1. God grief

Comment #43332 by Tom Day on May 21, 2007 at 6:08 am

Good review. People don't subscribe to a religion following a careful examination of the philosophical or evidential arguments in its favour (unless they are stupid) - nor even after undertaking a review of its (often malign) place in history. They are either born and brought up in a religious tradition or embrace it when they are older for emotional reasons. Either way, it is unlikely that reason alone will convince many of them to abandon their faith. Harris's debate with Andrew Sullivan was a classic example of this. He won the intellectual argument hands down, but he offered no alternative vision to a man for whom religion provides emotional sustenance.

2. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26927 by Tom Day on March 22, 2007 at 10:39 am

Comment #26905 by BaronOchs

BaronOchs, I appreciate your point. From their earlier exchanges, I don't get the feeling Andrew would behave as you suggest, but I have no knowledge of him beyond these blogs and you could be right. I do think , however, that Sam's logic has battered and bruised him to such an extent already that Andrew has been forced to retreat into a discussion on the emotional benefits of religion. Andrew tacitly admits as much. Therefore, Sam could have acknowledged that the debate has entered a new phase - the intellectual pretensions of Christianity having been dismissed - and engaged him in this territory. It's saying 'Come on Andrew, you know Christianity is nonsense, but you're clinging on to it. Let us show you how you can lead a fulfilling life without it'. Winning this debate will be much harder than winning the intellectual argument.

3. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26857 by Tom Day on March 22, 2007 at 2:52 am

I think Sam has misjudged his last post. He clearly won the intellectual arguments in his earlier ones, forcing Andrew to defend his faith by reference to the emotional appeal of religion for believers.

"Maybe these psychological and spiritual experiences are simply the best way that humans have devised through countless millennia for coping with their own conscious knowledge of their own mortality." - Andrew's last post.

Instead of repeating himself, Sam should have gently offered up an alternative vision to tempt Andrew - a vision of community life in which people come together without churches, a vision of a shared morality based on human considerations (not biblical imperative), a vision of charitable enterprise inspired by simple compassion rather than religious motives, a vision of how people can come to terms with human suffering, survive trauma, bereavement and face death without the comfort of religion. At the end of the day you can point out to a drug addict the damage he is doing to himself until you are blue in the face, but you are going to do an awful lot more to help him get clean. The prospect of life without the emotional crutch of religion is simply too much for most believers to face up to.

4. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26856 by Tom Day on March 22, 2007 at 2:51 am

I think Sam has misjudged his last post. He clearly won the intellectual arguments in his earlier ones, forcing Andrew to defend his faith by reference to the emotional appeal of religion for believers.

"Maybe these psychological and spiritual experiences are simply the best way that humans have devised through countless millennia for coping with their own conscious knowledge of their own mortality." - Andrew's last post.

Instead of repeating himself, Sam should have gently offered up an alternative vision to tempt Andrew - a vision of community life in which people come together without churches, a vision of a shared morality based on human considerations (not biblical imperative), a vision of charitable enterprise inspired by simple compassion rather than religious motives, a vision of how people can come to terms with human suffering, survive trauma, bereavement and face death without the comfort of religion. At the end of the day you can point out to a drug addict the damage he is doing to himself until you are blue in the face, but you are going to do an awful lot more to help him get clean. The prospect of life without the emotional crutch of religion is simply too much for most believers to face up to.

5. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26548 by Tom Day on March 20, 2007 at 9:02 am

I think Andrew Sullivan should be commended for entering into this kind of dialogue - and showing a willingess to be so frank. Most Christians (in my experience) are not like this. Some previous postings are a little uncharitable to him I think.

Basically, Sam has been winning this exchange hands down - that's no surprise, not merely because he's a very smart fellow but also because he has all the best arguments on his side. However, Andrew has raised a couple of points worthy of consideration by us atheists. First, our naturalistic approach to understanding the World around us is based on certain asumptions about what constitutes valid knowledge acquisition (i.e science and reason). Often Christians try to argue that their beliefs are consistent with science and reason, rather than question some of the underlying assumptions of science and reason. This is a line of attack pursued by Alvin Plantinga I believe. It is worthy of relfecting upon, if only to be certain that our foundations are firm (which I believe they are).

Second, and more importantly, Andrew's last post makes the point that an atheistic World-view is not very emotionally satisfying for many religious believers. The fact that something is comforting does not make it true, but, nonetheless, I have a lot of sympathy with this view. We need to do more than attack religious beliefs: we need to offer an alternative humanistic vision that can inspire people and fill the emotional gap currently occupied by religion. Otherwise we will be preaching to ourselves.

6. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25402 by Tom Day on March 13, 2007 at 12:10 am

Cheshirecat: your story of Charles Bradlaugh and his watch made me laugh. I remember being caught in a storm whilst on a camping trip when I was a teenager (some 25 years ago). Some of my friends were very devout Christians and we were arguing about God when the storm started. Someone suggested that the storm was evidence of God's anger, at which point I remember challenging him to strike me down with lighting:-) Obviously I'm a bit older and wiser now and use a bit more subtlety in making my case.

7. Public Acceptance of Evolution

Comment #24884 by Tom Day on March 9, 2007 at 3:30 am

Abstract monkey wrote:

"Evolution is now a peripheral target - they want to replace the underlying principle of science itself."


It never ceases to amaze me how some religious people compartmentalise their lives to such an extent. So they will drive to work in their SUVs, make calls on their mobile, use their laptops, fly somewhere on holiday, make use of conventional medicine when they are ill, etc, etc - while at the same time attacking the very thing that has enabled them to enjoy those benefits in the first place; namely science. I think public education about science should place some emphasis on reminding people about its many practical applications. Religious miracles I have never seen - scientific and technological ones I encounter many times daily.

8. Public Acceptance of Evolution

Comment #24871 by Tom Day on March 9, 2007 at 2:04 am

The visual (some would say intellectual) similarities between George W. Bush and some of our ape-cousins should surely give many American creationsists pause for reflection:-)

9. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24239 by Tom Day on March 5, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Hi David/Wee Flea,

Guess you haven't time to follow up each and every challenge/question. However, if you are able, perhaps you can answer this one: -

You wrote:

"Atheists almost always argue against a straw man - faith as being in spite of or contrary to the evidence. Biblical Christianity argues for faith in a person, because of the evidence. "

Like most atheists I know, I am open to evidence. I hear this kind of argument often, but usually without the alleged evidence being clearly articulated - and when it is laid forth it always turns out to be some kind of unsubstantiated inner conviction. Is this also what you regard as evidence or have I missed something?

10. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23711 by Tom Day on March 2, 2007 at 6:57 am

Plantinga clearly lives in a universe different to our own, in which reason and logic follow patterns incomprehensible to us humans here on earth. Given that he is clearly in our universe also, it must be the case that we are inhabiting a point in space-time where two universes intersect - surely evidence for the existence of multiverses, negating the need for a supernatural explanation for the so-called 'fine-tuning' of certain physical constants:-)

11. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23500 by Tom Day on March 1, 2007 at 6:02 am

Bizzaro, in a nutshell you seem to be claiming that the 'everything has a cause' argument must stop somewhere, that the somewhere in question is the creation and that the 'un-caused cause' is something supernatural. This is a familiar argument. It is fine as a hypothesis (along with alternatives) but there is a big difference between an unsubstantiated hypothesis and one for which there is supporting evidence. Despite this, theists leap from their hypothesis to certain belief. Furthermore, they don't usually stop at expressing a belief in the existence of a deity: they usually claim specific knowledge about the nature of that deity as well as knowledge about how their deity expects us to conduct our lives - the latter being something they never tire of lecturing us about. You claim a distinction between 'blind faith' and 'reasonable faith' and you go on to say that 'Reasonable faith however involves evidence and logic...'. Surely, your theistic beliefs demonstrate the former: blind faith. If not, I look forward to hearing more about the evidence that supports your God hypothesis...

12. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23359 by Tom Day on February 28, 2007 at 5:48 am

BillySands wrote: "Dont you just love the way that theists invent properties for a god there is no direct evidence for".

Actually this point is one that doesn't get so much attention in public debates, as most of the discussion tends to be around whether a God exists or not in the first place. However, the mental gymnastics theologians have to go through to defend their belief in God are nothing compared to those required to support their other beliefs about his properties or elements of doctrine like the resurrection, although lazy ones will often simply argue (as Collins does) that once the case for God's existence has been accepted, everything else is logically permissible i.e. once you've abandoned all reason, anything goes.

13. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23356 by Tom Day on February 28, 2007 at 5:25 am

MIND-REBEL: "I wish there was some sort of standard system to prevent theists from making it..."

I share your frustrations at the familiar arguments trotted out by Collins, but as SteveN points out, Collins is an excellent scientist in his day job. We need to be measured in our approach I think and focus on attacking religious beliefs, not those who hold them - unless their intentions are dangerous, which is not the case with Collins I think.

14. The Certainty Bias

Comment #23219 by Tom Day on February 27, 2007 at 1:47 am

Robives

Bayesian stats is not my forte, so can't recommend a good book on it. However, I have seen it used by theologians to 'prove' Gods's existance. Richard Swinburne - a colleague of Alistar McGrath's at Oxford - used it (or should I say abused it) to demonstrate that the probability of God existing is >0.5. I also saw a report of a lecture he gave in which he claimed to have used it to show that it was '97% certain' that the resurrection took place.

Has anyone else seen these so called 'proofs' and can they explain where Swinburne went wrong?

15. Faith

Comment #23062 by Tom Day on February 26, 2007 at 4:48 am

It is interesting, and telling, to see how leading clerics and theologians seem to be responding to Dawkins and other public atheists by accusing them of the very things they themselves are guilty of (close-mindedness, dogmatism, dishonesty, etc), instead of refuting atheist arguments carefully and making a considered case for their own beliefs. Such below-the-belt tactics are to be expected, I suppose, although it is disappointing to see the press report them unchallenged.

Julia Neuberger's comments are typical and betray a total misundersanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of atheism.

16. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21973 by Tom Day on February 12, 2007 at 2:44 am

Let us remember that McGrath and his ilk believe not merely in the existance of a God creator. They also claim special knowledge about the very nature and character of said Creator. So in fact, the mistake they make - believing in something without adequate evidence - is a mistake they make many times over. When challenged about demonstrable evidence for his beliefs, McGrath's stock answer is that it relies on 'evidence of a different kind'. In other words, personal conviction about something is evidence in itself!

17. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21464 by Tom Day on February 9, 2007 at 9:40 am

To Kristian Z:

Don't feel too guilty about your mistake. McGrath himself is someone who appears to have no scruples when attacking Richard Dawkins' ideas. Some of the comments in his book 'Dawkins God' (and indeed in the posted article) are unnecessarily personal and offensive, all part of an attempt to discredit by attacking a person's character, rather than by addressing the central arguments. Now I wonder why that is???

That said, we shouldn't stoop to his level of course.

18. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21408 by Tom Day on February 9, 2007 at 4:04 am

McGrath is a deeply dishonest man, as are many of his theological colleagues. Their attempts to provide a respectable intellectual foundation for their religious beliefs, frequently involve flagrant and outrageous abuse of science and philosophy. Oxford University should not employ men like McGrath, who bring its academic reputation into disrepute. One example of this is the claim by McGrath's colleague, Richard Swinburne's, to have shown mathematically that God probably exists. I also read a report of a public lecture Swinburne gave in which he claimed to have shown (using Bayesian statistics) that the resurrection was 97% certain. Indeed, McGrath quotes Swinburne's mathematical proof of the likelihood of God's existence in his first book on Dawkins. For those that haven't read it, it makes no arguments in favour of McGrath's religious beliefs (the mathematical proof aside): it merely seeks to portray Dawkins as an extremist & castigates him for believing something doesn't exist, when this alleged non-existence cannot be proven. McGrath seems not to notice that this logic should also apply the other way round. But then the pursuit of truth has never occupied the minds of theologians.

19. Interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Comment #20202 by Tom Day on February 1, 2007 at 2:47 am

Ealier comment from Yorker: '...he hasn't made any significant contributions yet.'

Not personally familiar with deGrasse Tyson's academic contributions to his field of study, but let's not underestimate the (different type of) contribution that scientists like him can make if they have a facility for communicating their subject to the general public in an accessible and inspiring way. They raise the public consciousness on scientific issues, help to counter the drivel propagated by religion and (hopefully) inspire young people to take up scientific careers.