1. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236187 by flying goose on August 24, 2008 at 11:07 am

Thought so, asyouwere, recognised the lingo.
On the substantive issue of this thread, I do find it astonishing that science can't be properly taught for fear of offending. We were always having these kinds of arguments in school. I do remember a Science teacher standing for the RE teacher and telling us why he had most sympathy with doubting Thomas, (requiring evidence etc) I wasn't offended. Ah well there always someone who turns up to be offended.
PS perhaps science teaching isn't the problem, maybe its RE. It can be so shoddy and 'also ran'.

2. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236135 by flying goose on August 24, 2008 at 9:38 am

Quine I totally agree,

asyouwere
Did he claim that?
by the way were you ever a drill sergeant?

3. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236097 by flying goose on August 24, 2008 at 8:15 am

Comment by Quine above.

Absolutely, what you write just reinforces what I have already written.
My argument with those who assert non-existence hypothesis (of Jesus not God) is that they are arguing with the overwhelming majority of those who have made their work to study these things. Even G A Wells, the champion of the non-existence hypothesis has somewhat changed his mind recently.
'A final argument against the nonexistence hypothesis comes from Wells himself. In his most recent book, The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells has moved away from this hypothesis. He now accepts that there is some historical basis for the existence of Jesus, derived from the lost early "gospel" "Q" (the hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke). Wells believes that it is early and reliable enough to show that Jesus probably did exist, although this Jesus was not the Christ that the later canonical Gospels portray. It remains to be seen what impact Wells's about-face will have on debate over the nonexistence hypothesis in popular circles.', Van Voorst, Robert E, 'NonExistence Hypothesis', in Houlden, James Leslie (editor), 'Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia', page 660 (Santa Barbara: 2003)

4. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236040 by flying goose on August 24, 2008 at 4:33 am

i realise things have moved on a bit but reference my earlier....

The argument advanced by others above amounts to saying the early Christians invented a character to fit and fulfil prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures. It seems to me that the opposite is more likely. That the early Christians bent and manipulated prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures around the life and death of an historical person who didn't quite fit them.

5. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235940 by flying goose on August 24, 2008 at 12:34 am

The sky opened after the baptism.

6. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235938 by flying goose on August 24, 2008 at 12:30 am

Just another point this whole arguement seems completly unaware of the work of people like Albert Schwitzer (The Quest for the Historical Jesus), Rudolf Bultmann(Kerygma and Myth) et al who very sceptical but still found an historical figure underneath all the mythology.

7. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235932 by flying goose on August 24, 2008 at 12:21 am

Just a little example of what we might know about the historical Jesus.
He was baptised by John. This is an embarrassment to the gospel writers which they try to cover up.
The argument runs that if Jesus was who the gospel writers believed he was, then John should have been baptised by Jesus. If you were going to make up something then you would write that Jesus baptised John. The reason they didn't speculates the argument, is because Jesus' baptism by John was common knowledge in the early church, a fact known about and therefore unwise for them to contradict.

8. Losing my religion

Comment #233448 by flying goose on August 20, 2008 at 12:16 am

I am reading the 'The Blind Watchmaker' at the moment. Every paragraph informs this non scientist, it is joy to read. 'The God Delusion' is weaker because it is written by a non specialist. I wrote essays on this kind of stuff as a first year undergraduate in the Philosophy and Study of Religion. Mind you I would not write what I wrote back then. But then I now realise the phenonmenon of religion is good deal more complex then I did back then.

9. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #216626 by flying goose on July 23, 2008 at 10:57 am

hungarianelephant

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son"

please not
'and the Son'

That would be duo theistic.

10. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #210427 by flying goose on July 14, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Thank you to Corylus, much food for thought, Bonzai I think I agree with everything you have written above.

perhaps the best I can do is say I believe X but I could be wrong.

I think Sue Blackmore is confusing Deism with pantheism.

11. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #209315 by flying goose on July 12, 2008 at 2:56 am

Per Ardua ad Astra
Lift me O God above myself,
Above my highest spheres,
Above the crawling things of sense
To higher atmospheres.
And grant my soul a glad new birth,
And fleg it strong new wings,
That it may soar above the earth
To nobler prosperings.
Lift me O God above myself,
That in thy time and day,
I somewhat grace thy fosterings
And climb thy loftier way.By John Oxenham
or
Per Ardua ad Astra
Lift me O Reason above myself,
Above my highest spheres,
Above the crawling things of sense
To higher atmospheres.
And grant my soul a glad new birth,
And fleg it strong new wings,
That it may soar above the earth
To nobler prosperings.
Lift me O Reason above myself,
That in thy time and day,
I somewhat grace thy fosterings
And climb thy loftier way.

12. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #209229 by flying goose on July 12, 2008 at 12:14 am

Sorry mordacious, just reread your post, you were responding to RD, not me.

13. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #209225 by flying goose on July 11, 2008 at 11:48 pm

Mordacious 1

Please don't misunderstand me, I understand Richard's argument, I agree with it, I think. ( it is an arguement from morality, faith is immoral).
And yet so far as ultimate reality is concerned I am still unknowing, between shadows and dazzelling light, in the anxious middle of things.

14. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #209223 by flying goose on July 11, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Ah, finally the penny has dropped. Faith is dangerous because it does not require evidence to justify its position, whatever that position might be. Even benign faith is bad because it justifies malign faith.
Now I understand his position?

Yes?

15. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #171130 by flying goose on April 28, 2008 at 10:23 am

Phil Rimmer

Time for me to come clean,

so first my own 'Mea maxima culpa' I am in process of transition, not that we ever not in transition. I was a theist, but now perhaps I am not a theist, if by theist, one means a belief in a personnal God. I think that theism might be a kind of idolatry. I think I am coming to the position of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, that humanity must come of age and act as if there were no personal Gods. I do not want to abandon the idea of the sacred though. Sorry if my question mislead you.

16. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #171059 by flying goose on April 28, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment 207 Phil Rimmer

Are you assuming that I am a theist?

17. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170799 by flying goose on April 28, 2008 at 3:16 am

God is spoken of, written off as, redundant explanation. God is niether.


I don't believe that human beings invented the gods to explain things. They found in the gods they already believed in, explanations for the world.

Early humans didnt need a god of the the gaps. Nor do I.

18. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166271 by flying goose on April 23, 2008 at 4:27 am

Comment 166223 irate atheist

'Belief as mental illness?

I'd buy that argument. Hell, I'd sell it.'

And what should we do to cure that mental illness?

19. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165817 by flying goose on April 22, 2008 at 12:13 pm

I must admit that I wince every time I read that bit about the God of The Old Testament being the most unpleasant character in fiction. I would have been much happier with the God of the Bible. Its not the God bit, if God exists he/she can defend him/herself ,neither is it the fiction I wince at the term God of The Old Testament, Richard may be inadvertently buying into Christian anti Judaism. What Jules Isaac called the theology of contempt. I don't blame him for it, the Jesus of the New Testament/God of The Old Testament dichotomy is so embedded in our culture we don't even notice its anti Judaic under tones. New Testament Old Testament language is based on Christian replacement theology. It has been argued that there is a direct line between the Christian the anti Judaism of the Christian scriptures and later antisemitism. We must be careful in our use of language.

This post is in no way an accusation of antisemitism.

20. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163996 by flying goose on April 19, 2008 at 12:13 pm

I don't think that monotheism existed in Israel before the Babylonian exile. Would Moses or David for that matter have even understood the concept of monotheism?

21. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163964 by flying goose on April 19, 2008 at 11:27 am

Intelligent Design,let me get this, the universe appears to be designed? Therefore there must be a designer? Why? Because my house appears to have been designed, I can look for a designer, well I know there is a designer I have seen the designs on paper with the architect's signature. Back to God. I haven't seen the blue print for the universe, nor the architect's signature. Doesn't mean there isn't one, but why should apparent design imply a designer? Any way why would God be a designer? That would make a God a kind of infinite human. The presence of human designers means that there must be an an infinite designer? Its just Pooh bear or Peter Rabbit in reverse.Its projecting our selves onto the transcendent, what arrogence>

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162247 by flying goose on April 16, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Now Come on, We All Know, I Mean KNOW that it is the river Kennet!

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162242 by flying goose on April 16, 2008 at 12:29 pm

"One lives and thinks within the pattern of a given paradigm, that paradigm provides one with a plausibility structure according to which all reality is interpreted. It is only when one loses faith in a plausibility structure that one senses that its powers were excessive and specious" I think the author of the above might have argued that we have to make a commitment to a particular moral out look which might turn out to be wrong and so rejected.

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162228 by flying goose on April 16, 2008 at 12:03 pm

What is the source of morality? Does its arise out of the world public facts or that of private values?

25. A New Flea

Comment #160793 by flying goose on April 14, 2008 at 11:49 am

'I find it interesting that Kevin Ward advertises himself as a philosopher-theologian. Why not just philosopher? '

Ward, I think was a philosopher first, before moving into theology, whereas Kierkegaard did theology first, if I remember rightly.

26. A New Flea

Comment #160784 by flying goose on April 14, 2008 at 11:42 am

I remember thinking that Ward was weak at the time. I had forgotten that Susan Greenfield was there, interesting her comments about proof and evidence though.

27. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160303 by flying goose on April 13, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Has this person read TGD?

'The Bible - as literature, if nothing else - should be an essential part of every child's experience. ' see Ch 9 RD agrees. Even my initial supermarket flick through revealed that to me,

28. Fleabytes

Comment #159811 by flying goose on April 13, 2008 at 7:34 am

Cartomancer, did you get In our time a few months ago on Renaissance astrology
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20070614.shtml

29. Fleabytes

Comment #159473 by flying goose on April 12, 2008 at 8:57 am

thnks, v helpful, can't define scientism, must read further

30. Fleabytes

Comment #159462 by flying goose on April 12, 2008 at 8:33 am

by the way can anyone enlighten me? I realise I am only a graduate of a mere non subject, but what is this Intelligent design people are always going on about?

31. Fleabytes

Comment #159453 by flying goose on April 12, 2008 at 8:21 am

Here's another quote,
" the problem with scientism is that it fetters human thought as cruelly as any authoritarian belief system has ever done"
Seeing as I have got to write an essay on this stuff I would be interested in your enlightened thoughts.

32. Fleabytes

Comment #159433 by flying goose on April 12, 2008 at 7:32 am

Spending the afternoon reading up on the post modern paradigm, looked in to find elves, camalot and enchanters, looks like the the world of 'symbol, metaphor, ritual, sign and myth so long maligned by the those interested only in exact expressions of rationality ' are alive and well here at RD.net

33. Fleabytes

Comment #158424 by flying goose on April 10, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Is this sock puppet the kind of thing Kierkegaard did?

34. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #158354 by flying goose on April 10, 2008 at 11:37 am

I would say there is something to apologise for. In 1933 the future Pope Pius the 12th was papal nuncio in Berlin and he was the main force behind the concordat between the Vatican and the Nazis. It agreed that the church would have freedom in religious matters, and in turn the church should not interfere in matters of state, instruction in Christianity should become part of school teaching, clergy should not become members of the politicle parties, and new Bishops should be vetted by the state.
The result of the concordat was that Nazism was given legitimacy and catholic moral opposition to Hitler was compromised. The political ban soon led to priests being accused of misusing the pulpit. This made much harder and more dangerous for individual catholics to oppose the regime.

35. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156578 by flying goose on April 8, 2008 at 12:14 am

When I was at secondary school in the early 1980's one of my best friends was a Jehovah's Witness and very much a creationist. Another was a Darwinian. They used to argue all the way to school. Being anglican I walked in middle, nothing new there. Both me and the Darwinian accepted evolution. We loved science, had our own microcopes, telescopes etc. The JW regarded science with suspicion. The JW and I both believed in God. The darwinian was an agnostic, although he was at the time quite convinced by the turin shroud!!!!
In my perception and at that time, the creationist was an oddity. I think RD might be right in pointing out that this is changing, although it would be interesting to see if a proper study has been done.
I just wonder whether 'Darwin's rottweiler' has inadvertantly created a 'creationist dangerous dogs act'.
Are they (the creationists) galvanisng over here (UK) because RD et al are providing them with an oppourtunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with their american cousins?
I would, by the way be interested to read more about the discussion with Richard Holloway? Any chance?

36. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155734 by flying goose on April 5, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I was in Berlin in 2003 it moved me greatly.

I wrote this on the train going home.

On the edge,
At the centre.
Lays this city upon the plain.
Undivided now,
still broken,
shattered from without,
within.

Here liberty was derailed by genocide.
Where jagged edged spires
pierce perfect skies.

Now the past disturbs the present,
Last night's nightmare,
pursues tomorrow's dreams.

Where rivers flow in abundance,
Yesterday's tears,
hope,
Reach out for redemption's waters,

Under the silence of a crescent moon

37. Fleabytes

Comment #154024 by flying goose on April 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I think this might be an atheist offering
Come down Jehovah by Chris Wood
check it out on You Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiVdtEWkqD0

38. Fleabytes

Comment #153991 by flying goose on April 2, 2008 at 11:07 am

'Early morning, April 4
Shot rings out in the Memphis sky
Free at last, they took your life
They could not take your pride

In the name of love'

39. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #153347 by flying goose on April 1, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I am not sure anyone on this site, is defending these people.Comparing me with this couple, is like finding a group of early homanids surviving in some unexplored part of the world and saying they are the same as Homo Sapiens.

40. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151865 by flying goose on March 29, 2008 at 3:23 pm

"He pointed out some time ago, that NOT ONE Christian has seen fit so far to come on this thread to defend the parents of this unfortunate ex child."

How can one defend the indefensible?

41. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151852 by flying goose on March 29, 2008 at 3:03 pm

I heard this by Chris Wood, on Mike Harding the other day, picked by my guitar hero Martin Simpson, It is a kind of Atheist Spiritual, if that's not a contradiction check it out on You Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiVdtEWkqD0

42. Fleabytes

Comment #140470 by flying goose on March 7, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Cartomancer,
Thanks I've been wondering for weeks. FG

43. Fleabytes

Comment #140466 by flying goose on March 7, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Cartomancer,

forgive me for asking, but what does Cartomancer mean? or should I mind my own?

44. Fleabytes

Comment #140191 by flying goose on March 7, 2008 at 3:32 am

Steve, I think an open thread is a great idea.

45. Fleabytes

Comment #140178 by flying goose on March 7, 2008 at 3:21 am

Goodness me so much has gone on since my last posts. I have enjoyed reading some of the responses to some of my points and those of others, I will need more time to take some of them in. I decided not to read the fleas when they're in flea mode. I am however reading Don Cupitt's Taking leave of God. It begins with a quotation from the 14th century German mystic Meister Eckhart, " man's last and highest parting occurs when, for God's sake he takes leave of God." So if you are wondering where all this non realism comes from, now you know. PS I am using my computer speech recognition and speaking this, it's great, for a dyslexic it makes life so much easier. I will keep looking that way post until this evening, unless I get tempted.

46. Fleabytes

Comment #140025 by flying goose on March 6, 2008 at 11:53 pm

I picked the following up on web site aboute Don Cuppitt.
" Don Cupitt's philosopy of religion is often described as non-realism, a word which has given rise to much confusion. What Cupitt calls non-realism is very much what Richard Rorty calls 'antirepresentationalism'. In Rorty's worlds our belief are not copies but tools. Before Kant philosophy usually tended towards dogmatic realism. Euclid's geometry and Aristotle's logic were thought of as being objectively true. There was an objectively-ordered intelligible Cosmos out there, independent of the human mind and copied or mapped by our descriptions of it. Religious thought too was usually dogmatic-realist: there was an eternal world 'up there', and a created, visible world 'out there'. Only one religion reported the cosmic facts correctly, namely Christianity. Our minds, being created by God, are made to know God, and can correctly track the cosmic and moral order he has pre-established for us. So, in the classic world-picture, the whole of religious truth was thought of as existing 'out there'.
After Kant we began more and more to see that our knowledge and our language are only human. In all our knowing, the mind conditions what it knows: the facts are profoundly shaped by the theories under which we view them and the language in which we des;;cribe them. We are always inside our own language and our own human standpoint, and can never directly compare our vision of the world with the way the world is absolutely. We are only human. In short, we cannot claim to have purely-objective knowledge of THE world, but we can claim to have many very useful ideas about OUR world, the world we see and the 'life-world' we inhabit.
So, very briefly: realists think that mathematical truth is discovered, whereas non-realists about maths think that maths is a complex collection of useful games invented by us. Realists think that scientists discover 'the laws of Nature', whereas non-realists think that scientists invent theories that help us to tell stories about why things go the way they do, and to predict outcomes successfully.
Today, a realist is the sort of person who, when his ship crosses the Equator, looks overboard, expecting to see a big black line across the ocean. Realism tries to turn cultural fictions into objective facts. A non-realist sees the whole system of lines of latitude and longitude as a valuable fiction, imposed upon the Earth by us, that helps us to define locations and to find our way around. For a realist Truth exists ready-made out there; for a non-realist we are the only makers of truth, and truth is only the current consensus.
In brief, we don't know and we cannot know THE world, absolutely. We know only OUR world, a world shaped by our ideas, seen from our perspective, and built by us with our needs in view. Such is Cupitt's non-realist philosophy. It implies, by the way, that we have no privileged knowledge of ourselves either, hence Cupitt's phrase "Empty radical humanism". It means "We alone improvise our knowledge about everything - including even ourselves". There is no absolute or perspectiveless vision of the world: the best we can have is a slowly-evolving human consensus."

47. Fleabytes

Comment #140022 by flying goose on March 6, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Steve, yes the earth, or even the universe for that matter do exist, but the world is wholly dependent on us for its existence. I think.

48. Fleabytes

Comment #140021 by flying goose on March 6, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Point taken Diacanu

49. Fleabytes

Comment #140019 by flying goose on March 6, 2008 at 11:44 pm

or been transported in a amphibious armoured vehicle?

50. Fleabytes

Comment #140016 by flying goose on March 6, 2008 at 11:41 pm

ever played cricket?