1. Christian group calls for a Christian university in Britain

Comment #259845 by NFT on October 4, 2008 at 2:51 am

From Dr Paterson's paper:

It has already been suggested that a Christian university could specialise in the arts and humanities. This would avoid the problems of trying to attract large-scale funding for equipment and scientific research.

Well, thank god for that. It would certainly be cheap. All you would need is a stack of bibles.

But hang on a minute ...

However practical that course of action may be, the Dutch philosopher Dooyeweerd[35] (1894?quot;1977) has argued that science is an aspect of human vocation given by God in creation. A non-Christian view that makes absolute what is in fact relative ends up destroying that aspect of creation and taking the strength out of life and experience as a whole. To avoid the study of science in a Christian university, therefore, could be seen as detrimental to both science and the world.

Oh dear. It seems we'll be getting a Faculty of Flood Geology after all.

And while we're about it, let's not be exclusive. Personally I think that "a country with a well-established (Muslim) community would be enriched by the presence of at least two or three (madrassas)".

2. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #257792 by NFT on October 1, 2008 at 5:53 am

Comment #257776 by Philip1978

But you have to wear the special glasses to appreciate it fully!

3. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #257773 by NFT on October 1, 2008 at 5:16 am

Comment #257742 by Iftikhar

There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.

Would that include copies of Winnie the Pooh in the school library?

4. Opening minds

Comment #243554 by NFT on September 6, 2008 at 7:22 am

Well said, Titania!

5. A flea we missed?

Comment #240819 by NFT on September 1, 2008 at 5:19 am

Comment #235119 by David A Robertson

Doubting Thomas is not commending faith without evidence. It is attacking the lack of belief despite the evidence.

Rubbish! Thomas disbelieved until he was presented with the evidence. On seeing the evidence, like any rational person, he accepted it. This is of course perfectly OK, but what is better still, the gospel suggests, is to believe without seeing any evidence.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (St John 20:29)

Rather late response. Just back from holiday.

6. A flea we missed?

Comment #233530 by NFT on August 20, 2008 at 2:41 am

Comment #233485 by David A Robertson

NFT - a classic example of selective quotation whilst ignoring the rest. What the OED actually states is "1) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, 2) strong belief in a religion and 3) a system of religious belief. Faithful incidentally is 'true to the facts or the original'. What you have done is presumably select one of the many definitions from the full version and put it down because it suits you. That is dishonest. If you are going to argue with people you have to argue against what they are actually saying - not what you would like them to be saying.

Yes, of course this is only one of the definitions of faith. It is, however, the crucial one where religion is concerned.

In his book, Dawkins' God, Alister McGrath actually suggests that defining faith as belief in the absence of evidence, or even in the teeth of the evidence, is "idiosyncratic" and Dawkins' invention. He probably also calls it a "schoolboy" definition, as he is fond of bandying that word around. (I cannot check that as I do not have a copy of the book here.) My point is simply that its inclusion in the OED suggests that it is a pretty standard definition. You don't need an "atheist" dictionary to find it.

I would be interested to hear YOUR definition of faith. In his book McGrath fails to provide anything coherent to replace the "idiosyncratic" definition he so objects to. Instead he waffles about "adequate evidence", without actually bothering to say what that might be.

Obviously people believe in god for different reasons. As Steve Zara has pointed out, some may think there is evidence for his existence - the Bible (but this is historically unreliable), personal revelation (subjective, also unreliable), the Creation (this can now largely be explained scientifically), and some just BELIEVE (faith without evidence).

And it is nonsense to pretend that religions, Christianity in particular, do not make a virtue out of belief without evidence. Or have I misunderstood the Doubting Thomas story. I note that you did not respond to that, by the way.

7. A flea we missed?

Comment #233062 by NFT on August 19, 2008 at 4:42 am

Comment #233002 by Steve Zara

The ones who really do need faith are the theologians, those who have studied these matters. I recommend this wonderful discussion between Jonathan Miller and Denys Turner as an illustration:
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTAagcaFN0

A wonderful discussion indeed, which with Jonathan Miller's gentle probing perfectly illustrates the vacuousness of "sophisticated" theology. I particularly liked the bit towards the end where Denys Turner concedes that, to believe what he believes (whatever that may be, as he never really says - surprise, surprise), "requires revelation". Sounds like the "emergency injection of faith" mentioned in TGD.

Denys Turner sounds (and probably is) a lot nicer than most christian apologists, but he makes no more sense.

8. A flea we missed?

Comment #233000 by NFT on August 19, 2008 at 2:31 am

Comment #232962 by David A Robertson

"Well, in that case, why call it faith at all? Surely the whole point of faith is that it has no need of evidence, or reason, but is rather a stong virtuous personal conviction, lauded precisely because it is uncynical, unsceptic and devoted?"

"Yes - that is the definition in the atheist dictionary - according to RD. But it is not the position that Christians hold."

No, David. You will find this standard definition of faith in any dictionary, e.g. that notoriously atheistic publication, the Oxford English Dictionary:

Faith: 3c. The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof.

It is also the whole point of the story of Doubting Thomas.

"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

St John, 20:29

9. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229948 by NFT on August 14, 2008 at 5:34 am

Excellent article. But then his articles generally do make a lot of sense - unlike those of some of his fellow contributors to the Independent.

Not sure about him jumping on a bandwagon though, as one poster (I forget which) suggested, unless I have been missing something. I only wish there were more writing in the same vein in the UK and elsewhere. Roll on the bandwagon!

10. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #228983 by NFT on August 13, 2008 at 12:56 am

Comment #228976 by Vanitas

While I agree with most of what Hirsi Ali is saying, I don't quite understand what she means by "Romanticism and its descendants". But I hope it's not the movement that gave us Lord Byron, Chopin, and the likes.

The very same. It did indeed give us Lord Byron, Chopin etc. It also gave us uncritical admiration of the "noble savage" and - at least according to Sir Isaiah Berlin - Hitler.

11. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226311 by NFT on August 8, 2008 at 12:41 am

Libby Purves should stick to her column in Yachting Monthly.

12. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211901 by NFT on July 16, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #211873 by Joe Morreale

Major philosopher Karl Popper cites evolutionists such as J.B.S Haldane and George Gaylord Simpson and says:

"Some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the TAUTOLOGY that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring."

If we are in the business of quoting authorities, how about this one from Popper:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation ... The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological." (Karl Popper, Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind)

Quote mining again eh? Naughty, naughty.

13. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208593 by NFT on July 11, 2008 at 4:09 am

Have just posted the following:

Dear President Bruininks,

I am writing in support of Associate Professor P.Z. Myers who, as a result of a satirical article posted on his weblog Pharyngula, has become the victim of an orchestrated campaign of hatred, vilification and intimidation by an unrepresentative group of extremists.

The USA is a beacon of free speech for the world, and Professor Myers, whose work as both a biologist and a brilliant and incisive commentator on broader scientific issues has won him an international reputation, is a worthy upholder of that tradition and a credit to your university.

I feel sure that you will wish to give him your unqualified support and do everything in your power to protect him from the machinations of a group of people who wish to impose their narrow views on others and muzzle the free expression of ideas, which is the lifeblood of any university worthy of the name and the cornerstone of democracy.

14. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200701 by NFT on June 28, 2008 at 6:12 am

The problem with attempting to argue soberly and rationally against theism is that most theists are impervious to reason wherever it conflicts with their faith. You can get so far and then you come up against the brick wall of: "Anyway, why does God need to be explained?" (Alister McGrath).

Pointing out that theism involves belief in some downright ridiculous propositions is, I think, a perfectly legitimate tactic. Thomas Jefferson certainly thought so (see Comment #200684). The initial reaction of the theist may be to retreat within the protective shell of his faith, but it could just plant a seed of doubt which might one day (perhaps much later) bear fruit.

15. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200684 by NFT on June 28, 2008 at 5:23 am

Ridicule is not an argument?

Thomas Jefferson seems to have disagreed.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them ..." (quoted in TGD)

16. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196479 by NFT on June 20, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #196401 by black wolf

I'm glad that the EU takes a much clearer and firmer stance:
Resolution 1464 (2005)1
Women and religion in Europe

Just a small point of information. This was a resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Not to be confused with the Council of the European Union. The CoE is nothing to do with the EU. Not a lot of people know that.

The same organisation recently adopted a resolution on The Dangers of Creationism in Education (Resolution 1580 (2007)) - despite the best efforts of some national delegates (mostly but not exclusively eastern European) to sabotage it.

17. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191982 by NFT on June 12, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #191974 by Philip1978

There was a boy at my school I used to argue with a lot. I could always out-argue him easily (by any reasonable standard), but he would then just turn away and say: "I'm sorry, you're wrong. Don't be a bad loser." Used to drive me wild. I don't remember him ever saying "Jesus loves you", but the effect was similar. Of course, in reality he knew that he was wrong. He just would not admit it.

In the same way, I do not really see how can you hold any sort of rational dialogue with people who just keep repeating the same mantra ("There are no transitional fossils" or "Faith is based on evidence" and so on) whatever arguments you put forward. How come, given that we are apes with rather large brains, so many of us are so bloody stupid? It bothers me.

18. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191932 by NFT on June 12, 2008 at 6:15 am

Comment #191904 by clearthinker

As a Christian I teach that real faith is based upon truth and evidence ... don't let such philosophical niceties get in the way of your absolute tradition and authority!

Oh, I see. So Christianity is based on evidence and atheism on tradition and authority. Funny, I thought it was the other way round.

19. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186711 by NFT on May 31, 2008 at 7:09 am

evaporated

Scoop 'em up, fly them to NYC, drop 'em in the middle of Times Square, then film the whole thing as a type of "Survivor in reverse" reality show!

... and then watch them die. I think you might be on to something there. It would make a great show.

20. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186698 by NFT on May 31, 2008 at 6:06 am

John G

What gives us the right not to tell them that they are a part of wider Humanity?

I agree with TheSwede in post 2 completely. It is a sort of racism that says they are not like us and could not cope knowing there are others.

If another Amazonian tribe contacted them we would not bother one iota as that would be natural. However, we see ourselves as outside nature when we are not.

Not one of us would choose isolation and yet we choose it for others.

I don't agree that it is racism to suggest that they should be left alone. History shows, unfortunately, that the first contact between technologically advanced and less advanced peoples almost always ends in disaster for the latter.

Sure, they could benefit from modern medicine and improved farming techniques, but how long would it be before they were accidentally (or deliberately, as has happened in the past) infected with a disease to which they have no immunity? And the missionaries would not stay away for long. I recommend Normal Lewis' book, The Missionaries, which documents the wholesale destruction of tribal peoples by fanatics interested only in "saving their souls". Latin American governments (governments in general, for that matter) have a lousy record of protecting the rights of tribal peoples. Why should it be different this time?

21. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186059 by NFT on May 29, 2008 at 12:37 pm

al-rawandi

When people get really really sick, anywhere in the world, they fly to the united states for treatment, not belgium

That is probably because they are not sure where Belgium is. Which is their loss, because the standard of health care in Belgium is very high. I know because I live there.

22. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #185115 by NFT on May 27, 2008 at 2:22 am

I quite agree. Sanity prevailed this time, but the problem is going to occur again. Section 5 of the Public Order Act is a disgrace. It is a serious constraint on free speech.

Interestingly, the British government wanted to use the same wording in the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. This would have made using "abusive or insulting" language about any religious group(and not just in a public place) potentially a criminal offence. The implications of that would have been enormous. But an amendment in the House of Lords removed the words "abusive and insulting", leaving only "threatening" language. Their Lordships do have their uses.

23. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #183886 by NFT on May 23, 2008 at 5:19 am

aquilacane:

See previous post. There will be no prosecution.

24. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #183853 by NFT on May 23, 2008 at 3:19 am

The charges have been dropped.

From the BBC website:

A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) spokesman said: "In consultation with the City of London Police, we were asked whether the sign was abusive or insulting.

"Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness (as opposed to criticism), neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression."

A spokeswoman for the City of London Police said: "The CPS review of the case includes advice on what action or behaviour at a demonstration might be considered to be 'threatening, abusive or insulting.

"The force's policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice."

There seems to have been an outbreak of sanity.

25. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174800 by NFT on May 3, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I am surprised by some of the comments on this thread about Pat Condell. Sure, his tone is angry and confrontational, but when you consider some of the atrocities being committed around the world in the name of religion, there is actually quite a lot to be angry about. He simply has the courage to say things which need to be said and he pulls no punches in the process. His views may not be overly sophisticated (at least by the august standards of this website), but they are nonetheless carefully thought out, passionately held and expressed with admirable clarity, economy and humour.

To accuse him of racism is facile. He makes it abundantly clear that his quarrel is with the obscurantist irrationality of some forms of religion - not with people's ethnic origin. Let people believe whatever nonsense they like in the privacy of their own homes. Just don't try to impose it on the rest of us. Amen to that. Oh, and peace.

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

Comment #165434 by NFT on April 21, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Comment #165387 by TheTruthID

I would love to see how evolution is recorded in the fossil record?

Since you are keen to learn about evolution you obviously need to do some reading. I suggest you start with The Human Evolution Coloring Book by Adrienne L. Zihlman.

27. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162602 by NFT on April 17, 2008 at 5:57 am

irate atheist

17(b) seems, to all intents and purposes, redundant, given 17(i) and (ii)

Am I misreading it - what do you think?

I tend to think that Rule 17 would be clearer if it said something along the lines of: "If you are in a small boat and see a bloody great supertanker bearing down on you, get the hell out of there before it hits you." But maybe I am being simplistic.

epeeist

Interested to learn that you used to teach navigation. Knowing when to turn right to reach the Caribbean is safer than trusting in god, I feel.

Sorry to be off-topic. What was the topic again?

28. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162517 by NFT on April 17, 2008 at 3:29 am

epeeist

I offered him all sorts of topics to discuss, I was rather hoping he would take me up on the "International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea", but he disappeared without responding.

You wouldn't like to take up the challenge would you, how about the difference between vessels constrained by their draft and those restricted in their ability to manoeuvre as a starter?

The potential conflict between Rules 17(a)(ii) and 17(b) might provide fertile ground for discussion.

29. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161230 by NFT on April 15, 2008 at 3:48 am

Clearthinker

To say that evolution simply leads to Nazism is too simplistic.

So Darwin was only partly, indirectly responsible for the Holocaust. Is that the implication?

There were many factors involved in the holocaust - not least the rejection of Christianity by the Nazis.

Although persecution of the Jews arguably goes back as far as the Egyptian pharoahs,
it certainly moved up a gear with the advent of Christianity and the accusation of deicide.
While the attitude of National Socialism to Christianity was ambivalent, it enthusiastically
took over and exploited one of Christianity's central tenets, the collective responsibility
of the Jews for Christ's (temporary) death. Christianity laid the groundwork for the Holocaust
by making people receptive to the idea that the Jews were intrinsically evil.

I know personally at least 12 lecturers or post doc biologists who do not buy into every aspect of evolution. Should they be fired? called idiots (as happened in one Uni I know?).

Sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? But questioning is one thing. Scientists are not only allowed
to do it. They must do it. Refusing to accept something which is supported by overwhelming
evidence, on the other hand, simply because it conflicts with an unproveable belief based on an unreliable ancient text - which is what creationists actually do - is profoundly unscientific. Anyone who does this is by definition a bad scientist and does deserve to be fired.

My fear is that RD is seeking to bring the American culture wars over to Britain

Are you kidding? It is organisations like Truth in Science and the Vardy/Emmanuel College Foundation and their sinister backers who have done this.

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

Comment #156645 by NFT on April 8, 2008 at 5:14 am

yussel123

When asked about people such as Polkinghorne, Dawkins answers that they have sealed off the religious delusion from their scientific thinking.

From Wikipedia entry on John Polkinghorne (apologies for quoting from Wikipedia):

"He does not have a totally untroubled faith. Sometimes Christianity seems to him to be just too good to be true, but when this sort of doubt arises he says to himself, 'All right then, deny it' and he knows this is something he could never do."

Sounds pretty much like compartmentalisation to me.

(My first post, by the way, after months of happy lurking.)