's death and the occasional instances of honour killings, he said, are atrocious. "But these are matters of law enforcement. Figuring out how to stop violent ideologies from infecting mainstream Muslims, and thus threatening free societies, is trickier. … If we wish to isolate and defeat religious extremism, we must have mainstream European Muslims as our allies."
At some point in the midst of this inch-thick pile of paper, Mr. Garton Ash notes that this debate is between the Enlightenment of Voltaire, which would have us all follow a universal reason, and the Enlightenment of Locke, which would have us all free to follow our private irrationalities. As ancient and European as it may sound, this seems to have become the Canadian debate.
Reposted from:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071214.wsaundersreck1214/BNStory/International/home
DOUG SAUNDERS
Globe and Mail Update
EDINBURGH — We may never know exactly why 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was strangled in Msissauga this week. Her father, Muhammad, has been charged with murder, and he is, by all accounts, a very religious man, whereas his daughter didn't want to cover her head in the style favoured by Muslims in his native Pakistan.
Whether her death was a direct result of this theological schism, or of some more prosaic explosion of family rage, is now irrelevant. It has become a story about the limits of tolerance. A national debate has erupted around poor Aqsa, and it is largely a debate about the place of extreme religious belief in a liberal society.
This happens to have been the central topic of a dramatic argument that has inflamed Europe's leading thinkers for much of this year and it would be useful to ship some of its rhetoric across the Atlantic.
A lot of people have been using the words "integration" and "multiculturalism" to discuss the Parvez case. These concepts, I would argue, are somewhat beside the point. Members of the family are, in most important respects, fully integrated and fluent Canadians. And they don't seem to have been stuck in a cultural ghetto; if there really were pressures inside the father's head, they didn't come from the varied and mostly secular people around them.
What we are really concerned about here is the question of how to deal with those in our midst who are antinomians — that is, people who believe the laws of God should trump the laws of man. Ever since we first built societies out of reason and mutual respect during the Enlightenment, the presence of religious true believers has been a problem. Should renunciation of spiritual authority be a prerequisite for membership in a free society?Antinomians can be nothing more than charming nuisances, like William Blake, whose poetry was a long manifesto of antinomianism. Or they can be Osama bin Laden.
"What to say," Voltaire asked three centuries ago, "to a man who tells you he prefers to obey God than to obey men, and who is consequently sure of entering the gates of heaven by slitting your throat?"
That quotation opened this year's debate, in January. It was used by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner to launch a long, wild attack on Dutch-American writer Ian Buruma (his essay, and the rest of this debate, can be found on the excellent Berlin website signandsight.com).
Mr. Buruma had just published a fantastic book titled Murder In Amsterdam, in which he returns to his native Holland to explore the slaying, by a Muslim extremist, of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.
The central figure in his book is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch activist and MP whose childhood in Africa resembled that of Aqsa Parvez in Mississauga, but who succumbed, embracing fundamentalist Islam, and was horribly abused by men.
Still, she was luckier than Aqsa: She fled, turned her back on the faith and in the end became an impressive and world-famous voice of anti-religious passion.
She occupies a largely heroic position in Mr. Buruma's book, but he notes toward the end that she has undercut her own cause: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali was no Voltaire," he writes of her more extreme provocations. "For Voltaire had flung his insults at the Catholic Church … while Ayaan risked offending only a minority that was already feeling vulnerable in the heart of Europe."
British writer Timothy Garton Ash made the point more strongly a few weeks later: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now a brave, outspoken, slightly simplistic Enlightenment fundamentalist."
That brief caveat launched a furious debate. To Mr. Bruckner, the suggestion that Ms. Hirsi Ali should have reached out to believers was apostasy: "How could we tolerate in Islam that which we no longer tolerate in Catholicism? ... Thus the defenders of liberty [i.e. Ms. Hirsi Ali] are styled as fascists, while the fanatics are portrayed as victims."
That was one of his milder comments. He ended with a rambunctious mixed metaphor: Mr. Buruma and Mr. Garton Ash, by suggesting that the religious faithful should have any place in a tolerant society, "are the symptoms of a fatigued, self-doubting Europe, one that is only too ready to acquiesce at the slightest alarm. Yet their good-willed rhetorical molasses covers a different tune: that of capitulation."
A dozen German, Turkish, Dutch, Swedish, French and British intellectuals then piled on, and soon became coiled in a misleading debate about "cultural relativism" and multiculturalism (though none of the original participants was either a relativist or a radical multiculturalist). "The question," Swedish writer Lars Gustafsson argued, "is whether irrationality deserves the same amount of tolerance as rationality." No, he concluded.
Mr. Bruckner scored a good blow: The creed of cultural "tolerance," he wrote, was in fact the opposite, since by tolerating "cultures" you are denying individuals the chance to exist outside of them; you are "denying them the freedom to liberate themselves from their own traditions. … Multiculturalism is a racism of the anti-racists: It chains people to their roots."
But Mr. Buruma offered a defence: "Does living in a free society also imply that people should be able to choose the way they look, or speak, or worship, even if we don't like it, as long as they don't harm others? A free-spirited citizen does not tolerate different customs or cultures because he thinks they are wonderful, but because he believes in freedom."
Acts like Aqsa Parvez's death and the occasional instances of honour killings, he said, are atrocious. "But these are matters of law enforcement. Figuring out how to stop violent ideologies from infecting mainstream Muslims, and thus threatening free societies, is trickier. … If we wish to isolate and defeat religious extremism, we must have mainstream European Muslims as our allies."
At some point in the midst of this inch-thick pile of paper, Mr. Garton Ash notes that this debate is between the Enlightenment of Voltaire, which would have us all follow a universal reason, and the Enlightenment of Locke, which would have us all free to follow our private irrationalities. As ancient and European as it may sound, this seems to have become the Canadian debate.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 | PermalinkComments 51 - 100 of 139 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #99637 by Diacanu on December 17, 2007 at 8:27 am
The judean people's front?!?!Fuck the judean people's front!!!
Other Comments by Diacanu
53. Comment #99641 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 17, 2007 at 8:35 am
Splitter!Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy
54. Comment #99644 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 8:41 am
Wel, that certainly explains the source of your misconceptions. We at the Church of God's Light are not fooled by such incorrect interpretations.I think I could therefore hazard a guess at your views of the land-rights of those of my brothers who were denied the green fields gifted to them from our Lord during the 1963-70 "War of Light". The occupation cannot go on.
However, I would hope in the sprit of unity we could come together to overcome the bigger evil - the prevalance of ungodly a-lightists, which are among us even as we speak.
Better to believe in some Light religion, than not believe.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
55. Comment #99645 by irate_atheist on December 17, 2007 at 8:42 am
The next person that presses a light switch will be stoned. Other Comments by irate_atheist
56. Comment #99650 by irate_atheist on December 17, 2007 at 8:47 am
55. Comment #99644 by Peacebeuponme -The land-rights issue was political, not religious. And anyway, the situation is different in the north.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
57. Comment #99670 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 9:33 am
The land-rights issue was political, not religious. And anyway, the situation is different in the north.Yes, because the UN-controlled zone has brought some relief and dignity to my people. Plus they are arranging for constructive dialogue between community leaders and of course there are more jos in the north.
Ban-Ki Moon may point there to defend his strategy, but sadly, its a different story elsewhere
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
58. Comment #99676 by Acitta on December 17, 2007 at 9:43 am
As a Canadian, I must say that, on balance, multiculturalism in Canada has been a great success and very beneficial to the country, notwithstanding the kind of conflicts that are illustrated by this story. The cities of Canada have become wonderful places to live because of the cultural diversity that has been infused into them by immigration. Exposure to the music, dance and cuisine of many cultures has enriched me as an individual and Canadian society as a whole. When I attend the annual multicultural festival in my city, I find that rather than trying to kill me with suicide bombs, the people from these many cultures are simply trying to get me to buy their good tasting food and watch their entertaining dances. This cultural conflict between first generation immigrants and their Canadian born children is an old story that has occurred in immigrant families from Europe just as much as it has occurred in more recent immigrant families from Islamic countries. Just ask, for instance, the children of Italian immigrants. Of course, this conflict doesn't usually result in murder. However, just because some immigrants have difficulty integrating into a multicultural society is no reason to dismiss the idea of multiculturalism. Tolerance is not a one way street. New immigrants must also learn to be tolerant of the other cultures in the midst of which they find themselves. I don't believe that culture is the proper domain of science. While science and rationalism may help us distinguish the real from the unreal, I don't believe that it can tell us what type of clothing or dance or cuisine is more correct or true than any other. While it is clear that some traditional cultural practices are incompatible with a modern secular and democratic society, it is inappropriate and impossible to expect new immigrants to divest themselves of every bit of the traditional cultures in which they arose. The dominant culture in our society is no more true or correct than any other culture but arose in the same haphazard and creative process over centuries.Other Comments by Acitta
59. Comment #99693 by black wolf on December 17, 2007 at 10:27 am
I correct part of my previous statement: only about 27% of Malawians are Catholic. Of course that doesn't diminish the fact that any religious organization has the moral obligation to monitor the practice of its members. Other Comments by black wolf
60. Comment #100040 by The Reverend Dark on December 18, 2007 at 5:57 am
Wooter.You are not crazy. Ill-educated and ignorant, but not crazy; though that opinion may change depending on your further correspondence. Take heart. You did not come from a worm in some glorious burst of tequila transformation. Drink enough and you might feel that way; but it will pass with a lot of liquids and a few aspirins.
You share a common ancestor with modern worms; and rhinos; and gorillas.
The Blind Watchmaker is an analogy, I doubt that it is up to making your Italian food for you. Analogies are more partial to Greek Cuisine.
I would suggest that you surf over to www.talkorigins.org and read over some of the material there. You might also take the time to read the Blind Watchmaker; you can do so while you wait for your lasagna to cook. While you are at it, you can find yourself a new evolution analogy - the Italian food one does not work; as if presupposes a level of complexity in the ingredients that is not particularly compatible with evolutionary theory.
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
61. Comment #100045 by AllanW on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 am
Re; Comment #99997 WooterThe forces you are attempting to understand are not at your beck and call. They do not respond to individual calls to 'make me a nice meal'; sorry to disappoint you. Much the same way that you get no direct response when you pray for God to 'just let the Raiders win this game and I'll praise you forever'.
If you are really intent on understanding the fundamentals of evolutionary biology then take up some of the suggestions in earlier comments to read and visit sites containing primer information.
The comments you make about DNA soup etc just make me think that you know very little about the subject save labels that have been handed to you by your local religiot.
Other Comments by AllanW
62. Comment #100046 by PJG on December 18, 2007 at 6:10 am
Wooter. I didn't want to clutter this thread so I was going to send this privately. However, it appears that you (Wooter) do not exist so I will post it after all - (to the rest of you, I know, I know, but sometimes it is entertaining to waste a bit of time!)
I have read many, many books on religion, history, science, psychology and philosophy (and other books too!) and have come to conclusions based on common sense, reason, study and observation.
Most of the questions raised by reading the Bible can be answered by the simple assumption that it is a work of man (you might like to read, "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman which, if you haven't read it, is a well written history of biblical translations and representations) However, one thing that I can't understand is that EVEN if someone believes that it is a book written by God, why would anyone believe it to be true? God admits to being a liar in the first few pages. It is something that every religious person I have ever asked has skirted around in one way or another. I'd like to ask you ....
Could you tell me why you would believe anything in the Bible when you know that by his own admission, the supposed author, God, is a liar?
He tells you this within the first few pages, and admits that one of the first sentences he spoke to man was a lie (Gen 2:16-17)
God lied, the serpent told the truth (Gen 3:4-5)
Adam and Eve did not die "on that day".
Please don't give me the nonsense about "God didn't mean REALLY die, he meant their souls would die", because God doesn't have any problem making it clear that it is the soul that suffers in other parts of "his book". In the same way, he doesn't have a problem with calling a day a day and a year a year elsewhere - when people tell me a "day" in Genesis means an epoch, I wonder if it means that Jesus was crucified in the "epoch" before Passover - or after Passover - depending on which Gospel you read!
Personally, I avoid liars and I particularly wouldn't look to one for moral guidance.
Your lack of understanding of evolution makes debate futile.(The ingredients of lasagna "evolving" into lasagna shows such monumental misunderstanding that it beggars belief)
The "Evolution made easy" videos on YouTube may help you but maybe they are too complicated.
Other Comments by PJG
63. Comment #100070 by PJG on December 18, 2007 at 7:41 am
I take back everything I just said... I just took out some ingredients and they evolved into a king prawn stir-fry.Admittedly, I did intervene but, there you are, proof if it were needed, I am a goddess after all!
Other Comments by PJG
64. Comment #100471 by Pilot22A on December 18, 2007 at 4:59 pm
A wacko by any other name, remains a wacko. What a shame this child had to be born to such a putrid specimen of the human family.Hey theologians, if you want proof of no god, check this guy out.
Other Comments by Pilot22A
65. Comment #100577 by roach on December 18, 2007 at 11:52 pm
wooter,Where did God come from?
But more importantly, why am I even talking to you?
Other Comments by roach
66. Comment #100598 by AllanW on December 19, 2007 at 1:06 am
Re; comment #100573On the contrary it is you who must provide the evidence FOR answered prayers (he's your God claim after all :)). Have you heard of the idea that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'? Just give proof, externally verifiable (ie not just 'It felt like it to me' internal/personal/subjective experience) that could NOT have been just coincidence. If you do I promise that a lot of the people here will take it very seriously and our minds could be changed to believe.
As for the rest of that message .... damn! If I could just understand what the hell it is you are writing I might stand a chance. In the meantime I'll just ask again for you to try to frame a clear, concise thought in written language that I can understand. But I gotta respond on the 'wife/soup' analogy. You answered your own question; if I thanked a 'delusional' (I think you mean illusory) being for the soup my wife just made then she would have every justification for feeling miffed. If it were done in general (i.e. at a few stages removed) as in 'thank you God for making the universe in which my wife exists to make me this delicious soup) then she may be mollified but would think me delusional. I'd agree with her.
Don't forget to get back to me on this and I might even be able to frame some response on your quest for the primeval soup :)
Other Comments by AllanW
67. Comment #100604 by PJG on December 19, 2007 at 1:22 am
WooterYou didn't answer my question about God being a liar. This does not surprise me as whenever I ask the same question, I would say that 98% of the time, the person ignores it - normally by changing the subject to "How do you explain the human eye then?" or something like that!!!
The other 2% have to contort God's words to the point of making them meaningless.... "a day is not a day", "death is not death".... making God into a liar by his deliberate and deceptive use of the words. As God is omniscient, I assume he knows the difference between a day and a year, for example.
So far as the eye is concerned, some VERY basic reading will tell you about that - even Michael Behe has dropped that one as an example of his "irreducible complexity"... mind you, I think he has pretty much dropped that whole idea after his humiliation in Dover.
If you don't want to read about evolution and eyes, these might help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0&feature=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8&feature=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
Watching all three of these will take you less than 15 minutes, far less time than it would take for me to write out the details - and I assume you would like diagrams too. Please watch them. I am not going to get into a private email discussion about evolution and God when all the information you ask for is out there already if you really want to understand it.
Other Comments by PJG
68. Comment #100651 by The Reverend Dark on December 19, 2007 at 3:53 am
Wooter.DNA Soup; again with the food analogies. First off, you are, as has been previously pointed out, confusing abiogenesis with evolution. One follows the other. While abiogenesis has not yet been recreated in the lab, science can make some very accurate predictions as to how it happens; reference the works of Miller, Urey and Oro for further information.
Put simply, in deference to you; they were able to demonstrate that complex molecules (amino acids ; the lego blocks of life) could emerge from simple ones. The next step is a molecule capable of self replication. This is not as you so gastronomically put it, DNA soup. DNA is complex; things begin simply, eventually moving to complex. Call it a proto DNA. Don't worry, it will get more complex.
Once you have this start; the process of evolution kicks in; the non random survival of random mutation.
As for analogies; the blind watchmaker is itself a gentle satire of a pre-Darwin explanation for the development of life. Call it proto-intelligence design.
Now, I fear that the above paragraphs are a waste, as you are not here for discourse or education, but for a sounding board for your inanity. Perhaps if you scream god exists loud enough you will convince yourself.
On a final note, humor, logic and reason fit together perfectly. One only has to look at literature to see that; Swift is a nice place to start, but you will find it much further back in the discourses of the Greeks. Even the Bible has a few rib ticklers; for example, why was Mary still a virgin?; because she and Joseph rode ass all the way to Bethlehem.
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
69. Comment #100654 by Steve Zara on December 19, 2007 at 4:06 am
Because I refer to logic and reason.
Logic and reason really can't point to a God. If you think about it even for a little while, you are going to see that God is about the furthest thing from a logical and reasonable explanation for anything. Logic and reason work by uncovering explanations, and we are only usually satisfied by explanations when they are simpler and clearer than the thing being explained. God is the most obscure and complex possible explanation. He is not only supposed to be some kind of first cause, He is supposed to be a thinking, reasoning being. And that is not all, but he is supposed to be infinite, and all-knowing. That is unimaginably complex.
In fact, God is just about the worst possible explanation for anything. In terms of logic and reason, any other explanation is simpler.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
70. Comment #101177 by Diacanu on December 20, 2007 at 3:59 am
Steve Zara-And that is not all, but he is supposed to be infinite, and all-knowing.
Simple logic also shows being infinite and all knowing is impossible.
Let's look at god's supposed omnipotence and omniscience.
If God is omniscient, he sees the future, and thus sees his own future, thus for that future to occur, he's fulfilling what he's already seen, and has no free will, and a being with no free will is not omnipotent.
But, if God uses his omnipotence to break free of the future he sees for himself, then what he saw wasn't really the future, and he's not omniscient, and being omniscient is part of being omnipotent, so he's not omnipotent either.
So there goes infinite and all knowing.
And don't even get me started on the Babelfish.
Other Comments by Diacanu
71. Comment #101186 by steveroot on December 20, 2007 at 4:22 am
76. Comment #101173 by wooter on December 20, 2007 at 3:48 am
4. Still I am waiting for your explanation for DNA soup. Tell me through using logic and reason, then I can understand it and tell my primary school kids. Don't be evasive.
You teach kids? You scare the crap out of me!
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
72. Comment #101189 by epeeist on December 20, 2007 at 4:36 am
Comment #101188 by wooter
The greatest problem for Darwinism is explaining how new biological structures, how new creatures, come into existence. Darwinism can shed light on how already existing biological structures may undergo small changes.
Ah, the micro/macro argument - have a look here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ which shows lots of evidence for macro evolution.
It is impossible for Darwinism to explain these, for each of these is a very complex structure that can function only when complete. The most consistent way to account for their origin is to accept the interference of a Conscious and Omnipotent Power, a supernatural Creator.
This is an example of a logical fallacy known as "Bifurcation". Assuming Darwin's theory of natural selection was falsified does not imply that "goddidit".
Behe was completely discredited at the Dover trial and has retracted most of what he put forward in terms of "Intelligent Design". Even his University finds him an embarrassment.
Quoted from the writer of Darwin's Black box , Dr Michael J. Behe. His book is as one of the most important 100 books of the 20th century by National Review magazine.
Could I ask - are you a native English speaker?
Other Comments by epeeist
73. Comment #101190 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 4:38 am
Re; comment #101173 WooterReading your posts is like wading through treacle. It's not just the grammar and spelling but also the pretzels you twist words into that reflect the seriously distorted shape your mind seems to be in. If you teach primary school kids I'm appalled.
1. Yet again you misunderstand; the book is entitled 'The God delusion'. It refers to individuals who hold a faith position that RD believes is delusional. So the delusion is held by people not by God. They are being described as deluded. God is never being described as deluded or delusional mainly because the author (who is not my mentor, you numbskull) does not hold that position.
2. Aside from not accepting the proposition that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs' you coward, I could almost settle your puzzle. Not me personally but many other humans have indeed covered the earth and space as far as possible. They have found no evidence for your God. If all you have to do is wander outside and find one evidence 'apple' then please do it now. Until someone somewhere produces it, the balance of probability says that evidence for your God has not been produced and therefore people of reason cannot accept his existence.
3. Gibberish. Explain your meaning and understanding of 'reason', 'logic', 'pre-assumptions', 'analogies' etc. You have proven nothing apart from your own prejudices and ignorance so far, my friend :)
4. Have you watched the 3 films PJG suggested yet? Let's take things simply first before having a discussion about abiogenesis etc. I'm sure you'll see this as evasive; from my point of view it's just avoiding spending more time than I care to spend on the illiterate ramblings of an ignorant, pugnacious fool who refuses to even contemplate the work, effort, reading, introspection and searching that many people on this forum have undergone to reach their own current understandings and which is available to you as well if you could be bothered to see past the God-blinkers.
Other Comments by AllanW
74. Comment #101192 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 4:42 am
Wooter; having read the latest offerings I can see you are an ardent Creationist. Behe lol!Access the Nova tv programme on the Dover Trial. Better yet, read everything submitted in evidence at that trial to learn why Creationism is NOT science, ID is religion and anyone who tries to bring this to trial again (Florida, South Carolina and Texas seem to be moving in that direction ATM) could well cost their children valuable money that should be spent on education not frivolous and demented lawsuits.
Other Comments by AllanW
75. Comment #101198 by epeeist on December 20, 2007 at 4:57 am
Comment #101194 by wooterSorry, but this is the standard creationist technique on this site, simply ignoring questions that have been asked of you and arguments against your position. Instead all you (and other creationists) simply try to move the goalposts by asking more inane questions.
Respond first, then raise some more questions.
Incidentally - as well as bifurcation you are now committing the obvious logical fallacy of "Petitio principii", also known as "Begging the Question"
Other Comments by epeeist
76. Comment #101200 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 5:00 am
re; comment #101196Wooter; They are scareder(feel disgusting) when i mention
that monkeys are our ancestors.
I can just imagine the circumstances. Propogating this ignorance to children is shameful and the main reason why sites like this exist. Do yourself and your students a favour by rising above your conditioning to develop an enquiring mind.
Other Comments by AllanW
77. Comment #101202 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 5:04 am
Re; comment #101201I answered all of your questions; have you answered ANY of the questions you have been posed? No.
I'm not a Biology teacher nor any teacher at all so don't be afraid.
Respond to epeeist et al on the questions you have been asked.
Other Comments by AllanW
78. Comment #101211 by hungarianelephant on December 20, 2007 at 5:17 am
Since no one else is picking this up directly:wooter - Praying and prayers go with the belief. If you want to prove that all prayers of believers go unanswered, you have to go check on all believers and confirm that they do no get answer. For me, If I prove it for one person, it will be enough. A lot of believers today they pray to God and they get their answers.
I'll agree with that.
But:
(1) You are positing that prayer works, at least in some cases, so the burden of proof is on you. It isn't for nonbelievers to prove the negative. So with that in mind.
(2) Please feel free to show us any example of where prayer works. In order to do this, you will have to eliminate every other possible cause of the prayed-for event. To put it into formal logical terms, the following argument won't wash:
P1 - My friend Sarah [or insert as applicable] prayed for her cancer to be cured.
P2 - It was cured.
C - Therefore prayer works.
If you can't find a way of eliminating every other possible cause, then I'll accept evidence of an event with no feasible organic cause. To make it easy, any example of an amputated limb growing back fully functional in response to prayers will do; I reserve the right to impose further conditions as and when medical knowledge advances to the point where this can be done by deliberate scientific intervention.
Or you can borrow a scientific method and do a blind controlled study of a reasonable sized group, to minimise the effect of other possible causes. For example, prayers for the sick. Some will be prayed for and some will not, and the beneificiaries of the prayers won't be told which group they are in. If you can show a statistically significantly greater improvement in the condition of the prayed-for group, then that will constitute evidence (though not proof) that prayer works.
The problem you'll have is that this has already been done, and shows no evidence that prayer works. In fact a third group who were told they were being prayed for did worse than the other two.
Over to you.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
79. Comment #101214 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 5:19 am
Re; comment #101209No, Wooter, you asked many questions, most of which have been answered. Answer the ones you have been asked.
This forum is not an educational resource as such. If you think you can get people to spoon-feed you a scientific education on their own time and via forum-postings then good luck to you but you may be disappointed.
Answer the questions, Mr Troll.
Other Comments by AllanW
80. Comment #101215 by epeeist on December 20, 2007 at 5:20 am
Comment #101206 by wooter
Could I ask - are you a native English speaker?
No i am not. Do i need to be?
No, it is just that your posts can be difficult to read and make sense of.
Other Comments by epeeist
81. Comment #101217 by epeeist on December 20, 2007 at 5:23 am
Comment #101209 by wooter So answer my questions and my comments i wrote for Zara. Who designed this palace like universe and earth? WHO?
Begging the question again - wooter are you married, or do you have a partner of some kind?
If so, when did you stop beating her? WHEN?
Other Comments by epeeist
82. Comment #101221 by Roger Stanyard on December 20, 2007 at 5:31 am
Alas, Wooter can hadly string a sentence together.It's the same old game with creationists. Few of them have even a simple understanding of what "creation science" and even less about even GCSE standard science. When it comes to religion, they are incapable of judgement.
The game is always the same:
1. They enter a discussion forum with some ludicrous claim.
2. They fail to reply to any responses.
3. They change the subject, claiming they don't have any time.
4. They start on the martyrdom complex.
5. They move off in a huff.
They are usually around for no more than five days.
Of course, their real reason for being in the foum is to preach and save souls.
Of course, everyone else knows that they are pig-ignorantly stupid, as Wooter so visibly demonstrates.
So, Wooter, tell us all what the scientific theory of creatonism is and how it can be tested using the scientific method? Or can't you?
[Twiddles thumbs and waits for ever.]
Roger Stanyard
1.
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
83. Comment #101223 by Steve Zara on December 20, 2007 at 5:35 am
1.How is that that a piece of soil working like a factory can grow all fruits, vegetables?
I could go into excruciating detail about all of these, but here would be little point. All you need to do is to read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins, and all your answers are there.
You do keep setting up false alternatives. The alternatives are not a plan or chance. They are (at least) a plan, chance, self-design (such as by Natural Selection), or an honest "we don't know yet".
And bringing in God is just silly. God is the most complicated thing you can think of. More complicated than anything else. So using him to explain design doesn't get you anywhere, as you end up with something even more difficult to explain.
It is like if you asked "how does a bee manage to stay in the air with those small wings" and someone replied "teams of fairies".
Other Comments by Steve Zara
84. Comment #101224 by flying goose on December 20, 2007 at 5:40 am
all laws are human constructs.Conscience is my guide plus the laws of the land I am living in. If ever, like Bonhoeffer conscience causes me to disobey those laws, ID cards for instance, I will expect to be subject to the rule of law.
Other Comments by flying goose
85. Comment #101225 by Roger Stanyard on December 20, 2007 at 5:41 am
What on earth is this banality: "Almost anywhere can be found features of being that show the universe to be basically friendly to life, mind, personality, and values."There is no evidence whatsoever that all but one planet out of the billions that presumably exist in the universe supports life. The evidence dramtically and repeatedly, so far, points exactly in the opposit direction - that the universe is exceedingly hostile to life. Unless, of course, you believe little green men live on Mars and are all fundamentalist Christians.
Why is it fundies are so unutterably stupid?
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
86. Comment #101226 by hungarianelephant on December 20, 2007 at 5:48 am
wooter - I appreciate that comment 101194 addresses steve and not me, but if I may be so bold:The basic problem with all of your questions is that they make a big assumption: that the planet and everything on it exists for our benefit.
You've probably made another assumption too, which is that the world has not been around for very long. That's understandable - it's very difficult for humans to comprehend geological time. The Industrial Revolution seems like a very long time ago, but in geological terms it's nothing - barely the blink of an eye. The evidence we have is that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That's 64 million human lifetimes, one after another. A lot can happen in that time.
Once you ditch these assumptions and look down the other end of the telescope, you'll find that some answers start to fall into place.
Take your example of soil. You think of it as a factory for producing fruit and vegetables. But it doesn't really work that way at all. In nature, that soil is made up of thousands of different types of organisms. They all do their own stuff, some of them in competition with each other and some working together. As humans we see the carrot growing and tend to ignore the "dirt". That's what we eat and so that's what's important to us. In our heads, we may see the aim of the soil as to produce the carrot. Indeed, when we took up farming, we learned to harness the power of the soil to produce the carrot. But that doesn't prove an intention in nature. Nature doesn't care. The carrot is just one of the many surviving organisms - the one that's of most interest to us as carrot-eaters.
Or take your example of photosynthesis. (I don't think you've fully understood how it works, but we can skip that for now.) We regard it as the production of an essential life-giving substance: oxygen.
Other organisms would take a very different view of this. Oxygen is highly corrosive and dangerous. Chemically, it is quite similar to fluorine, which is used for etching glass. When the first cyanobacteria started producing oxygen, it caused a crisis for all the other lifeforms on earth. It was a pollutant, incompatible with life. Of course, what happened was that those organisms which could cope survived, and those which could not died out. And others changed in such a way that they could thrive on it. Eventually giving rise to us.
If you're genuinely looking for explanations for why things are as they are, there are plenty of good books. I'd recommend Bill Bryson's A Short History Of Nearly Everything as a good starting point. Some here would find it rather simplistic, but it's intended for non-scientists and it's very readable. But to be honest, you may not get a lot out of it unless you're prepared to suspend for a while the assumption that the Earth is made for Man, and instead consider the possibility that Man is evolved for the Earth.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
87. Comment #101229 by irate_atheist on December 20, 2007 at 6:00 am
101. Comment #101225 by Roger Stanyard -Why is it fundies are so unutterably stupid?A bit like asking why bears shit in the woods, Roger :)
Other Comments by irate_atheist
88. Comment #101233 by Diacanu on December 20, 2007 at 6:10 am
Wooter-No one can deny the universe seems to be designed;
It's an illusion of your mind.
The brain is a pattern finding instrument.
Other Comments by Diacanu
89. Comment #101239 by Steve Zara on December 20, 2007 at 6:16 am
It's an illusion of your mind.
Sorry to be annoying about this, but I don't think we get to hand-wave away the appearance of design. It does seem designed, in the way that life seems designed. And life was indeed designed - by the blind watchmaker of Natural Selection. Many physicists are looking for a similar "self-design" mechanism or alternative explanation for the seeming design of the Universe. So, no matter how (clearly) ignorant the source of the statement you were replying to, I don't think it is fair to dismiss the point when so many scientists consider it a reasonable one.
Of course, if I have misunderstood you, I apologise.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
90. Comment #101269 by PJG on December 20, 2007 at 6:57 am
Re: comments 61 (Wooter), 64 (me), 69 (Wooter) and 73 (me)Has anyone noticed that Wooter has replied to most people but has STILL not answered my question regarding Genesis and God lying to Adam, day one?
Other Comments by PJG
91. Comment #101272 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 7:03 am
Re; comment #101269 PJGOf course :)
Not only did he fail to answer you he failed to answer most points raised with him. As Roger said, he's following the standard operating procedure of the typical believer troll.
Other Comments by AllanW
92. Comment #101273 by PJG on December 20, 2007 at 7:05 am
Comment 83 by Wooter
....4.How is possible that sin has been heating us like a heater for million years without any gas or coal? Who designed the helium etc in it?
....
Sin creates its own heat! So does the sun! Oh, unless you mean the "sin" of flatulence... I think you'll find that is methane, not helium.
Other Comments by PJG
93. Comment #101294 by Geoff on December 20, 2007 at 7:41 am
Enough of this wooting. It was funny at first, now it's just boring. Other Comments by Geoff
94. Comment #101305 by BillySands on December 20, 2007 at 8:00 am
Who arranged all connections between trees and cleaning air at night, (photosynthesis.), sunlight and vegetables, water and vaporizing and coming back to the earth as rain, servant like animals like chickens and sheep and cows that eat dirt and grass but human beings nutritious food. and on and on.
Erm, no-one. Oxygen is actually a pollutant. It didn't exist on the early earth.
Who created disease?
PJG
I think he is not responding, because the bible says that god is a liar 2Chron. 18:19-22
Nice picture Hungarianelephant
Doubt I waste too much time responding to wooter, seem to be getting fed up correcting the same old creationist ignorance and I'm busy trying to deconvert members of my old church on one of their blogs
Other Comments by BillySands
95. Comment #101337 by PJG on December 20, 2007 at 8:49 am
Billy SandsI wanted to start at the beginning (!!!) From Genesis on, in my opinion, God's moral judgment goes downhill and the other lies (whether through a spirit or in the words he "wrote") are irrelevant. He clearly can't be trusted.
Wooter seems to think The Bible is good guidance for morality. I am just interested to see if he has read, understood and/or thought about this book that he regards so highly. I doubt he has (he certainly hasn't read, understood or thought about a science book) and if it is true he's teaching...
*shakes head... speechless*
Geoff. You are right... I shan't bother anymore either. Waste of time.
Other Comments by PJG
96. Comment #101353 by steveroot on December 20, 2007 at 9:11 am
87. Comment #101201 by wooter on December 20, 2007 at 5:01 am
Reading your posts is like wading through treacle.
Treacle is nice with your DNA soup! :-)
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
97. Comment #101380 by BillySands on December 20, 2007 at 9:35 am
He clearly can't be trusted.
Too true, there are plenty of examples of this - his promise that David would always have a descendant on the throne for example - the last Davidic king was zedekiah. This of course is also a failed "prophecy"
Wooter seems to think The Bible is good guidance for morality
Yes, it is strange that he would consider someone who drowns his children as a good role model
Other Comments by BillySands
98. Comment #101391 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 9:50 am
We may not hear from Wooter for awhile as I guess he lives in the States and is, as we type, indoctrinating the poor mites in his care for seven hours :(( Other Comments by AllanW
99. Comment #101800 by Peacebeuponme on December 21, 2007 at 1:58 am
Wooter 115 - flagged as troll. That post is one of the most inane things I have ever read.Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
100. Comment #101805 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 2:05 am
wooter 118 flagged as troll. This idiot's as stupid as, but not amusing as, revcort. Other Comments by irate_atheist
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:
"I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam -- good people, yes, but any religion based on a single, well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion but an ethical and educational system."
Gore Vidal
Other Recommended Reading
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
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
51. Comment #99636 by irate_atheist on December 17, 2007 at 8:25 am
Other Comments by irate_atheist