1. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312495 by mjwemdee on January 5, 2009 at 2:17 am

Comment #312462 by iType

It's quite difficult for most of us to see the programme actually, since it's on Radio 4.
(Sorry, couldn''t resist that.)

I must admit, I had no idea there was an actual policy of excluding humanists and secularists on this programme. I usually 'tut tut' every time some twat gives us his TFTD but now I am just outraged that Auntie Beeb is so one-sided. I think jmills (Comment #312303) has it about right. Let's get litigious.

2. How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam

Comment #300439 by mjwemdee on December 11, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Is it true there is no Arabic translation of The God Delusion? If not, why not? (I hope that doesn't sound naive - but isn't this something that RDF could be doing?)
It would be nice to see a list of the current translations of the book - is this available anywhere?

3. Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson Debate

Comment #295641 by mjwemdee on December 2, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Have we all seen how the moderator of this event has responded and commented on the debate on the Westminster Theological Seminary website?

Hitchens vs. Wilson: Some Thoughts
By Dr. K. Scott Oliphint, Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology

I have been asked to provide some thoughts to the debate which I hosted between Christopher Hitchens (atheist) and Douglas Wilson (Christian). My reticence to do this stems from a couple of concerns. First, it is easy to figure out what Tony Romo should have done in yesterday's game. However, figuring that out is monumentally different than being in the game.
Second, and perhaps more important because more subtle, it is crucial for anyone listening to the debate to recognize the medium in which it is given.

The debate took place on Westminster's campus by virtue of an invitation from those involved to host the debate. One of the reasons for it, surely one of the central reasons, was that the three debate locations (New York, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C.) would become the setting for a film documentary. Because of that, the debate was structured to fit into such a context. In other words, we should recognize that what was not happening in the debate was a well-structured and lengthy discussion of central and essential ideas.

To put it more concisely, the debate was calculated to fit into a (film-able) context, and not calculated toward a focused penetration of foundational and antithetical paradigms. (Parenthetically, Christians, of all people, should be keenly aware of the fact that, in important ways, the medium is the message. This is most clearly demonstrated when so-called political "debates" are staged for television such that very little, if any, substantial discussion is permitted, or even possible.)

Having said that, central and essential ideas were broached in the discussion and were even broached with some precision and clarity. Both Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson did a wonderful job of communicating some of their basic concerns. But anyone listening to the debate will recognize that there are a plethora of issues that are introduced, some with very complex and meticulous contexts, that simply cannot be developed, given the format.

Hitchens is an atheist whose knowledge of Scripture is good. He is quite capable of pulling out various passages of Scripture that, on the surface and given his atheistic bent, can seem ludicrous. The questions he raises about Scripture (the demons sent into the herd of pigs, the lex talionis, etc.) all need the proper exegetical and hermeneutical approach in order to see them for what they are. But, such an approach cannot be garnered in an hour of give and take.

Given the (film-able) context, the listener will, nevertheless, hear a number of quotable moments in the discussion — sound bites, if you will. A few of my favorites, listed in no particular order:

Doug Wilson (DW): Neither one of us has a problem with killing the Amalekites.
Christopher Hitchens (CH): What if I was an Amalekite? It changes everything.
CH: To no argument does religion add anything that doesn't make it more toxic.
CH: The swine-possessed miracle, if it were true, would not be worth having. It seems to blaspheme the notion of "true" and "beautiful" quite badly. How can you claim that miracles are only true when they're Calvinist?
CH: Even if I grant the whole thing [i.e., Christianity], but it makes no difference, it wouldn't make me a Christian if it were all true.
CH: Don't you have an abnormally unsuspicious mind?
CH: A lot of people need to be treated, by me, in ways that I don't want to be treated myself.
CH: There is a gulf fixed on how we think, not just what. I don't think it would be a good thing if I could think Christianity were true.
CH: If there was a loving God, I can't but feel that one would know it.
CH: That's what I assume faith must be - the willingness to assume what you must prove.

What may not be as obvious to the listener —but was obvious to me as I stood next to these men — is that there was a moment toward the end of the debate when the previous mood and tone was traded in for an intensity and real concern that was otherwise missing. It came after a (good) question was asked concerning Doug Wilson's view of evidences, after which time, the following (my paraphrase) was said:

DW: I have faith in the Bible, you have faith in reason.
CH: No, I don't have faith in reason; I'm inclined to doubt something if its truth will be something that suits me. We [i.e., atheists] don't love the idea that we will be annihilated; we don't indulge in wish-thinking. We don't assume what we're asked to prove.
CH: You're a man of one book
DW: You're a man of one thought [audience laughs]
CH: If you laugh at that, you're like Bill Mahr's audience, you'll laugh at anything.
I don't like being told that my arguments aren't as good as his because he has divine information that I don't have.
CH: There's an assumption with which I will dispense before the inquiry - there is no supernatural intervention in this argument. Like LaPlace, I don't need the god-hypothesis.
If he does exist, he is incompetent, absent-minded, capricious and cruel.

This gets to the nub of the issue, and, in my opinion, was the reason that Christopher Hitchens thought he should demean his audience. He does rely on his own understanding - of the world, of Christianity, of himself, of beauty, or morality. Wilson hit the nail on the head.
Hitchens sees such reliance as a skeptical process, in which he doubts whatever is useful to him, but this "process" is just another way of saying, "I am my own master, and I am master of all I survey."

What if, for example, there are some things that are immoral, even irrational, to doubt? How would we know such a thing? How could we demonstrate it? Certainly not by doubting them, since that would be to affirm the irrational. We could only know such a thing and demonstrate the irrationality and immorality if we first accepted these things as bedrock truths, truths without which there would be no other truths.

Christopher Hitchens, listeners will note, never doubts his own ability to determine what is true and what is not; he never concedes that he could be wrong, and centrally wrong, about everything. Not only so, he demands a god who will act and think as Hitchens determines. Like the passers-by at the cross, Hitchens demands, "If you are the Son of God, I command you to come down from the cross" (cf. Matt. 27:39f.) That is, I'll only believe what you say if you do what I say.

Doug Wilson knows that he is wrong about everything, unless what he affirms and knows is what God has said. This point, though unable to be developed, was clearly made by Wilson and it turned the otherwise affable Hitchens against his own audience toward the end.

It was my privilege to host these men in this discussion. They were gracious, articulate and engaging. But we should not lose sight of the fact that what happened on that night had its focus on the battle taking place in the heavenly realms. And we should pray that victory will be seen in the subduing of the heart of Christopher Hitchens.

4. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #252761 by mjwemdee on September 23, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Well, well, well. This is extraordinary indeed.
I couldn't help thinking though:

to help clergy counter the influence of the scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins.

5. Creationist Britain (would you Adam and Eve it?)

Comment #250421 by mjwemdee on September 19, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Re Comment #250255 by Huxley_leopard and
Comment #250265 by phasmagigas:

Martin Johnson, the deputy general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers said: "We're OK with the idea of creationism being taught as part of an RE lesson where it's taught as one of a range of beliefs," he says.

"But we'd be deeply sceptical about it being taught in science lessons, unless it was being taught or discussed as a theory and debated in a way that other scientific theories can be."

6. Origin of the specious

Comment #245647 by mjwemdee on September 11, 2008 at 8:42 am

Brilliant article. Grayling is right on target as usual.

Jesuit education is pure sinister mind-control.

However - and I'm sorry to be pedantic -

"the lord hath laid the foundations of the earth so that it shall not be moved for ever" (Psalm 102, beloved of Bellarmine in his efforts to shut up the astronomers and philosophers of the era of Descartes)

7. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #241441 by mjwemdee on September 2, 2008 at 8:45 am

Finally received a reply from Northampton.
Here is my original letter of protest:

Dear Sir/Madam

We read with horror in the Northampton Chronicle the report that the Abingdon Park Museum appears to have censored part of its science exhibition on evolution as a response to one solitary complaint from the public. An excuse was subsequently made about 'syntax' of the censored text but having read the said wording there is little doubt that this action is simple pandering to the sensibilities of some religious minority who dislikes the scientific theories advanced by Darwin now generally accepted. By this action you and Northampton Borough council appear to be endorsing the views of this minority (of one), and denying the right of the rest of us to see the results of rational and scientific thought.

One bully can express malcontent over truth, at a museum of science no less, and the administration of the museum makes the decision to cover the sign? This is terribly disturbing. Who in hell are running these facilities? When that display was put forward about Darwin, didn't you, the facilities manager and staff know about the controversy surrounding the issue? Behind closed doors did you think, "if even one person complains, we are going to have to censor this display"? Who took this disastrously misguided decision? As for the syntax issue, don't you have anyone proof-reading your display texts?

As head and staff of an educational institution, with the duty to promote enlightenment, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. What next? Will planetariums be offering astrology lessons and 'Star-of-Bethlehem' shows?

Yours in earnest,

Martin Waddington

Dear Mr Waddington

Thank you for your e-mail concerning the displays at Abington.

Firstly, can I assure in no uncertain terms that as a public institution our core purpose is the communication of ideas in a clear and objective way. The issue at Abington Museum has arisen because of a misunderstanding of why some text in a panel of one of our displays was covered up.

We received a comment some while ago about the panel in our geology display which attempts to explain how the biblical interpretation of fossils changed to an evolutionary understanding of fossils. The text confused the theory of evolution with the biblical interpretation - specifically part of one line in the original panel text is patently nonsensical since it refers to the 'Genesis view of evolution'. This is nonsense because evolution is a scientific theory developed in the 19th century - which obviously means that there cannot be a 'Genesis view' of it!

The original text, in my opinion, was not completely clear about how geological stratification is evidence for, and supports evolutionary theory. We are in the process of getting the new text panel made - with a more clear and correct articulation of how biblical interpretations of geological stratification have been superseded by a scientific interpretation of the evidence.

I hope this explains and reassures you about our integrity as a museum service. Myself, and others working through our press office have been putting the matter straight in the public domain.

Yours sincerely

William Brown
Senior Museums & Culture Officer

8. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224207 by mjwemdee on August 4, 2008 at 9:56 am

Anyone see last weeks edition of Metro - the London free newspaper that now litters our streets and train compartments? They included this little news item:

ATHEIST WEB BAN 'ILLEGAL"
A Council which has blocked workers from viewing atheist websites may face legal action for discrimination. Birmingham City Council has installed software preventing employees from browsing such pages but allows them to look at ones on conventional religions. The National Secular Society described the council's move as 'slightly deranged' and said it would consider legal action. The council said: 'Our measures are about preventing abuse of the system'.

9. Write to UCF

Comment #219114 by mjwemdee on July 26, 2008 at 9:35 am

Launched: one incandescent volley at President Hitt.

10. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #218814 by mjwemdee on July 25, 2008 at 5:57 pm

I thought we in the UK had quality issues with our state education, but this is just unbelievable.

11. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #184405 by mjwemdee on May 25, 2008 at 2:35 am

One trait I wish anamals would have is being embarrased when farting.

12. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #184268 by mjwemdee on May 24, 2008 at 8:50 am

"It's clearly meant to teach that God cannot possibly exist," Chopich said. "... There's obviously some teaching going on, there's some philosophy there. It's not completely neutral."

13. Gimme that Old-Time Irreligion

Comment #181823 by mjwemdee on May 18, 2008 at 10:18 am

Much as I generally agree with Mr Leavitt sentiments, does anyone else find his writing style a bit indigestible? Prolix, grandiloquent, not to mention circumloquacious and tending to periphrastic verbosity...

14. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179741 by mjwemdee on May 13, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Funes urged the church and the scientific community to leave behind divisions caused by Galileo's persecution 400 years ago, saying the incident has "caused wounds."

15. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #177745 by mjwemdee on May 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Bravo California! However, as a Brit who is rather ignorant of US state politics, I had to smile at the irony of this progressive step being made only months before a new presidency might have facilitated it anyway.
Good to know that other countries besides the UK fall victim to this sort of political idiocy.

16. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #176138 by mjwemdee on May 6, 2008 at 4:54 pm

On ploughing through this absurd article, the following three words kept coming to mind: 're-arranging' 'deckchairs' and 'Titanic'.

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

Comment #164764 by mjwemdee on April 20, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Thankyou Richard, I wish your reply well, but I too fear that the damage is done. As Chris Jackson says (Comment #164743) your elegantly expressed explanation of the whole sorry mess will probably fall on deaf ears.

18. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #161466 by mjwemdee on April 15, 2008 at 10:21 am

Pope Benedict told reporters on his flight this morning from Rome to Washington, D.C., he would do everything possible to avoid a repeat of the scandal.

19. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161462 by mjwemdee on April 15, 2008 at 10:15 am

Oh the hypocrisy. Oh the double standards. As the man says himself:

'...We love all our [gay] students as we do all people in our churches but...'

20. The death-of-god debate

Comment #148625 by mjwemdee on March 23, 2008 at 12:32 pm

A beautifully-written thought-provoking article.

Were religion merely "faith" it would indeed be incomprehensible. The trouble starts when it lays proprietary claim to normal words such as truth, goodness, beauty, virgin birth, resurrection and salvation, and redefines them to its own ends.

Words must carry agreed meanings if humans are to live happily together. [...] I cannot argue with a man who "believes" the Earth to be flat. Most people regard the idea as absurd unless the word flat is redefined to mean round. I feel the same about Easter's "resurrection of the dead".

21. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #134346 by mjwemdee on February 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Mr Campos - perhaps non campos mentis?

22. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128672 by mjwemdee on February 17, 2008 at 2:42 pm

The ABC (as he is now increasingly known) is a buffoon. I don't believe he was making a tactical move at all with his remarks. He just displayed breathtaking naivety about the true nature of Islam.

23. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128652 by mjwemdee on February 17, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Well well well, who'd've thought it?
RDF feels even more like a big happy family now.

I am so thrilled for you guys. Congratulations and greetings from the UK

mjwemdee

24. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128081 by mjwemdee on February 16, 2008 at 3:50 am

re Comment #128055 by Conrad

Exactly. What price 'Give me your huddled masses...' etc.

Maybe the French should ask for the Statue of Liberty back.

25. My Saudi Valentine

Comment #126604 by mjwemdee on February 13, 2008 at 4:21 pm

I'm sorry, but Saudi sounds just awful.

26. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125222 by mjwemdee on February 11, 2008 at 5:03 am

The last three posts (#125197, #125201, #125218) are spot on.

Yasmin Alibhai Brownhas gone up in my estimation for her candour and bravery with this article. But for an intelligent woman she still doesn't seem to make the connection: the only way to respect all religions equally is to respect none of them.

27. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124670 by mjwemdee on February 10, 2008 at 3:12 am

I concur entirely with Steve Z (post #263)

I am old enough to remember a time when the Daily Mail used to have more integrity and objectivity than it does now, but the editors have long since decided on a policy which seems to be large based on calumny.

As far as the Bish is concerned, are we surprised that he now presides over the biggest schism in church affairs? No wonder the Anglican fundies (in Africa, America and elsewhere) are voting with their feet.

28. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121574 by mjwemdee on February 3, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Phwoooarrr! Elbows! I always find elbows really kinky.... (breaks out in hot flush)

Seriously...these people are a danger to everyone, including themselves. They should not be in charge of anybody.

29. Documents detail church coverup

Comment #120711 by mjwemdee on February 2, 2008 at 11:19 am

Does anyone else find this story incredibly confusing in terms of the actual reporting? I find it very badly written and some sentences just don't make sense. Most of the testimonies quoted are very badly edited.

However the general gist is pretty gloomy stuff, and thoroughly predictable. When you consider how the Catholic Church expects its members to live, and the quixotic nature of its tenets, is anyone surprised?

30. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #119551 by mjwemdee on January 31, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Congratulations Josh, on another trip around the Sun!

And thanks for the user-friendly site. We technologically-challenged ones in particular sure do appreciate it!

31. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116162 by mjwemdee on January 25, 2008 at 4:48 pm

This is hilarious.

I do think the church organist in the background needs more practice. That soundtrack was pretty hellish, I suppose...

32. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

Comment #113828 by mjwemdee on January 20, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Comment #113652 by justdust

faith schools open up a Pandora's box of Trojan horses for our country.

33. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110802 by mjwemdee on January 12, 2008 at 3:50 pm

LorienRyan,

Agreed. But I can't help thinking:

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh,' said Alice. She was much to puzzled to make any other remark.

34. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110799 by mjwemdee on January 12, 2008 at 3:24 pm

LorienRyan,

I know he is, of course ;-)

But he's been a bit careless explaining the point. If you take him literally, he appears to be grouping all five examples as behaviors. The only one I would concede is a behavior is marijuana use.

35. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110796 by mjwemdee on January 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm

'...many behaviors have been amoralized, switched from moral failings to lifestyle choices. They include divorce, illegitimacy, being a working mother, marijuana use and homosexuality.'

36. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #110636 by mjwemdee on January 11, 2008 at 5:18 pm

A lawyer friend of mine tells me that there is still a law on the statute books that says that every true-born Englishman must, in defence of the nation, practice his archery skills at least once a year - I think New Year's Day was the traditional time for this. If this is true, I have to say I have been terribly remiss in my duty as a UK citizen...

37. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #110364 by mjwemdee on January 11, 2008 at 3:53 am

38. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #110363 by mjwemdee on January 11, 2008 at 3:53 am

Comment #107885 by Duff:

In the end, it will be between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Neither of which are stupid, nor overly religious, and both of which will be fabulous presidents compared to the present holder of the office./blockquote>

Oh, I do so hope you're right.

39. Sorry to disappoint, but it's nonsense to suggest we want to ban Christmas

Comment #101951 by mjwemdee on December 21, 2007 at 8:58 am

Sorry to hear that but I have just checked back with the link and it's working perfectly. I suggest the problem may be with your PC

40. Sorry to disappoint, but it's nonsense to suggest we want to ban Christmas

Comment #101946 by mjwemdee on December 21, 2007 at 8:32 am

Quite so. Tonight, as we have done for the past few years, my partner and I will be going to watch the splendidly secular 'Burning of the Clocks' parade and bonfire on the sea-front at Brighton. This simply celebrates the winter solstice and greets the onset of lengthening days. It looks vaguely pagan, but attracts nearly 25000 visitors of all persuasions. No strange mythology or rampant commercialism attached. Great fun! see www.burningtheclocks.co.uk

41. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101341 by mjwemdee on December 20, 2007 at 8:58 am

Re: Comment #101331 by PrimeNumbers:

A blithering idiot? A hypocrite? I think I prefer to be generous and see a human being who has made an enormous (and very public) life-choice error. Now he's trying painfully to make sense of it all. Let's be ready to welcome him in, rather than crow about past ineptitude.

Go on, Rowan, come clean...you know you want to!

42. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100893 by mjwemdee on December 19, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Scottishgeologist (Comment #100861) has reminded me of one of Dave Allen's lovely jokes:
A Catholic priest was finding his pastoral duties pretty arduous and depressing, so without telling his Bishop he decided to consult a psychiatrist. The shrink listened carefully to all his woes, and said 'Father, what I suggest is this: take off your dog-collar, go into London, find a bar, and just enjoy yourself for the evening'.
The priest duly went incognito into Soho, found a lap-dancing club and sat down. A topless waitress approached him and said 'What'll you be having, Father?' The startled priest said: 'I took my dog-collar off - how the hell did you know I was a priest?' The waitress replied: 'I'm Sister Mary Benedict - and I go to the same psychiatrist.'

43. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99544 by mjwemdee on December 17, 2007 at 3:11 am

Please, why do we keep referring to these misguided people as 'true' believers? Is it just a figure of speech?

44. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94234 by mjwemdee on December 5, 2007 at 4:11 am

Yes, I fail to see why a planetary conjunction, even a close one, would look like a particularly bright new star.
Wouldn't two planets still look like two planets? And the conjunction wouldn't exactly come as a complete surprise. What little astronomy there is in the Bible at least recognises Venus. ('the evening star')

Of course, the clearest evidence of cosmic ignorance in the Scriptures is to be found in Solomon and in Psalm 104.

45. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94225 by mjwemdee on December 5, 2007 at 3:46 am

A wonderful article. A joy to read.

46. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92526 by mjwemdee on November 30, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Sudan sounds like the biggest open-air lunatic asylum ever.

Re Comment No 7 by Jolly Bloger:

Yet, I read that Gillian's son in Liverpool is asking people not to lose any respect for Islam over this. Is the whole world just engaged in mass self deception?

47. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #92514 by mjwemdee on November 30, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Incidentally - can anyone direct me to an up-to-date list of all the foreign-language versions of TGD published so far?

Mjwemdee

48. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #80691 by mjwemdee on October 22, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Comment #80650 by jeremynel

I agree. I love to hear from A C Grayling for his views, (I have all his books at home) but I do wish his editors would occasionally make him review his syntax. The clarity of his thinking is almost negated by this sort of labyrinthine prose.

49. Atheists aren't a bad lot

Comment #80513 by mjwemdee on October 22, 2007 at 3:11 am

So it's no surprise that believers would simply say, yes, these are very important. That's what their dogma says. But an atheist is less likely to approach morality dogmatically. She might feel, for example, that kindness is good but she can imagine circumstances in which it's not appropriate. To reflect that, she may rate it "important" instead of "very important." That wouldn't mean she's a less moral person. It would mean she's more thoughtful.

50. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80048 by mjwemdee on October 19, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Comment #80037 by Riley
Their belief may be irrational, but that's the belief. Don't go trying to claim that they believe in things that they explicitly do not believe in.