Comments by David A Robertson
1. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda
Comment #165300 by David A Robertson on April 21, 2008 at 10:05 am
So Steve - comment 210 - I take it from your post that you think it is perfectly legit for Dawkins to accuse the makers of Expelled of doing a 'wicked evil thing' for trying to dupe J, but when I use exactly the same words about what Dawkins is trying to do, this is an example of 'one of the nastiest people you have ever found on the net'. So RD uses this language - he is a hero. I use his language - I am nasty. Go figure!
By the way - what does an atheist mean when they speak of wickedness and evil? Does evil exist in the materialist world? Can it?
2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda
Comment #165280 by David A Robertson on April 21, 2008 at 9:40 am
Dear Dr Dawkins,
I totally share your disgust about the letter addressed to Michael Shermer. It is disgusting to state that just because someone is an atheist that they approve of the holocaust. It is of course just as disgusting to suggest that because someone is a Christian they are somehow responsible for Fred Phelps and his nutters at Westboroo Baptists - on the grounds that even moderate religion paves the way for extremist religion.
However you raise some interesting points in your letter. Perhaps you will allow me to question some of them.
What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany.
This statement is true - but it does not go far enough. Germany was not only technologically advanced but had a large and successful academic and scientific community. It was also a community which more than any other group in Weimar Germany, supported Hitler. The question is why? There were many reasons for Hitler coming to power - the humiliation of the Versailles treaty, the hyoer-inflation of the 1920's and some would argue the moral and spiritual degradation of the German people caused by the collapse in Christianity. As regards this latter aspect this was came as a result of the Church largely having given up faith in the Bible - due to the effects of the Higher critical movement (largely based in Germany); and because of the adoption by the German academic middle classes of a materialist philosophy, fueled by Nietzsche, Marx and the understanding of modern science - especially their understanding of Darwinism.
His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians.
Given that you are complaining about the 'dishonesty' of Expelled, this is not a very clever piece of propaganda on your part. How do you know that the 'great majority of them were Christians'? IS this a result of your extensive reading on the subject or empirical research? Or is it - like so much of what you write - an instinctive prejudice based upon wishful thinking? Of course most of the German people at that time would have been baptised as Lutherans or Catholics - including Hitler? But does that make them Christians? I wonder how many atheists on this website were baptised - does that make them Christians? If you are saying that Germany was a nominally Christian nation with a state church then I guess every German by definition was a Christian. But surely you would not agree with that kind of arguing? So where do you get your figures for religious observance from? And how do you know that the great majority of Nazis were Christians? Surely you did not just make that up? In a survey of captured German airman in 1942, when asked their religion - 50% said nature, 40% said Hitler and 10% said they were atheists.
whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist.
This is a most interesting quote because it represents a significant change of mind from your book, The God Delusion, where you state that Hitler 'probably wasn't' an atheist (p278) and that it is 'dubious' to claim that he was an atheist. You also stated that the truth of the matter was far from clear. But now you have clarity. Hitler 'most certainly' was not an atheist. What has caused your change of mind? What new evidence have you come across that allows you to have this certainty? Can you share it with us - or is it something that we are just to accept because you have said it?
Having said that I agree with you entirely about the responsibility of much of the Church in that it did not oppose Hitler and indeed the Catholic church signed a concordat with him. The weakness of the church and the hypocrisy is something to be condemned and regretted. And you are also correct about the prevalence of anti-semitism - but to some extent you are arguing against a straw man. It would indeed be foolish to claim that Darwinism caused anti-semitism in Germany - however it is just as foolish to deny that the Nazis used the notion of the survival of the fittest as a justification for their extermination of the Jews.
I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. /blockquote>
Indeed you have and for that we are very thankful. However there is something inherently self-contradictory about your stance. You seem to me to claim that everything can be explained by, or comes from Darwinian natural selection. On what basis then can you say that Darwinian natural selection is the source of everything - but that we should ignore Darwinian principles when it comes to organising our society? What is the rational and logic for that?Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours.
This is very post-modern of you. A nice reinterpretation. As you cite Huxley perhaps you will recall your citation of his words in 1871 "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins" . In fact there is plenty evidence that in the second half of the 19th century Darwinism was used to support racism - another example you cite is H G Wells "And how will the New republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black?...the yellow man....the Jew....those swarms of black, and brown and dirty white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency? Well, the world is a world, and not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go..." Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, was widely used to support racism - and for you to deny that, is either a product of extreme wishful thinking and or an example of the kind of deception that you are accusing the producers of ExpelledHitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism.
Of course - because it no longer fits the Zeitgeist - now that we have seen where the social consequences of Darwinianism have lead us. You are of course still struggling to explain where our morality should come from - if it is not a product of evolution. By the way I am not so sure that Social Darwinism is as dead as you suggest. Konrad Lorenz was an enthusiastic Nazi, J B S Haldane was a committed Stalinist and R A FIsher used to argue that civilisation was threatened because upper class women did not have enough basis - leaving the non- quality to breed. One of your own heroes Bill Hamilton certainly had a different take on morality and Darwinism. He once said that he had more sympathy for a lone fern than he did for a crying child. He argued for a radical programme of infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia to save the world. Genocide was the result of overbreeding and he would grieve for the death of one giant panda more than he would 'one hundred unknown Chinese'. Perhaps we should be glad that evolutionary biologists have finally caught up with the Zeitgeist but listening to the comments of Peter Singer, you will forgive me if I am more than a little concerned.What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
Actually again you are being a little disingenous. They were. Hitler believed, just as you do, that human beings can overcome their genes and help nature along. The Jews were rats - they were to be exterminated - after all did we not now know from 'nature' that the strong survive, the weak perish.
You do seem to have been very upset by Expelled. No less than 12 articles on your front page about it. Why are you giving it such publicity? If it is just nonsense then surely people will see that. Or perhaps you regard it as a threat? Whatever the case you are going to have to get your facts and your philosophy right if you want to argue against the view that Darwinism without Christianity will lead to an amoral, if not an immoral society.
Yours etc
David A. Robertson.Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception.
Mr J, You may well have been duped by Stein. I have not seen the film yet but will look forward to making my own judgements. However I do know that Dr Dawkins and his followers are most certainly attempting to dupe you. It is a wicked evil thing that they are seeking to do to you and to many others. I don't know whether they openly and wantonly perpetuate the falsehood that seeks to fool you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believe it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are right to be angry about the injustice and horror of the holocaust. You are wrong to blame it on all atheists or Darwinists (and please remember that there are many Christians and Jews who are also Darwinists). But you are right to see that a particular understanding of Darwinism was a significant contributing factor and justification for the Holocaust. Whilst not making the simplistic equation of stating that all atheists are holocaust supporters it is nonetheless correct to state that the acceptance of an evolutionary philosophy by a large part of the German elite was a significant factor in creating the circumstances in which the evil of Nazism was allowed to grow.
We must ensure that does not happen again. Meanwhile you will forgive me if I leave you with a quote from The Dawkins Letters, which answers many of the points Dawkins makes here...
"And I am grateful to you for citing Hitler’s Table Talk which tells us conclusively what Hitler thought about Christianity. “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity”. Even more interesting is the following from Traudl Junge, Hitler’s personal secretary “Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps it’s going too far to call them discussions, because he would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. ‘Science isn’t yet clear about the origins of humanity,’ he once said. ‘We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.” (Until the Final Hour "p108) That just about says it all. " The Dawkins Letters p111.
PS - I have just noticed William Sierichs posting - its almost hard to know where to begin! So the Holocaust was really caused by Hitlers hatred of atheism - that was his motivating factor and the drive behind Nazism. This is an excellent example of how a-historical our post-modern society is. And how in the age of Google and Wikipedia information clearly does not lead to either knowledge nor understanding. Goebbells would have been proud of this post. It is a masterpiece of distortion and ignorance.
Comment #159934 by David A Robertson on April 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Q - sorry. I was not 'jumping back and forth'. I basically just wanted to go back to using my own name and since that was unbanned I decided to do so on this thread. However I think I prefer Clearthinker! I hope to have a proper engagement on a thread which really does interest me in a couple of days and will use either. There was no intention to confuse.
This time I'm off!
Comment #159930 by David A Robertson on April 13, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Sorry guys - you should really just read the posts then you would not have to engage in the detective work/conspiracy theories etc. I explained that I was only reinstated as David A. Robertson today. But don't worry clearthinker will return!
Styrer, I have answered your question about metaphor - but perhaps you are asking a different one? You clearly are having difficulty with the English language (hence your need to swear a lot) but I assume you understood my answer? But perhaps you were asking a different question/accusation? You obviously seem to think it is the great unanswerable point - so I tell you what. There is one thread I am very interested in and when I get the time will write a post - please feel free to be as irrelevant there as you are here!
I will not be back to this thread because I really do not want to disrupt a thread which is clearly managing to self-destruct anyway. However perhaps you will allow me to give you one bit of advice? Of course the swearing and bickering gives a really bad impression but there is something far worse - the sheer arrogance which enables some of you to discuss and tear apart other peoples motives and characters - when you neither know them nor show any intention of engaging with them. Like all the worst kind of fundamentalists you write off all those who disagree with you and treat them with complete disdain. This is seen on many threads - as Richard Morgan has found out to his cost. And as Pathfinder amply demonstrated on the Fleabytes thread.
Sarcasm, irony, humour etc are one thing. But this sheer know it all arrogance is something else. It is very unattractive to people. (of course that is also something I could be accused of...but two wrongs don't make a right). I realise that you don't have the intellectual or rational arguments, and that you need to compensate with something - but perhaps you should try another approach?
By the way we had a great day in church today - shame you missed out. And more and more people are returning to church in Scotland's cities. I believe that the Courier are running a story tomorrow on three churches in Dundee which are all expanding and having to extend their buildings (Central Baptist, the Steeple Church of Scotland, and St Peters Free Church). And it is mainly intelligent young people (many from a non church background) who are coming. You need to come over from the darkside!
Anyway let me leave you with a good religious quote -
"I find your lack of faith - disturbing" Darth Vader.
Comment #159822 by David A Robertson on April 13, 2008 at 7:48 am
Oh,dear,
I see the conspiracy theorists/Robertson is a liar people are back. I received an e-mail from RD net offering to re-register me under my own name - which I have just done. But if it upsets you I will return to posting as 'clearthinker'.
And yes Styrer, I do come and go as I please. We call that freedom. And you really do need to look up a dictionary (and not for more swear words!). I did NOT answer as though I were a fundamentalist, I said 'unless' you are a fundamentalist.
Your question was answered. Go read it again and if you still do not understand then please feel free to get back to me. Although I'm afraid that, as 'epeeist' points out - it is a Sunday and I do have better things to do. So just to keep our legalists happy...By the way epeesit - given that poor Styrer was getting really worked up about his great unanswered question, do you really think I can be accused of flame throwing, just because I give him an answer? Mind you given his explosive tendencies I suspect he is not really looking for an answer - it probably is like adding fuel to the fire. Anyway I have given him my answer - when I return I look forward to his apology!
Comment #159806 by David A Robertson on April 13, 2008 at 7:24 am
Sorry to butt in - I have no wish to intrude on the high standard of debate but I do feel that poor Styrer is getting himself worked up over nothing. I will reply and then leave you to continue your intellectual discussion..
Styrer asks 'Robertson has NEVER deigned to respond to my question of how metaphorical readings can POSSIBLY lead to assertions of REALITY for those metaphorical parts which he has admitted are key to his doctrine."
Its not really that difficult - unless you are a fundamentalist who thinks that there is only one absolutely literal way to read anything. When Jesus said I am the door - he did not mean that he was made of wood and had a handle. He meant that he was the way to God. That is how metaphor works.
Sorry for the intrusion... Now I must leave this oasis of clear thinking, freedom,love and reason and return to the cess pool of Christianity....
Tot Ziens....
7. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)
Comment #18225 by David A Robertson on January 19, 2007 at 4:33 am
863. Comment #18130 by Fedler on January 18, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Hi Fedlar,
Nice to be back although I am not sure for how long. I 'm not even sure if you will get this post as apparently I am permanently barred as a troll. This is because on the onion spoof thread where one atheist pointed out that only Wombats would see it as anything other than a spoof I pointed out that there were already a couple of atheists who were irate having 'thought' it was real. Obviously this 'oasis of clear thinking' site is quite happy to allow pages and pages of vitriol declaring how dumb religious people are and having a laugh at the more insane stupidities of some religious people. But dare anyone even suggest that there is some similarity with fundamentalist atheists and hey presto suddenly you are a troll. I'm afraid that my original suspicions about this site are correct it is a propaganda tool for fundamentalist atheism which also acts as a therapeutic centre for some very angry atheists.
.
I appreciate your other comments and your honesty.
Flag as: [troll] [spam] [offensive]
864. Comment #18162 by Fedler on January 18, 2007 at 5:17 pm
"Real Christians realize that the Bible's teaching is that there is an absolute morality which we all fall short of. And no amount of religion, good works or pious acts will ever be able to make us right."
"aving just re-read this, this seems awfully pessimistic. A lofty goal we can never hope to achieve? I must admit to being extremely confused by the Bible and how accepted it has become."
We certainly cannot achieve it on our own. Which is why we need God, the Spirit, forgiveness, the Bible, the Church etc.
8. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
Comment #18078 by David A Robertson on January 18, 2007 at 7:41 am
"The "intelligent falling" joke wouldn't fool a wombat."
Yep - D - you got it right. Which is why the first two comments on this site give Wombats a bad name!
Poolie "I cant believe the stupidity of theses people, espicially the ones wasting their life in attempt to explain it. So instead on working on fixing the accepted theory of gravity they just come up with one to explain "mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise". Then if god controls gravity why wont he let me fly then !!! God damn it !!" and don't forget yxalag - "I am hardly suprised, this is typical of wild religious claims. They are all just weak theories attempting to explain a pseudoscience. I am sure that there are Christians that seriously believe that every scientific theory is really 'Intelligent'."
And you guys have the nerve to mock Christian fundies for being thick!
9. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
Comment #18026 by David A Robertson on January 18, 2007 at 2:35 am
Wow - even when it is clearly posted at the top that this is a joke, the atheist fundies still manage to write in and express outrage at how stupid the Christian fundies are! The irony is delicious. "Had me fooled" - I guess it does not take much to fool some atheists...And this is meant to be an oasis of clear thinking???
10. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)
Comment #18018 by David A Robertson on January 18, 2007 at 1:22 am
And for those who can't make their way to the Free Church website - here is the latest article that Fedler comments on
Dear Dr Dawkins,
As a young boy I watched with fascination as The World at War was broadcast on our TV screens (thankfully the whole series is now available on DVD and is regularly repeated on the History Channel). One scene in particular has stuck in my mind. A group of French Jewish men, women and children were herded into a large barn by Nazi soldiers. The barn was set on fire and the Jews were given a simple choice they could stay come out of the barn and be shot or they could stay in and be burnt to death. It horrified me then and it horrifies me now. In fact it so disturbed me that when I took the opportunity to take my Sixth Year Studies I determined to look at Weimar Germany and then went on to study history at the University of Edinburgh in order to try and answer the question 'why?'. The same question that was displayed on the poster hanging in my bed-sit, superimposed over the soldier being shot in the back and the young naked girl running across a bridge screaming as napalm burned into her flesh. This question of morality is thus of great importance not only for me but I suspect for most people.
You address this issue of morality in chapter six and in particular the question as to why we are good. As far as I can understand it your case seems to be as follows. You define goodness as altruism and therefore point out that we tend to be altruistic towards those of our own kin because we are genetically programmed to care for those who are most likely to have copies of the same genes that are in us. In addition to this there is reciprocal altruism the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' theory. Kinship and reciprocal altruism are the twin pillars on which a Darwinian explanation of morality is based. To these you add reputation (we want to be seen to be 'good') and then the notion that altruistic giving may be seen as a form of superiority a way of buying self advertising. You also explain 'kindness' or sympathy as a blessed Darwinian mistake. And that's it. That is the Darwinian explanation of morality. There are so many problems with this approach.
Firstly it does not seem much of a morality. It is still primarily focused on the Selfish Gene. It is all about me, me and me. As a Christian I believe that the bible teaches that human beings are fundamentally selfish and self centred however the Bible is not content to leave us there. There is something better. Christ came to challenge and to deliver us from the self centeredness which you glorify as the basis of morality.
Secondly, it is deterministic. We are only 'good' because we are programmed to be that way. What ever happened to free will? If my will is not free then you cannot blame me if I only do what I am genetically programmed to do. What would you say to a rapist who used that argument? On the other hand if I am free and responsible for what I do then I cannot be genetically programmed. I do not doubt that there are genetic factors in all aspects of human behaviour but I cannot believe that every human being and their actions are governed by such determinism. A crucial part of being human is having the ability to choose.
Thirdly your secular morality is not as you admit, absolute "fortunately however morals do not have to be absolute". As you indicate it is changeable according to the whims of society. Indeed if we are, as your favourite philosopher Bertrand Russell puts it, "tiny lumps of impure carbon and water crawling about for a few years, until they are dissolved again into the elements of which they are compounded."; then seems to be no basis for absolute morality. You recognise this - "it is pretty hard to defend absolute morals on grounds other than religious ones".
And finally your absolute Darwinian philosophy cannot logically and consistently argue for morality because to put it bluntly there is no good or evil. As you so brilliantly describe it in The Blind Watchmaker "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe had precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference". That then is the atheist basis of morality no justice, no rhyme nor reason, no purpose, no evil, no good, just blind pitiless indifference. It is little wonder that atheist philosophers have been desperately hunting round to try and establish some basis for a godless morality. Despite the best efforts of, E.O Wilson and Peter Singer, this basis is severely lacking, being little more than a utilitarian 'greatest good for the greatest number' without ever defining what 'good' is.
I think you recognise this and so you go on the attack ridiculing Christian morality. It has to be admitted that there are many things that have been done in the name of religion, including Christianity, which are inexcusable, and that the behaviour of many professing Christians leaves a great deal to be desired. However you should be careful before denouncing the whole of Christianity on the basis of the behaviour of those who are Christians and fail to be perfect, or of those who whilst claiming the label Christian, have no more faith than yourself.
Your major case against Christian morality is the Bible itself (we will come on to that in your next chapter) but in this one you throw up a couple of red herrings. Firstly at the beginning of the chapter you cite a number of letters which you have received from people you say are Christians. These contain expletives, threats of violence and grotesque language. Why did you cite these at the beginning of a chapter about morality? Because it is again your favourite ad hominem tactic. Look how stupid/ignorant/violent/ immoral these Christians are and therefore Christian morality is the same. There are two easy counters to that. Firstly by definition these people cannot be Christians, followers of the one who told his disciples to turn the other cheek, not to threaten violence, not to use foul language and to love our enemies. Secondly what would you think if I cited the following from your own website "XXX David Robertson is a self-righteous narrow minded, up his own XXX thick as pig XXX moronic retard! Watch out David, the sky fairy is late for his second coming and will be angry with you. Why is anyone debateing with this moron? He doesn't know how to! He has the intellectual capacity of road kill." "May your XXX come to life an kiss you. I'm impressed that some of the people here bother to debate this Robertson nincompoop. He is clearly out of his mind and beyond reason and logic. If you do debate him, stop respecting his delusions, however eloquent he puts them, and please approach him with the scorn and contempt that he deserves." Prat. Bigot. Moron. In fact there are pages and pages of this stuff. It is quite clear that your website acts as a kind of therapy centre for some people but do you think it would be fair for me to say that therefore all atheists are as rude, ignorant and angry?
The second argument you use is to point out that Christian morality cannot be up too much if it requires the threat of hell or some kind of punishment in order to make people behave. You cite Einstein "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Einstein is right in at least one thing. We are a sorry lot. Here is a simple test for you. Would you like the police to be removed from Oxford? Do you think that students at your University should be threatened with punishment if they cheat? Or should be given higher degrees if they do better than their peers? Surely if your students are only studying and not cheating because they fear punishment or have hope for some reward they are a sorry lot? Of course you see the fallacy of the argument. The Bible recognizes that human beings are complex and that we need a system of checks and balances to help us but here is the rub, the Bible's teaching is not primarily moralistic. Yes we need the carrot and stick approach but the Bible is much more radical than that. If it were the carrot and stick approach only then the Bible would just be recognizing the situation for what it is rather then seeking to change it to a better world.
Let us look then at the Christian case for morality and why, for some people, it is the most important proof for God.
It explains evil. The question is not 'why are people good?' but rather 'why are people evil? Your view of morality seems to stem from your nice middle class English background. It is a hopelessly optimistic and unfounded view of human nature that human beings are essentially good and indeed are getting better all the time. Remember the question that I went to University to study how could a decent civilized nation like the German people allow themselves to get into a position where they eradicated six million Jews plus many homosexuals, gypsies and Christians? It is easy in those circumstances, aided by decades of Hollywood conditioning, to believe that the world is divided into the good guys and the bad guys, and to just simply suggest that the Germans were bad, or Hitler was an insane demon. But my studies lead me to the conclusion that the Germans were human and that Hitler was all too human. Indeed there was an enormous fuss a couple of years ago when the film Downfall was shown in Germany because it portrayed Hitler as a human being. The Bible tells us what we would already know if only we opened our eyes, that human beings are screwed up. As Freddy Mercury, late of Queen, sang at the first Live Aid, "If there's a God up above, a God of love. Then what must he think, of the mess that we've made, of the world that he created".
It explains the universe Have you ever read C S Lewis's Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe in his Mere Christianity? He more than anyone sums up why the moral law is such a powerful proof for the existence of God. Lewis writes "Human beings all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly they know that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in". Lewis points out that there are two clear evidences for God the first is the universe he has made. The second is the Moral Law which he argues is a better bit of information because it is 'inside information'. One of the major objections that many people will have to the notion that God created the universe is that things seem so cruel and unjust. But as Lewis points out, how do we get the idea of cruel and unjust in the first place? What is there in us that makes us aware of right and wrong?
It explains me. In looking at the horror of the Holocaust it was the most humbling and awful experience to realize that not only were the Nazis human but I was too. The same evil that came to such horrendous fruition in the Nazis was also, at least in seed form, present in me. Reading books like Gitta Sereny's excellent Albert Speer; His Battle with Truth was a sobering experience. As one letter writer to The Times masterfully put it "What's wrong with the world? I am".
But let us return to the atheistic view of morality. I accept fully that you are not a social Darwinianist. You know that that would be wrong. Although I am intrigued as to how you know. But leaving that aside my fear is that once society as a whole accepts your basic presuppositions (that there are no absolutes in morality, that morality changes and that human nature is genetically determined) then it is a downward slippery slope to the kind of atheistic societies that the world has already seen (such as Stalin's Russia and Mao's China). I am not arguing that all atheists are immoral any more than I am arguing that all professing Christians are moral. All of us live inconsistently with our creeds. However in Christianity there are brakes, checks and balances and it does not appear immediately obvious that this is the case with atheism. If there is no absolute right or wrong then how can we state that anything is right or wrong? Take the case of abortion which you discuss in chapter eight. You point out a fascinating fact that "strong opponents of abortion are almost all deeply religious". This is a fact that has always puzzled me. Surely any scientist would know that there is nothing that the baby has outside the womb which she does not also have inside the womb? Why then is it considered a human right to be allowed to kill a baby in the womb but not outside it? And there is another question in this debate which fascinates me. In India over 500,000 female fetuses are aborted because they are female. Naturally women's' groups are objecting to this form of selective abortion. But why? Why would pro-abortionists want to interfere with a woman's right to choose not to have a girl? Is it not after all the woman's body besides which it's not a girl but a potential girl. The inconsistencies are ironic.
Of course once we move away from the simplistic and unscientific 'a woman has a right to choose to kill the baby in her womb but not outside of it', then we can end up with all kinds of difficulties. Peter Singer, Princeton Professor of Bioethics and a leading atheist polemicist argues that "mentally impaired babies have no greater rights than certain animals" (Independent Extra Sept 13th 2006). Bill Hamilton, to whom you owed a great deal in the writing of your book The Selfish Gene and whose writing you stated was passionate, vivid and informed; was an excellent Darwinian biologist whose views were certainly of a different kind of morality.
He once said that he had more sympathy for a lone fern than he did for a crying child. He argued that males were largely doomed to compete and that the purpose of sex was to clean out the gene pool by filtering out the useless and the weak. The low status male would be better off dead. Everything in nature according to Hamilton could be explained as the outcome of competition between genes. He argued for a radical programme of infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia in order to save the world. He believed that modern medicine was doing harm by allowing the weak to survive and thus preserving their genes. His two concrete examples of these are caesarean sections and the glasses worn by John Maynard Smith! Spectacles were a symbol of decadence within the gene pool and as for caesarean sections women should be allowed one and then only to save the mothers life after that they should be paid not to have any more children. Hamilton's view of modern medicine was so eugenically based that he believed that the only acceptable forms of medicine were painkillers and surgery. He declared that genocide was the result of over breeding and that he grieve more for the death of one giant panda than he would for a 'hundred unknown Chinese'. He also argued that the handicapped should be killed at birth. In arguing for what he termed 'inclusive happiness' he stated "I have little doubt that if trying to survive on Robinson Crusoe's island with my wife I would indeed with my own hands kill a defective baby". In this he and Singer would be as one.
It may be that the extreme social and political views of Hamilton are in fact an exception and that it would not be right to tar all biologists with the same brush. That is true. It is not biologists who are the problem but some biologists who also happen to be atheists and who do not accept the notion of an absolute morality. And whilst Hamilton may have been on the extreme there have been plenty others who have worked out the logical conclusion to their atheistic materialism. Some of the leading evolutionary biologists in the 20th century have been people who, because of their atheistic philosophy and misunderstanding of science, adopted extreme political views. Konrad Lorenz was an enthusiastic Nazi. JBS Haldane was a committed Stalinist and RA Fisher used to argue that civilisation was threatened because upper class women (i.e. 'quality') did not have enough babies. At this point perhaps someone might point out that I am doing the same thing to you that I accuse you of doing to others namely picking some extremes and using them to condemn the lot. The difference is this. Whereas you cite people who are on the wacky fringes of Christianity the people I am speaking about key and central figures. Can you imagine how atheists would have reacted if the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope or Billy Graham had come out arguing for infanticide, banning caesarean sections, or encouraging the 'superior' classes to breed more than the common people?! We would never have heard the end of it. Meanwhile you cite such fringe characters such as Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist and ignore the substantial history and philosophy within the grounds of atheistic secular biology of those who have advocated such extreme social views. What was most disturbing about Nazism was not whether its main thinkers were 'nice' people but rather its philosophical foundation and the basis and justification it gave for cruelty and injustice. That is the same for Social Darwinianism where the elimination of the weak and the destruction of the handicapped is the very antithesis of Christianity and the real enemy of humanity. I repeat again, for the umpteenth time, that this is not to state that all evolutionary atheists are de facto fascists, but it is to say that the logical consequences of evolutionary atheism can easily lead, and has lead, to such a position.
The Christian view of morality is not, as most people suppose, that the Bible gives us a set of laws to live by. Real Christians are not moralists thinking that if only we offer a reward here, a bit of punishment there, then 'decent' human beings will behave better and somehow earn their own stairway to heaven. We know that we cannot neither legislate nor use religion to make us good. Real Christians realize that the Bible's teaching is that there is an absolute morality which we all fall short of. And no amount of religion, good works or pious acts will ever be able to make us right. That is where grace, salvation, the cross and all the wonderful truths of the acts of God in Christ come into their own. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. That is why the Gospel is Good News. Not because it gives us a set of laws to live by, or religious rites to perform but because it deals with the biggest problem in the world the problem of the human heart. It is for that reason that every year I religiously watch Schindler's List to remind me of why I am a minister of the Christian Gospel. I don't just want to explain the Darkness. I want to defeat it.
Yours etc
David
11. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)
Comment #18017 by David A Robertson on January 18, 2007 at 1:19 am
Nice to be back. Missed y'all.
848. Comment #16680 by Vadjong on January 8, 2007 at 2:55 am
Vadjong you attack me for suggesting that atheist have presuppositions and accuse me of lying and then you go on to illustrate my point by stating your presuppositions and declaring that you will not discuss with anyone who muddies your 'clear thinking oasis'. Beautiful I could not make it up!
849. Comment #16703 by Fedler on January 8, 2007 at 7:32 am
"It's only dangerous to think of religion as a virus if I believe in religion. Then I would be offended and at a loss for explanation. Perhaps that's why you tell me to work it out for myself."
Ok, let me help you. One of the last people who described religion as a virus was Adolf Hitler. He did not believe in Judaism but that did not prevent him regarding it as a virus and seeking to eradicate it.
"Ignoring content of his book"
The one thing I have not done is ignore the content of the book rambling and illogical as it is.
"The mere fact he is questioning it causes you to take offense, without listening to what is actually said."
No. I meet people every day who question what I believe. That does not cause me to be offended. The fact is that you want that to be the case and there is little I can do with someone who only reads into what I say, what they want to be there.
850. Comment #16775 by Paul Creber on January 8, 2007 at 4:15 pm
As regards Darwin's quote. It was not out of context. And citing it was not claiming anything that was not already dealt with in context. If you read the whole article you will realize that I have already attacked those who claim a death bed conversion for Darwin. I was certainly not claiming that he was a Christian, nor even a theist. The additional quote you give indicates clearly that he was agnostic unlike most on this board who claim to be atheist knowing there is no God. Do you not think it a bit ironic and dishonest that you claim Darwin as one of your own?
851. Comment #16878 by J.C. Samuelson on January 9, 2007 at 10:41 am
"On the other hand, theology seems disconnected with observable reality. It does not rely on observable data and in fact distracts from a fuller understanding of the universe."
No. Theology includes observable data, but recognizes that reality does not consist only of what we see.
"The bottom line here is that if there is a supernatural entity that has an observable impact on the natural universe, it follows that such an entity could be indirectly observed to exist. It also follows that we might then be able to draw inferences from empirical observation. In other words, we might learn some of its properties. Of course, if that were to happen the entity would cease to be labeled "supernatural."
Why? Why is the supernatural de facto unobservable. If a man was raised from the dead that is supernatural and observable.
Your list of biblical contradictions with science are not contradictions at all. Take a couple of examples no one seriously reads Joshua 10:13 as teaching that the sun revolved around the earth. And why would Genesis 5:37 be wrong? I have just read that some scientists believe that the first 1000 year old human may already have been born. Whilst you may regard it as unlikely what proof do you have that Methuselah did not live to a grand old age?
"Lev 20:13. It still stands (as do all the OT laws) according to Jesus (Matt 5:17-18)."
No it does not. The Mosaic civil law no longer applies.
852. Comment #16898 by Fedler on January 9, 2007 at 1:57 pm
DR: For evolution to work it needs the right conditions and above all it needs life to start with. Does anyone have any evidence of life coming from non life?
"In your opinion, why is the god hypothesis more feasible than what physics and chemistry have slowly begun to unravel? "
I don't seem them as contrary at all. And the original question still stands. Does anyone have any evidence of life coming from non-life?
853. Comment #16940 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 9, 2007 at 5:02 pm
" Your problem is that you know that God exists, yet you can't actually provide us with proper evidence."
I no more 'know' God exists, than Dawkins knows he does not. In terms of proper evidence it depends on what you mean by proper.
"So instead of writing lengthy articles, full of venom and hatred for Professor Dawkins, I ask you to provide evidence here, for God's existence."
Again you see what you want to see. Just where is the venom and the hatred? Please give examples or are you just making it up?
855. Comment #17633 by Fedler on January 15, 2007 at 8:21 am
For those who may be interested, David has posted hew newest article here: http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/jan07.htm
"As I'm sure most everyone will realize, David is putting emphasis on the wrong word. Dawkins stresses in the TGD that the gene is selfish, NOT the individual. "
Sorry I assumed that humans were made up of genes and that since Dawkins is a genetic determinist this was kind of significant!
" We DO have an innate sense of right and wrong (see above) and we DO have the choice to follow that sense or not. That's totally compatible with an alleged evolutionary basis for right and wrong. Personally, I feel the concept of "free will" is not an absolute but those are just my personal feelings based on personal experience"
You have an innate sense of right and wrong. Where does it come from? And what if that sense is itself wrong? What if for example your innate sense of right and wrong tell us you that it is ok to kill white people or women, or disabled babies? If it is innate who is to say that is wrong?
"I can't tell from this paragraph whether David thinks Dawkins believes morals are absolute or not absolute. It could be I'm not reading it correctly, but if anyone wants to explain this one to me I would appreciate it."
It is quite clear from the book and from Dawin's interviews that morals are not absolute and change with the Zeitgeist.
857. Comment #17687 by Fedler on January 15, 2007 at 1:54 pm
"I can't remember fully, but no, I think the only evidence for moral authority according to David was the Bible, as one would expect. "
No that is not what I say at all. Morality is something that is hardwired into us from God as well. The law of God is written on our hearts. I will post the article later so you can read it for yourself. Feel free to comment on it in the relevant section on the Free Church website. http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=1894.0
858. Comment #17713 by Russell Blackford on January 15, 2007 at 4:00 pm
"Second, faith is belief in the absence of evidence and rational argument. "
Russell, this is an old chestnut which I thought we had done away with. No Christian believes that faith is belief in the absence of evidence and rational argument. It is only atheists who believe this and you then end up arguing against your own definitions.
"Third, a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the inerrant and literal truth of a holy book."
Again a definition made up to suit your own argument . If you want to discuss then I would suggest that it would be good for you not to set up straw men that amazingly you manage to knock down!
"Dealing with this kind of material is almost more trouble than it's worth."
Which is a neat way of setting up something so that you don't have to deal with it.
"Weaving in the kind of loaded language that I've pointed out may have given Robertson pleasure - who knows? Or maybe he just thinks it's a good way to score points - again, who knows? I won't speculate about what might have been in his mind when he chose to write in this manner."
But you just did
"Whatever the intention may be, it comes across as simply insulting and intellectually dishonest. "
So that's it? Anyone who disagrees with your presuppositions is just simply insulting and dishonest. Now THAT's what I call the fundamentalist way to argue and you managed to do it all without a holy book. Congratulations you have just rewritten your own definition!
12. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)
Comment #16672 by David A Robertson on January 8, 2007 at 2:10 am
For those who wonder what Fedlar is talking about the following is the article he is referring to..
Dawkins The Roots and Evil of Religion
David Robertson
30 December 2006
Dear Dr Dawkins,
There is an English nursery rhyme The Grand Old Duke of York. You know how it goes
The Grand Old Duke of York
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill;
And he marched them down again.
I kind of feel that there is where we have now arrived. You have lead us up to the top of the hill to prove why there is no God. Having in my opinion failed, you now in the rest of your book, march us back down again, having a swipe at your favourite religious targets on the way. Chapter five on the roots of religion is your attempt to answer why religion is so prevalent in every society throughout the world. "Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual counter productive fantasies of religion". Chapter eight follows up on the title of your Channel Four TV series 'The Root of all Evil?" I find your analysis in these two chapters hard to respond to because they depend upon the failed thesis that God has been proven not to exist, and because your treatment of religion is imbalanced, distorted and reflective not so much of objective analysis but rather your own subjective anti-God feelings.
There have been numerous attempts to explain why religion is so prevalent. Some neuroscientists have argued that there is a 'god centre' in the brain; some psychiatrists argue for the placebo effect of religion whereby people are comforted and have their stress reduced; Marxists argue for the view that religion is a tool of the ruling class to subjugate their people and Freudians will argue that religion is part of the same irrational mechanism in the brain that makes us fall in love. That latter point reminds me of studying as a student at the University of Edinburgh; EP Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class in which he explains away the Methodist revival by suggesting it was an expression of repressed sexuality. Even then I found it a forced and somewhat amusing explanation.
Your own preference is to suggest that religion is actually a by product of something else and that like everything else it can be explained by evolution. You argue that religion is a misfiring by product of natural selection. Somehow we have developed a survival mechanism which means that we tend to be obedient to our ancestors. Children naturally have trusting obedience which whilst it is good for survival makes them very gullible to 'mind virus's' such as religion. This is where another of your pet theories comes to the fore the notion of memes. This is an attempt to link Darwinian evolution with the development of ideas. As regards religion it means as McGrath points out "people do not believe in God because they have given long and careful thought to the matter; they do so because they have been infected by a powerful meme". But this idea falls down at least three levels. Firstly there is no empirical evidence of such a theory this is once again a 'science of the gaps' just making things up as you go along in order to fit everything into your all encompassing evolutionary theory. Secondly if it were true then your own ideas, including Darwinian evolution, would be considered memes as well. Thirdly as Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge, points out "Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider context, they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic". And I would go way beyond that. They are dangerous. If you regard religion as a virus what should be done with a virus? It should be eradicated.
Which leads me to jump to chapter eight 'What's wrong with religion?' You state that you do not like confrontation and that you 'regularly refuse invitations to take part in formal debates'. I'm afraid this will not wash. Your book is highly confrontational. The fact that you are not prepared to debate is I suspect more to do with the fact that you prefer to be confrontational about people who are not present. You surround yourself with those who agree with you before being aggressive about those who do not. In fact you set up debates and this chapter with a basic myth/meme that is a largely influential one in our culture today. It is the view that religion is essentially something evil and that atheism by contrast is good. Whilst it would only be a fool who denies the fact that some aspects of religion and some religious people have caused a great deal of harm in the world, it is equally foolish to make the kind of irresponsible sweeping statements that you do here in order to foster the myth that religion is in essence harmful. This is an atheist half truth which is widely accepted. The Guardian newspaper in December 2006 carried a survey of British people which made clear that a majority of people thought religion was harmful and divisive. Of course all religions were lumped together as one. It is the equivalent of the Bush doctrine of the axis of evil the world is divided into the good guys and the bad guys. You share that simplistic fundamentalist view.
But you don't like being called a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is someone by your definition who believes 'in a holy book'. A fundamentalist would never change their mind "we believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that". Really. I believe that the Bible is true. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I believe that God is the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe that all human beings are created equally in his image. And I would abandon these beliefs tomorrow if new evidence arose to disprove them. So that makes us even?
I think there are several reasons you are called a fundamentalist. Firstly you are passionate about what you believe. Anyone who is passionate about what they believe is often labelled a fundamentalist. Now of course you argue that your hostility that you 'occasionally voice towards religion is limited to words'. You are not going to bomb anyone or behead anyone or fly planes into skyscrapers. But on page 318 you directly contradict yourself when commenting on the old adage "Stick and stones my break my bones, but words can never hurt me". You declare "the adage is true as long as you don't really believe the words". What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you are concerned about the impact that words used by religious people may have then you must apply the same criteria to yourself. When you go around describing religion as evil and as a virus you should not be surprised if there are those who hear your words and put them into practice in a way you would not like. Nice middle class professors from Oxford do not kill (unless you watch Inspector Morse) but then neither did nice middle class Professors from Nuremberg in the 1930's. Atheists don't bomb or burn? Really? Try telling that to the members of the 77 churches in Norway which were burnt down when some over zealous young atheists took on board the teaching about how dangerous and evil religion was. "I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty -- I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind... - F.W. Nietzsche. One atheist writer in advocating attacks on those who believe in the Judaeo-Christian God writes "Any intelligent AntiChrist methodology at that point will involve a consolidation of strength, public education in the ways of science and logic for our individual members, and actions taken against the remaining believers. The new society must first stabilize itself and come to a point of economic self-sufficience and growth in social, intellectual, economic, technological and cultural areas. Once this is achieved, the executions of diehard Christians and Jews should bother no one." (Taken from the Church Arson website). Of course it would be entirely wrong to take the actions and words of a handful of atheist extremists as being indicative of atheists in general (just as it is wrong of you to take the actions and words of a handful of 'Christian' extremists as indicative of Christians) but please bear in mind that your vehemence and language can have consequences that are as serious as the consequences of the vehemence and language of some 'religious' fundamentalists.
Secondly you do not debate which gives the impression that you know you are right and that there is nothing really to discuss. It also reinforces the impression that you operate within a very closed world view. In this sense your website has more fundamentalist believers than many religious ones I know. Another sense in which you can be described as fundamentalist is the way that you attack anyone who dares to disagree with you and how you gleefully jump upon books that support your point of view. An example of this is when you hammer Mother Teresa as a woman with 'cock-eyed judgement' not worthy of a Nobel Prize and 'sanctimoniously hypocritical' on the basis of one hostile book you read. Thirdly you caricature, mock and misrepresent those who disagree with you. This is easy to do when you do not debate with them but it is not fair. As CS Lewis points out "Such people put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack".
Chapter eight for example is full of the worst examples of this kind of 'reasoning'. You cite the case of Abdul Rahman who was sentenced to death in the modern liberated Afghanistan we have set up our soldiers are currently dying to defend, because he converted to Christianity. Then you equate the Afghan Taliban with 'the American Taliban'. This is disingenuous and dishonest. Whilst there are many aspects of the association between right wing politics and some evangelicalism in the US which I cannot stand, it is clearly wrong to compare them with the Taliban in Afghanistan. No-one (even from the extremes) is calling for the State to execute those who convert to another religion, no-one is arguing for women to be banned from education or that all American women should be covered up. To the ignorant the link between the Taliban and Christianity is a neat tie up and a further justification for their opposition to Christianity. But that is only to the ignorant. You are not ignorant and you know this.
Another example you use of extremism is Pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church of 'God Hates Fags' infamy. "It is easy to write Fred Phelps off as a nut, but he has plenty support from people and their money". You even cite as evidence for this the fact that since 1991 he has been able to organise one demonstration every four days. Is the fact that one self publicising head banger manages to organise a handful of people every four days to carry obnoxious banners proof that religion is dangerous? Are you really blaming Mother Teresa, the Pope, Billy Graham, one thousand million Christians throughout the world and even yours truly for every lunatic who expresses their mental and emotional imbalance in religious terms? That is as rational as my suggesting that because Dr Josef Mengele was a scientist, all scientists are to blame and therefore science should be banned. The point is simply that anyone could produce a list of fringe mentally imbalanced people on any subject. That does not invalidate the subject.
You have a good reason for equating Christianity with the unbalanced fringe. It suits your purposes to agree with them as to what Christianity is. That's why you interview extremists. You set up straw men and then it makes you look so much more reasonable. But that is the tactic of the fundamentalist who is out to prove that he alone has the truth, rather the scholar or the seeker after what the truth is. A number of years ago I went to a meeting where the speaker was a theonomist, the late Greg Bahnsen. 95% of what he said was excellent but then he made a quantum leap trying to prove that the Old Testament Mosaic civil code, including the punishments, should be applied by the State today. I, like most of the Christians there, was horrified at his misapplication of the Bible. But there were a group of people there who supported him and agreed with his interpretation of the Bible - the people from the Secular Humanist society. You need religious extremists to prove your point and they need you. It's a kind of mutual fundamentalist admiration society where both of you justify your extremism by citing the opposition. A plague on both your houses.
You know this so you attempt to justify the link by pointing out that "even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes". (Do you think that it would be fair of me to point out that even mild and moderate anti-religious rhetoric helps to provide the climate of hatred and certainty in which extremism naturally flourishes?). Again you can only get away with this by using your own definition of faith and refusing to acknowledge the good that is done by religious people because of their religion. You define faith as believing something without evidence a definition which is just something that you have made up in your own head and has nothing to do with Christianity. My faith is based on evidence. The minute you disprove that evidence I will change my faith. But although you lump together all faiths and all faith as the same, for polemical and political reasons, you are actually creating a grave danger. Take the question of Christianity and Islam. It suits you to lump them both together (including the extremists). Patrick Sookhedo's book The Myth of Moderate Islam which you cite is an excellent discussion of the differences between Christian theology and Islamic theology. The danger is that in your equating Christianity and Islam (because of the wilful blindness caused by your hatred of religion per se) you will end up handing Islam a victory at least in Europe. Secularism cannot handle nor deal with Islam it does not have the spiritual, moral nor intellectual fibre to do so. If you destroy Christianity (which is your aim) then you will leave a spiritual and moral vacuum in Western Europe which will either be filled by a new fascism or Islam. Then you will find out for real the fact that all religions are not the same.
Before finishing let's return to the question of where religion comes from? Why are people so religious? As you point out evolutionary psychologist Paul Bloom tells us that we are naturally dualists believing that there is a difference between mind and matter. Bloom even suggests that we are innately predisposed to be creationists. Dorothy Kelman points out that children are intuitive theists. I would actually agree with this and respectively suggest that this evidence contradicts another atheist myth that people are only religious because they have been brainwashed as children. In actual fact the default positions for humans is to be religious. It takes the 'education' of secularists to get them to a 'higher consciousness' (in other words to disbelieve what they would naturally believe). Can I make a tentative suggestion to you? That the reason that human beings worship is that there is someone to worship? That the reason we have a sense of God (as opposed to other animals when did you last see rabbits holding a prayer meeting or cows a worship service?) is because God has given us that sense? That the reason we are spiritual is because we have a spirit? As CS Lewis argues "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A ducking wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world" You cite the following in your attack upon those of us who are deluded by our belief in God - "Self deception is hiding the truth from the conscious mind the better to hide if from others". "There is a tendency for humans consciously to see what they wish to see". Perhaps the boot is on the other foot. What if there is an Atheist Delusion where we delude ourselves that our natural God consciousness within is not real? That the evidence is not really evidence at all? And that God does therefore not exist? Would not the Psalmists description be right? "The Fool has said in his heart, there is no God". (Psalm 14 v. 1).
Yours etc
David
13. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)
Comment #16671 by David A Robertson on January 8, 2007 at 2:08 am
836. Comment #16198 by J.C. Samuelson on January 5, 2007 at 12:51 pm
"...I argue that God is also in time and space..."
"This would seem to suggest that given an appropriate set of criteria God could ostensibly be tested for. Unless of course you argue that God is not 'testable' in the scientific sense, which leaves us precisely where we were before. As a practical matter, it makes no difference whether God is inside or outside the universe (whatever that means) if ultimately it is forever beyond the reach of science."
- Only if you regard science as the be all and end all of everything. I would suggest that science has a much more limited role.
"All the anthropic principle says is that there places in the universe that allow for conditions hospitable to life, nothing more. There is a huge leap to be made from this to concluding that the Earth is the only such place."
But I am not saying that the earth is the only place. I don't know that. There may well be others. However what intrigues me is that the universe is so finely balanced that it can allow exist at all.
"Are you seriously suggesting that the only way for a woman to conceive today is via sex? I thought we had developed the technology to avoid that."
"Are you seriously suggesting that such technologies are equivalent to deistic insemination? If not, the comparison is an irrelevant dodge"
- No. I was just answering the usual atheist incredulity who can believe in a birth without sex. It is possible. And if man can do it then one suspects that an Almighty God could man age as well.
"On its face, atheism is a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence."
- Atheism is a lack of belief based upon certain beliefs (presuppositons). These presuppositions are not allowed to be questioned.
"However, scientific evidence stands in stark contrast to the reports extracted from religious texts."
- I am not aware of any scripture which directly contradicts any scientific evidence.
"God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. God is love. God is triune. God is personal."
"And what would you say to those who would describe God differently?"
I was answering a challenge which stated ' say who God is and I will disprove him'. I have now said who God is. I am waiting for the proof that this is wrong. I'm afraid asking about other definitions is not proof.
"It does not tell us to ridicule, or ban homosexuals."
"You're right. It tells you to kill them."
Nope.
"What is this obsession with having The Truth?"
I love the truth. I want to know the truth. And I don't want to live a life based on lies.
837. Comment #16200 by Ole on January 5, 2007 at 1:04 pm
"Happy New Year, David!"
And to you.
838. Comment #16202 by Joadist on January 5, 2007 at 1:27 pm
"God is a spirit. Great!
Now I know what God is. Unfortunately, I no longer know what a spirit is.
Would you please define spirit for me?"
Non material being
839. Comment #16209 by Paul Creber on January 5, 2007 at 2:47 pm
"DR: Certainly it is the presuppositions in the analogy which make it fall down at every level.
PC: What presuppositions? By whom?"
The presupposition that there is a stadium, that there is a world cup etc.
"DR: Firstly there are 69999 other people in the stadium who can be observed and proved (that cannot be said about billions of other universes)
PC: Who said anything about billions of other universes? My analogy relates only to the probability of this ONE universe being fine tuned for the sustenance of life."
No it does not. It refers to many other people.
"DR: Secondly there is a stadium and such a thing as the world cup.
PC: There is a universe and such a thing as planet earth."
Exactly. So one assumes then you are not allowing for things outside that universe? There is only one person in the stadium not another 69999.
The whole analogy is ridiculous about as daft as anything I have ever heard because it means that any scientific experiment which involves probability will be immediately annulled. If I go home and find that there is a new shirt on my desk. I try it on and it fits me perfectly. I can assume that it a) just came in from outer space b) was left by a passing stranger c) was a gift from the neighbours dog or d) my wife has been shopping and decided I needed a new shirt. Because the shirt fits me and has some meaning I am inclined to go towards the latter. Sitting next to Jacques means nothing and has nothing to do with my life. Being in a universe which is finely tuned for life, including mine, is somewhat different!
"On the subject of fine tuning, I should make one further point. Even if we concede for the sake of argument that you have a case, we still find ourselves a million light years from the Christian God. Your argument leaves the door wide open for Wotan, Mars, Jupiter, Thor, Allah or a veritable committee of deities to claim fatherhood of the cosmos."
Agreed. At least for Allah and the Christian God. But not for Wotan, Mars etc who were never claimed to be Almighty God.
840. Comment #16210 by Fedler on January 5, 2007 at 2:48 pm
". I've never known anyone to have any credible experiences of god, either direct or indirect." But I have. And I have never heard anyone claiming to have met the Chocolate teapot.
" It seems ironic that the religious believers turn up their noses at evolution,"
There are many religious believers who do not turn up their noses at the idea of evolution.
"True, but they twist it around so that it all of a sudden must have been a tool of god. They claim god used evolution to start biological life, but the vast majority I know can't seem to accept the possibility of evolution without god himself starting it."
Why is it twisting it? It makes a whole lot of sense to me. For evolution to work it needs the right conditions and above all it needs life to start with. Does anyone have any evidence of life coming from non life?
"I said theists claim how absurd evolution is because it creates life out of nothing. But, then theists (such as yourself) turn around and state 'God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). This is a contradiction atheistic god of the gaps."
Theists don't believe that evolution says life is created out of nothing. We all recognize that it is talking about life coming from something. But where does that come from? Creation ex nihilo is not a god of the gaps.
Of course atheists are allowed to have faith. That is what I stated. Atheism is a faith a belief system which you claim is based on evidence and which I suggest also includes a fair amount of wishful thinking and acceptance of presuppositions which have not themselves been clearly evidenced.
.
842. Comment #16266 by Fedler on January 5, 2007 at 6:49 pm
"Thirdly as Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge, points out "Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider context, they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic". And I would go way beyond that. They are dangerous. If you regard religion as a virus what should be done with a virus? It should be eradicated.
That's it. Is that a point? I think that's just quoting someone else. Explain, please."
Yes it is a quote. I can't pretend it is my own words. So what? Does it matter who says it if it is true? As for the danger of regarding religion as a virus. I think you should be able to work that one out.
Your next paragraph continues
"I can't speak for Dr. Dawkins, but I suspect that he doesn't debate because it's hard to have a debate over differing concepts. Debating with theists, to Dawkins, is probably about arguing over the color of unicorns. But, putting that difference aside, I don't see any substance to what you say. You don't appear to be debating the content of what he says in the book, only that you don't like it that he doesn't debate regularly."
This is bizarre. Firstly if that is the case for Dawkins then why write a whole book which is essentially a polemic about the colour of unicorns? Secondly each of my articles deals with what he says in the book.
"In addition, I don't know of anything 'widely accepted' when it comes to atheists."
There is no God. Religion is evil. Belief in God is a delusion. I just believe in one God less. And the numerous other memes and clichés regularly parroted on this website.
"But you don't like being called a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is someone by your definition who believes 'in a holy book'. A fundamentalist would never change their mind "we believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that". Really. I believe that the Bible is true. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I believe that God is the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe that all human beings are created equally in his image. And I would abandon these beliefs tomorrow if new evidence arose to disprove them. So that makes us even?
This seems a bit childish and, again, does not respond to any content. Just more Dawkins-bashing."
The content is clear. Dawkins defines a fundamentalist and what a fundamentalist would say. I challenge his assumption and you say that this is not responding to any content. Indeed in this and the remainder of your posts you keep saying 'I do not see any content'. Yet each of them responds to what Dawkins says and cites him. If you mean that you do not see any content you like then fair enough. But if you really mean that you do not see any content I give up. I can't argue with those who cannot see.
844. Comment #16587 by Paul Creber on January 7, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Thanks for the quote from Hawking. Here is another one and one from Darwin for good measure.
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." (Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time).
" the extreme difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity for looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." Charles Darwin
14. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)
Comment #16184 by David A Robertson on January 5, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hi Guys,
Hope y'all had a good new year and Christmas. The latest article on TGD is now online on the FC Website if you want to have a look - http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/decd06.htm
824. Comment #14696 by Fedler on December 24, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Fedlar, thanks for your comments.
"Something that is not a personal experience can only be heresy, unless it's backed up with sufficient evidence or logic. These comments seem contradictory."
Why would something that is not personal experience be heresy? I have not personally experienced that Australia exists but I have no reason to doubt it. On the other hand I could experience things which may not be real I could for example have an hallucination. So experience and evidence should go together. They are not necessaraily contradictory.
"God is outside time and space" vs. "faith without evidence is just stupid."
"Please provide your precise proof of how god is outside time and space, or else your faith in this statement is justwell, stupid (your own words)."
There is of course a difference between 'precise proof' and evidence. Also the trouble with your demand is that the only proof you will accept is that which is confined to time and space. The evidence for the statement that God is outside time and space is logical and revelational. It is also within time and space because if you had completed the quote you would have found that I argue that God is also in time and space. There are 'footprints' of the Creator and there is above all the evidence of Jesus Christ.
"Anything CAN be used to justify anything" vs. "I specifically argue against the God of the gaps idea."
"If it CAN be used to justify anything, then the God of the gaps is still a valid argument, specifically regarding your feelings on evolution."
No the point is that whilst it CAN be used, it does not necessarily mean that it SHOULD not be used.
" It seems ironic that the religious believers turn up their noses at evolution,"
There are many religious believers who do not turn up their noses at the idea of evolution.
"You stated how God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing (because the Bible says so). Yet, at the same time, theists claim how absurd evolution is because it spontaneously creates life out of nothing."
You will forgive me saying this but I think your understanding of the theory of evolution is wrong here. I have never heard an evolutionist claim that evolution 'spontaneously creates life out of nothing'. I had thought that evolution was the about the evolving of life from already existing matter. Or has the term evolution now evolved itself to a new meaning?
.
"Any unknown is attributed to god, until the scientific community finds the answer, then the goalposts are moved"
Again I am not sure you are listening. We are not claiming that an unknown is evidence for God, but rather that a known (the conditions for life in the Universe) is evidence.
"Other than claiming Jesus was born of a virgin, do you have references for human virgin births"
Are you seriously suggesting that the only way for a woman to conceive today is via sex? I had thought we had developed the technology to avoid that.
"You seem to indicate how as atheists we aren't allowed to have faith, as if faith is strictly for believers. No one else can have it. Then, you seem to indicate it is inherent in all of us (even atheists). Our definitions of faith may be different, but these statements are contradictory even without different definitions."
Of course atheists are allowed to have faith. That is what I stated. Atheism is a faith a belief system which you claim is based on evidence and which I suggest also includes a fair amount of wishful thinking and acceptance of presuppositions which have not themselves been clearly evidenced.
826. Comment #15203 by Torbjrn Larsson on December 29, 2006 at 1:58 pm
"Dawkins extrapolates backwards from the theory of biological evolution to making it a universal theory which disproves God.
Again, this is your interpretation, not evident in the facts."
If you read The God Delusion and especially the chapter 'Why there is almost certainly not a God' then it is quite clear that this is what Dawkins claims. He uses the biological evolutionary principle that the complex comes from the simple and cannot be the other way round to 'prove' that there is no God. Who Designed the Designer is a question that only works if you believe that everything has to be evolved. This is a theory which goes way beyond the evolution of life on earth and is not something that is immediately obvious.
. "You should also explain why you can conflate Dawkins claim of "improbable" (low, non-zero probability) with 'impossible' ('disprove'), since this is also a contrafactual use of probabilities."
It's called common sense and honesty. Dawkins no more believes in God than he does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a rhetorical device he can use the word 'almost' but in reality he is as certain as one can be about anything.
I have no problem with the idea that God used evolution to create.
"Your hangup is evident. "
Not to me. What hangup are you talking about? If the scientific evidence is for evolution then I have no problem with that. Why is that a hangup?
.
"It seems to be at the core of your insistence that religion needs to make claims on science, a business that is both futile and dangerous to truth."
I agree. But the mistake you are making here is to assume that the only evidence acceptable is scientific. Furthermore I believe that all truth is God's truth and that science and religion are not opposed. Why should they be? Science is only the study of what God has made.
"As I said, while faith may be bounded rationality, it isn't coherent rationality with science and observational knowledge."
Really? Who says? There are many scientists who think that it is.
827. Comment #15213 by Paul Creber on December 29, 2006 at 2:43 pm
"I am surprised that you still fail to understand the significance of our arguments against a "fine-tuned" universe. Torbjrn has explained it mathematically, and referred you to several websites which amplify its relevance. For my part, I have provided two analogies which mirror its fallacy."
I do find it a little disturbing that you think the 'fine tuned universe' is a fallacy. You will forgive me but I am more inclined to go along with people like Paul Davies (non-thiest though he is) .
Nevertheless, I shall try again. Imagine this scenario:
"It's the World Cup, 2222. Scotland are the hosts, and they face England in the final at Hampden. Tickets are like gold dust, but David Robertson manages to acquire one (this guy has influential connections). He takes his seat in the stand, and you'll never guess who is sitting next to him. It's quite incredible, uncanny really, but the seat is occupied by none other than Jacques Dubois, from Rennes, North Western France. Yes, out of 70,000 people in Hampden, David Robertson finds himself sitting next to none other than Jacques Dubois, a complete stranger. The odds against this happening are amazingly long. Indeed, Kenny Dalglish has estimated that if David Robertson had been sitting just ONE SEAT to his right, he would not have been sitting next to Jacques. And if Jacques had been sitting just ONE SEAT to his left, he would not have been sitting next to David. And if neither of them had got hold of a ticket, or if neither of them was a football fan or if neither of them had been born, they wouldn't be sitting there at all. Whatever the result of today's big match, we shall never cease to ponder the astounding, wonderful, amazing and incredible phenomenon of Hampden 2222 North Stand, Row 12, Seats C and D."
David, please tell us what, if anything, is wrong with the reasoning in the paragraph above. "
Certainly it is the presuppositions in the analogy which make it fall down at every level Firstly there are 69999 other people in the stadium who can be observed and proved (that cannot be said about billions of other universes) Secondly there is a stadium and such a thing as the world cup. Thirdly being next to Jacques is not a necessary condition for my existence. Fourthly the probability of me sitting next to Jacques is still far lower than the probability of there being the fine tuning necessary for the Universe in the first place. The analogy falls down at every level.
828. Comment #15216 by Joadist on December 29, 2006 at 3:56 pm
"We have disproved God countless times. Every time we do, the Theist change the definition of God."
Must have missed something Joadist. When did you disprove God? And when did Theists change the definition of God. That definition has been pretty straightforward for the past 2000 years!
"But it is a simple matter to disprove any definition of God that exists today.
Define God, and I will disprove it."
God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable. God is love. God is triune. God is personal.
829. Comment #15641 by tiredntroubled on January 1, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Thanks for your comments. They are really important and serious matters. If you would really like to discuss them then please contact me at david.robertson@freechurch.org. I think the most important thing about your question 'why does God love us' is simply the fact that he does. I would also urge you not to give up on Christianity. There are significant problems but they are the problems of life and love the atheist way is the way of the barren wilderness.
As regards your English paper then perhaps I could suggest that you look at the rest of my articles on the Free Church website which look at the issue. www.freechurch.org
832. Comment #15747 by NoLongerHaveBelief on January 2, 2007 at 12:36 pm
"JESUS JESUS JESUS LA-LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you Atheists!" This is what you are coming across as, I'm afraid to say."
Sorry NLB, but I think that that is what you want to hear me coming across as. I think you have already your mind up about anything that I would say. I have tried not to keep citing religious clichés and biblical texts at you. Sorry that I have failed.
"You won't even consider the possibility of there being no God."
I have considered that possibility often.
"I am very secure with this position."
I realize that. Your reactions indicate your security.
"I do NOT have any intention of telling you what I did or didn't understand"
I did not really understand his post either. I thought you might have been able to help but it seems as though you are in the same boat.
"You're not playing by Jesus's rules."
I thought you did not believe in Jesus so why should you be bothered about his rules?
"You Sir, are ANGRY with Atheists - and in particular, with Professor Dawkins. I think he must have hit some sore point with your beliefs - but you can't admit it, because you've invested a life time into it. That's the truth, isn't it? You're afraid. Afraid he could actually be right."
I'm afraid that you should leave the amateur psychology alone. No, I am not angry with Dr Dawkins and I am most certainly not afraid. The God Delusion does not really offer a challenge. There are other atheist writings which are far more effective.
"I was a Christian, but I couldn't live with the Contradictory knowledge of the Bible any longer - I don't believe any sane man could. Indeed, the great Professor Dawkins has opened my eyes. I find him much more credible than the Bible or any religious sect for that matter."
Again I understand that. You have replaced one religion with another, and one prophet with another. However I am intrigued by what you consider to be the contradictory knowledge of the Bible. Could you let me know what this is?
"You must admit that even YOU don't really know if your Lord exists?"
I do know. I am as sure of the existence of Christ as I am of anything.
"When will you start bringing some logic into these forums?"
I try to do that all the time. Obviously not very successfully.
"I can concede in a notion of a supreme being - all Atheists can."
Most atheists I know do not accept that there is a supreme being. That is why they are atheists.
"The supernatural elegance of his Gay creations is something to be ridiculed, banned and forbidden - by your Bible's standard. This is something you can't white-wash with fancy words (as you have been doing so far) or with fanciful polemic vocabulary."
Again you are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Bible. It does not tell us to ridicule, or ban homosexuals. Neither does it tell us that God makes people homosexual. Nor that women should be second class citizens. I cannot defend what you are saying because I do not accept that that is what the Bible teaches.
833. Comment #15758 by Greywizard on January 2, 2007 at 3:24 pm
'the Bible teaches that God created ex nihilo.' This is not altogether correct. In Genesis 1 we are told that God's spirit moved over the face of the waters - or chaos (something seems already to have been there). In the second chapter, the second story of creation, it is clear that the earth already existed in a dry and lifeless form to which God brought order and life. The whole question of creatio ex nihilo is a fairly deep theological problem, and it raises others in its turn. But, almost certainly, the Bible itself does not teach this, although theologians later took this as an implication of the idea of God presumed by the Bible."
The word used in Genesis 1:1 is Bara and is used of creating ex nihilio.
'I believe in a personal God. But I do not think I have the right to either limit him or to claim that I understand him. However I do trust him on the basis of the evidence he has provided.' Well, if you could point to evidence, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? It would all be nicely settled. (See later, the comment on revelation.)"
I keep trying to point to evidence but the bottom line is that there is no evidence that would be acceptable to those whose presuppositions already exclude the possibility of the supernatural.
"There's a lot of ad hominem stuff in your post which I'll just ignore, but you should really watch it."
I have noticed this accusation keeps coming. Would you like to evidence it? I have many posts on this thread so please give me some examples of ad hominem. And would you accept that ad hominem is a major part of The God Delusion. One example is citing Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist and 'God Hates Fags' fame.
"His point is simply that assuming a designer is assuming something for which there is no evidence in our experience of how design has actually developed."
That is true for biology but is not true for example for my computer. Just as you mock creationists who hold to Paley's watchmaker argument why should it be self evident that evolutionary biology on earth means the same in the cosmos?
"'I have no problem with the idea that God used evolution to create.' You may have no problem but there is a problem there, since God is really an unnecessary hypothesis. What you are calling creation takes care of itself."
Not at all. For there to be evolution you need the right conditions and the materials in the first place. But you really have this one sown up. If you can demonstrate that there is a natural cause (I would call it a secondary cause) then you think that you can exclude God. You thus rely on the God of the Gaps theology to prove there is no God. That is not a position intelligent theists accept. When I give thanks to God for the food on my table I am not saying that it fell from the sky miraculously. I know it came from Tesco's and I paid for it. But ultimately I do believe that it came from God.
2And yet you would have quite a job producing the evidence, wouldn't you? You believe in God, you believe that God has revealed himself to us, you believe that God is the creator of all things, but you have no evidence."
I disagree completely. We have plenty evidence but I suspect that your presuppositions mean that you will not accept any evidence that I would offer. Could you let me know what evidence you would accept?
"'Revelation is part of the evidence that God gives. In fact without revelation we would not know him. Indeed I question whether we could know anything without revelation.' Wow! This really is offering up a hostage to fortune, because there is no way to tell when something is or is not an actual revelation from God, and not just a supposed one. How do you know when something is revealed?"
Of course it is a hostage to fortune because you do not accept the concept of revelation. How do we know? Personal experience, internal consistency, historical consistency, factual accuracy, etc.
"'I hope you will all be enlightened!' This really is patronising. In fact, for someone who represents a church, your response here is most awfully arrogant and distasteful. Is this really what Christians are like? "
I kind of hope that all Christians are not like me. I am intrigued that you think that hoping that people will be enlightened is awfully arrogant and distasteful. There are many atheists who have expressed the hope on this website that I will be enlightened. The site itself claims to be an oasis for 'clear thinking'. One assumes that you find that this too is patronizing, arrogant and distasteful. I personally don't have a problem with it. If atheists believe that they have the truth and that they have come to this view through enlightenment then I consider it very nice that you want me to be enlightened as well. Why should I not return the complement?
15. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism
Comment #15257 by David A Robertson on December 30, 2006 at 2:52 am
John,
That is interesting. You cited the JS and I responded with some detail about why it was not as you claimed. I have answered your question and point in some detail and yet you claim this is 'rhetorical puffery'. I would suggest that determining the resurrection by voting with coloured balls is closer to rhetorical puffery. My own couple of sentences contained at least five verifiable facts and were not just rhetoric. If this is the standard of evidence you are looking for I am not surprised that you are walking away when you are challenged and your bluff is called.
If you are seriously looking for evidence for the resurrection then I would suggest you start with the NT, then try some basic material like Morrisons 'Who Moved the Stone?' or Josh McDowell's material. Meanwhile if th
16. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism
Comment #15253 by David A Robertson on December 30, 2006 at 1:52 am
60. Comment #15111 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
Brian, I love the fact that in the same post you can condemn (rightly) asserting that 'things are so' and within a couple of sentences gives the gem "I did not learn this from Wikpedia. It is common knowledge"! Wonderful stuff.
I admit it is very hard to discuss with someone who seriously thinks that a combination of 'common knowledge' and Wikpedia entitles him to claim expertise in biblical scholarship. I don't know why any of us bother going to University we could get all our knowledge of biology, theology, history etc of the internet.
"I'm sorry, but everyone who reads this exchange can see that your answers are simply nuts."
If by nuts you mean acceptance of scholarship, history and open mindedness then yes I plead guilty. I am as mad as a brush.
61. Comment #15114 by JohnC on December 29, 2006 at 2:26 am
"If the Jesus Seminar was not the best credentialled group of non-apologist scholars to have examined the evidentiary basis of NT claims, which group was?"
Yes John. You conveniently forgot to mention in your first post that whilst 14 of the Jesus Seminar were reputed scholars, they were the small minority in a group of 74 and that 'truth' was decided by voting with coloured balls! Can you imagine the fury on this website if a group of 74 experts on evolution which only included 14 scientific experts and several AIG members, then voted on the truth of evolution! As for the best group I would suggest that there are dozens of University departments where reputed scholars have studied and looked at the evidence involved. It is typical of liberal American imperialism that a seminar which consists of mostly modern Americans (more than half from just three Universities) is the best that there has ever been in the world. Maybe we should just let America run the world...
"Your aversion to letting the evidence speak is revealed by your barely concealed horror that some members of the Seminar were atheists!"
I am very happy to let evidence speak. At the moment the best you guys can offer is the JS, wikpedia and common knowledge! Now let me see the seminar votes that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The atheists on the panel of course know that this did not happen because it is their presupposition that dead people do not rise so no matter the evidence, it is not acceptable. It's a bit like asking a flat earther to vote on whether the earth is round.
" Presumably, this is the the result of the reflexive belief held by most Christians that only those with a predetermined view about the outcome can reliably examine the evidence concerning the historical Jesus."
Indeed. Every atheist on this website believes that dead people do not rise. Therefore you have predetermined that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
"But at the very least anyone who now wants to persist with the claim that the Resurrection was an actual historical (rather than visionary) event must deal with evidence and argument produced by the Seminar. And that is quite different to trying to discredit the process (an ad hominem attack) through such risible strategies as complaining that it *only* had 14 leading NT scholars. "
Indeed but your knowledge of the history of biblical scholarship is so pathetic that you do not realize that the JS came up with nothing new. All this had been said before in 19th century liberalism and has largely been discredited. But it seems as though most atheists, including Dawkins, are stuck in a 19th century timewarp.
62. Comment #15118 by hopeful on December 29, 2006 at 2:59 am
"David Robertson said: "And how many books for nine year olds do you know that have such warning signs on them?"
David, you have missed the main point I was making, but don't worry about it because in hindsight I don't expect you to appreciate it."
Your point was? Forgive me for being so dense I thought you were complaining that a book for nine year olds about Jesus did not contain a warning sticker. I was merely pointing out the rather obvious fact that not many books for nine year olds contain warning stickers. Unless of course you were making another point which I as an ignorant prole just could not decipher. Perhaps you could teach me how to decode atheist messages?
"There is a lot of intelligence, experience and wisdom in this web-site"
And self congratulation, mockery of others and intolerance.
65. Comment #15201 by jbannon on December 29, 2006 at 1:37 pm
"I see David that you have not addressed my comments."
I'm kind of damned if I do and damned if I don't. I reply to every point and that gets hammered as superficial. I reply to a few and I get hammered as avoiding the wonderful, deep 'knock em dead ' arguments of all the brilliant clear thinkers on this site.
"The warmed over TAG strategy you use has proven completely useless. The fact is that theist and atheist alike behave in moral (and immoral) ways and we all get our morals from the same sources - our intuition based on our empathy."
I am intrigued that you think all human beings behave the same. And your claim that our morals all come from our intuition on our empathy is of course not evidenced. I would argue that we each have a moral consciousness given us by God and that nature and nurture both play a part in how that develops.
"The bottom line is that morality is human and that there is no ultimate authority. "
Just out of interest. How do you know that? What is your authority for saying that? Is it ultimate?
"How this will finally play out, if it ever does, no-one really knows but we do have an opportunity to move away from biblical precepts which, to be frank, are grossly immoral."
Biblical precepts love your neighbour as yourself, love your neighbour, do not murder, do not steal, give to the poor, do not gossip, seek the truth. Yep I guess in the parallel universe of absolutist atheist philosophy there are all 'grossly immoral'.
66. Comment #15205 by Logicel on December 29, 2006 at 2:04 pm
"If only the discussion threads monopolized by David and the responses to his posts could be published, I think Christianity would vanish!"
Please. Feel free to publish them. I would love the world to see how atheists really argue.
67. Comment #15211 by Logicel on December 29, 2006 at 2:38 pm
"People like David are working hard unknowingly to help deconvert people."
What does this mean?
"And in typical David fashion, he thinks that the majority of the converts are not Christian? Most of the testimonials are from people who once believed deeply in Jesus. David does not pay attention to what people are saying and writing. He misconstrues content fairly 'religiously.' "
I read the first twelve and none of them gave any indication of anything other than a religious upbringing. Of course to you guys that is all there is anyway it is inconceivable for you that anyone should choose to believe in God because of the evidence.
68. Comment #15237 by Aussie on December 29, 2006 at 7:52 pm
"Of late I have detected a subtle but growing realisation by David Robertson of the untenability of his irrational position. He may in fact be slowly recognising the grievousness of his sins against intellectual honesty and his guilt in enticing young, gullible innocents down paths of darkness and superstition."
Dream on
"But David is not lost. He should not despair but rejoice in the knowledge that he is loved by all members of the fellowship of atheists on this site. Total and complete forgiveness will be his if only he will renounce his sinful ways and embrace the Truth by accepting the overwhelming evidence before his eyes. The choice is his. "
Aussie, I'm sorry I've tired to believe, but I just don't have the blind faith to join your religion. You express it in such beautiful terms and it all sounds so wonderful a community of love, harmony and reason which will save the world. The trouble is I am a rationalist who looks for evidence and what I see from history warns me that maybe atheism is not the 'all you need is love' philosophy that you seem to espouse. And then you see I have read the rest of this website. It does seem kind of closed minded. I prefer to live with the open mind, doubts and pains of Christianity, rather than the fundamentalist certainties of atheism comforting and therapeutic though they obviously are to the disciples here. Anyway I have to go Leonard Cohen is leading me to the heights of estatic joy but I guess he is a bit too depressing for you happy clappy atheists...Feel the love....
17. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism
Comment #15110 by David A Robertson on December 29, 2006 at 1:22 am
Once again thanks for the responses.
49. Comment #15020 by JohnC on December 28, 2006 at 7:27 am
"David, I'm afraid you can't dispose of the Jesus Seminar in such a cheap and unworthy fashion: these were not people picked off the street; 14 of its number are regarded as leading NT scholars. Their method of decision-making was novel, but hardly negates their conclusion. A serious person, as distinct from an oily polemicist, would engage the argument rather than indulge in the equivalent of an ad hominem dismissal. Like it or not, they are still the best credentialled single group of scholars to have examined this issue. And all you propose as an alternative is that your private examination of the evidence persuaded you otherwise. Perhaps you should be writing less and thinking more. "
That's a fair point. But you also need a wee bit more information. The Jesus Seminar ended up with 74 scholars. They decided things by majority vote. As you point out 14 of the 74 were reputable NT scholars. A further 20 are recognized as some expertise in the field (although not leading authorities). The remaining 40 are relatively unknown 18 have no published works at all in the field. These include atheists. The whole project is totally skewed towards North America with three Universities Harvard, Claremont and Vanderbilt having 36 of them. Only a handful come from outside the US and Europe in particular is unrepresented (it's a bit like World Series baseball with only two countries!).
The whole project is not representative of contemporary NT scholarship and can be dismissed as such. How would you like science to be decided by people taking majority votes, more than half of whom were not leading authorities in their field? I'm afraid that my argument is not an ad hominem one but rather it exposes the claim that this is the 'best credentialised' group of scholars. It is clearly not.
50. Comment #15022 by beders on December 28, 2006 at 9:06 am
"I'm pretty sure you investigated the hard biological/medical problems of a resurrection considering Jesus' cause of death.
Is that in any way plausible? "
Yes.
51. Comment #15025 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 28, 2006 at 9:33 am
"I'm glad to hear you admit it. Now address the question, is it really equally probable that Jesus rose from the dead and that your wife exists? I take it your wife does actually exist? With your track record so far, there is some residual doubt in my mind:-)"
Yes.
"Oh come along now, this is not even controversial. Even most theologians accept that the bible as it exists was cut and paste together by a committee of clerics in the 4th (my apologies for the error) century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Canonization_of_the_Old_Testament_and_New_Testament"
Please please please do not come citing Wikipedia as the font of all knowledge. The vast majority of biblical scholars do not believe that the NT was cut and pasted together in the 4th century (unless you