Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by fides_et_ratio


51. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177688 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Paula. We've both read the lecture. Can we agree that it is a response to Richard Dawkins et al? If so, as representative of the largest group of practising Christians in this country, shouldn't he be given a public forum to respond to the man who was given a public forum to criticise his beliefs? I guess what I'm saying is, should his response be covered by the national media and then subjected to the variety of opinions that the national media will provide (you seem to think the national media speak as one). Of course they should, then you and people like Terry Sanderson are free to treat his views with whatever disdain you can muster. Is there anything I've written here that you disagree with?

52. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177672 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Hello Northern Bright, I thought you'd retired from the forum.

Have you read the full text of the Cardinal's lecture, Fides? It is full of unsubstantiated declarations - statements for which there is no foundation whatsoever,


Some substantiated excerpts to be getting on with.

'the tradition of Catholicism is that Christianity is profoundly social.'

'There are social currents today that want to isolate religion from other forms of knowledge and experience in order to marginalise it. One of the things which I challenge is the desire to separate Christianity from rational inquiry.'

'Our faith is not founded on the conclusions of reason'

'Pope Benedict has drawn our attention to this in the early Christian centuries when he said that the 'inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance' for world history.2 This can be seen even in the New Testament where St Paul is not afraid to draw upon ideas from Stoic philosophy which he weaves into his Biblical, Jewish and Christian themes. He says that Christians should keep a right mind, practising a discernment to choose the better, aiming at the right end, seeking contentment (in Greek: autarkeia) in their state of life, with joy even when suffering, because they live in a commonwealth (in Greek: politeuma).'


The Cardinal's lecture is in large part a response to RD and other modern athiest writers. You seem to be suggesting that only Richard's view should be covered in the national media, and not the response of those he attacks. If this is your stance or an accurate portrayal of RD's stance, I think it adds more substance to the Cardinal's idea of how athiesm can lead to Hitler/Stalin figures. Those who will brook no debate. Not only do you not agree with what he says (fair enough), but you profoundly disagree with his right to say it.

53. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177658 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 12:40 pm

It's a strange logical progression that suggests truth can be equated to the calm with which someone speaks. I know lots of very calm monks, should they be treated deferentially on account of their serenity.

Using Hitler to offend a Jew really is low whatever way you do it. Why not apologise in a calm tone instead of attempting to justify a reprehensible action.

54. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177656 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 12:27 pm

RD is lucky Humph didn't treat him like a politician, he certainly wouldn't tolerate a junior minister questioning him.

Is Dawkins saying that the Cardinal's views are treated deferentially because of his faith, in which case is he unaware of the criticism his views on, for example, family life and abortion receive in the media. Or is he criticising the fact that his views are given coverage solely on the basis of his position as a man of faith?

55. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175138 by fides_et_ratio on May 4, 2008 at 2:51 pm

63. Comment #175109 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

I did suggest one, no news on it being posted yet. The range isn't as wide as you think either, in fact it's carefully targeted.

64. Comment #175111 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Not everyone on this site is an athiest. Not all athiests on this site think as one. I've been reminded on a couple of occasions that the only thing all athiests share is exactly that, their athiesm. The plural was inaccurate.

56. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175108 by fides_et_ratio on May 4, 2008 at 12:45 pm

47. Comment #175039 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 8:34 am

By 'we're' you mean 'you' presumably, in which case 'I'm' is probably more appropriate.

57. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175029 by fides_et_ratio on May 4, 2008 at 8:09 am

27. Comment #174889 by Frankus1122 on May 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm

A much more balanced approach is taken by many Christians. These approaches don't seem to gain much coverage in the athiest world. I suspect this is because it doesn't suit your purpose. The nonsensical cartoon above enables many athiests to indulge in an orgy of self-righteousness, justified anger, and various other methods of ego inflating exercises. Shame that.

58. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174740 by fides_et_ratio on May 3, 2008 at 11:46 am

Obvious nonsense. Any chance of posting a sensible commentary on the interaction of Christianity and science Josh?

59. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174303 by fides_et_ratio on May 2, 2008 at 4:12 am

369. Comment #174299 by Corylus on May 2, 2008 at 3:23 am

Haven't been on for a while. Work, family, life etc...

Would've certainly got involved if I'd been here. I like this site and don't appreciate headstrong ignorance. Seems I missed all the excitement.

60. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174295 by fides_et_ratio on May 2, 2008 at 3:11 am

Where's Steve?

I wonder if it would be possible for the Prof to revise future prints of his book to make them more representative of his views, now that he's had the opportunity to be more informed about the issues covered in them.

61. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166408 by fides_et_ratio on April 23, 2008 at 8:20 am

A couple of obvious ones from this page. I left out the more subtle ones.

88. Comment #166375 by MrPickwick on April 23, 2008 at 7:50 am


According to his way of reasoning I bet this lordy is an "Avian Transportation Theory" proponent.


68. Comment #166305 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 5:39 am

You'd be stuck with Lord Winston and the like carping on in a whiny voice "weeee told you sooooooo" for all eternity... OK OK I believe!! ;o)


And a glimpse of athiest-induced violence, festering away in the dangerous certainty that Winston exposes.

64. Comment #166288 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 5:07 am

And just constant constant bullshit about faith this and faith that, and faith coming out of my fucking ears. Raaaa! It is all I can do sometimes not to smack their overly fucking smug faces in.

62. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166385 by fides_et_ratio on April 23, 2008 at 7:59 am

I must say that the Winston-bashing is uninformed and unappealing. Furthermore, it adds weight to his notion of certainty, and undermines the credibility of Dennett's campaign to label athiests as brights.

63. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166378 by fides_et_ratio on April 23, 2008 at 7:54 am

Haven't read all the posts. Can someone shed some light on Lord Winston's comment that, '...Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.'

Just curious.

64. A New Flea

Comment #160324 by fides_et_ratio on April 14, 2008 at 12:26 am

There's many books in this realm I wouldn't bother with too much, having just glanced at this chap's career though, I find it sad that people who claim reason so firmly as their standard, dismiss him so quickly, seemingly without investigation. To someone of faith, it's this attitude which seems most at odds with the supposedly rational claims of athiests. It's a close minded position and begs the question why won't athiests engage with intelligent faith rather than loons on the fringe. The answer seems to be that it can't, hence this continual concentration on evolution, even though most people of faith I know have no problem with it.

65. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157752 by fides_et_ratio on April 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm

One thing that irks me is his Polpotisation of God, his totalitarian theory. I agree with Hitchens that God knows everything I've ever done, everything I've ever said and everything I've ever thought. Our paths diverge at this point. I am taught and believe that God loves and accepts me in full knowledge of me. I work towards accepting myself in the same way.

66. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157708 by fides_et_ratio on April 9, 2008 at 12:50 pm

If the god Hitchens the elder so poetically demolishes was the God that any thinking Christian believed, in they'd have to convert to athiesm in an instant. I would.

67. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155988 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 1:10 pm

fides is just dragging out some antsy nuance in something some bloke said that he does not agree with. This because he cann't ever admit to the big fat elephant in the room, that is : it's stupid to be a believer (in anything) and it can become dangerous fairly quickly.
By making some convoluted point about grammar and semantics from a piece of quote mining, he thinks he wins the overall argument.


I disagree with a point RD was reported to have made. I made a rebuttal against a substantive point, certainly not on the grounds of grammar or semantic. I think that's clear from the point I've made. I don't think it has any bearing on the unspecified (is it the existence of God, the 'evil' of religion or...)overall argument you speak of, because I don't know what that overall argument is. This site would be pretty dul if we didn't discuss specific points people made.

68. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155978 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 1:02 pm

That's that sorted then, I need to learn more about all this. There was a good article in The Times today about it but it didn't address the black hole issue in any detail, thanks Steve. A group is applying for a court order to have the experiment banned on this basis.

69. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155973 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 12:59 pm

My roommate told me he saw something on the internet which claims that there is a chance that scientists may accidentally create a black hole with their new super collider and bring an end to us all, and probably the solar system as well. If that happens at least we can say we go out with a (big) bang literally.. Imagine we meet our demise not because of WWIII, climate change or a gigantic meteorite but a black hole that we create. Science will speak the last word, literally..Way to go.


I read today that it will create small black holes. How do they know these wont spread?

70. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155965 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Sorry to come over all Paxmanesque, but your use of the term '...much less of a problem' implies that you, like me, disagree with the Prof. Is that correct, and if so, do you think it's a case of being mistaken or is it willfully mendacious?

71. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155954 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 12:18 pm

So Steve, do you agree with my point that RD is wrong when laying the blame for suicide bombing solely at the feet of "Religious fundamentalism"?

72. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155948 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Back from the midlle ages.

Steve,


If external ideas don't have influence, why are you posting here and concerned about what Dawkins' says?


I certainly don't deny that ideas influence people, but we are responsible in our choice of idea and our reaction to it. The person, not the idea is responsible in my view.

Carto

"without extremism of this kind". You will note that he did not say "without religion". The hyper-nationalistic pragmatism of the Viet Cong and the communist dogmas of the Cubans very much do fall under the category of "extremism of this kind" - to wit, dogmatic certainty and unshakeable conviction in one's own rightness irrespective of the evidence combined with a systematic lack of sympathy for those who do not agree with your position.


See

"The current threat of jihad is brought about by religious fundamentalism. Do you think there would be suicide bombing without extremism of this kind?"


Particularly

...brought about by religious fundamentalism.


Now, you may be right in your reading of the small exerpt you quoted. If you are though, it's certainly not clear from anything Prof Dawkins said here. I don't think you are correct in your reading of the small exerpt you quoted out of context, but maybe you could find something from the prolific prof's catalogue the support your justification, because your reading of it sounds much more like Alistair McGrath than Dawkins.

73. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155897 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 9:07 am

Got to go to Mass now. I'll look for a reply later. God bless.

74. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155896 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 9:02 am

Brokenness? Brokenness?


Substitute that word for something that makes sense to you but means the same thing, and see if you can find something substantive to disagree with rather than clutching at straws.

75. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155891 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 8:49 am

"...Do you think there would be suicide bombing without extremism of this kind?"


I think Prof Dawkins would benefit from eliminating either the inaccuracies or 'willful mendacities' from some of his utterings. A few brief moments in the company of a decent search engine should throw up a few examples of secular suicide bombings. It's stretching the bounds of credulity to expect that he's not aware of the actions of some Viet Cong and Cuban revolutionaries. It took twenty years for the Islamic world to catch up with the secular (in the case of the two examples above, fundamentally athiest) world in this respect. Even then it was about the common themes of land, nationhood and power than any spiritual motivation.

Humans advance on a personal, emotional and mental level by taking responsibility for their actions, not by denial through pinning the blame on an external idea. It's human beings in their brokenness that are capable of these acts, they are responsible, not the idea that they latch onto to justify their behaviour.

76. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153482 by fides_et_ratio on April 1, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Nearly every rational individual agrees that an organism with human DNA can't be considered a person before the 5th month of pregnancy, but that it can be considered a person around the time that it can communicate via spoken language (and most would say at birth, or a few months before birth)...

... Finally, I find the saying "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it" abhorrent. It is based on the assumption that parents inherently have rights over their children. Why should that be? Because they gave them birth? So the father had sex with the mother, and the mother carried the child for 9 months. I'm sure it can be a trying time, but that's not enough to grant someone the right of life and death over another person.


I presume from what you've said that abortion is equivalant to infanticide at 5 months old (in the womb).

Also, given your last statement, what gives any woman the right to have an abortion?

77. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153366 by fides_et_ratio on April 1, 2008 at 12:24 pm

7. Comment #153346 by Shaden on April 1, 2008 at 12:08 pm

If faith were a virus, and

If faith could be treated by reason, and

If reason were a constant, and

If all minds could grasp it,

That would mean you might have a point. But...

If ifs and and were pots and pans, well, there'd be no need for tinkers now would there?

78. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153352 by fides_et_ratio on April 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I'm with Janus on this one. Every set of words spoken starts as a thought, it's just that conversations would be incredibly long-winded if we had to preface each set of words with, 'I think', so we don't.

On the point. I suspect the Bishop could point to every MP, journalist and opiner who's ever uttered in favour of (so-called (voluntary)) euthanasia.

79. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153317 by fides_et_ratio on April 1, 2008 at 11:34 am

3. Comment #153298 by Gymnopedie on April 1, 2008 at 11:07 am

Careful. If Prof. Dawkins and many other visitors here are correct in their assertion that faith is a virus, that's their defense on a golden platter.

80. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153152 by fides_et_ratio on April 1, 2008 at 6:01 am

Just so you've got some evidence at hand before making certain assertions. I've read the article and no fear has been induced.

As you were.

81. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #152421 by fides_et_ratio on March 31, 2008 at 2:10 am

I blame the parents.

82. Beware the Believers

Comment #152160 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 9:34 am

In all fairness, it is quite funny.

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

Comment #152090 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 5:01 am

Murray, this might help.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm

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

Comment #152081 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 4:49 am

Actually, I do lot's of charity work and I have worked with disabled people during parts of my career


And I'm sure you'll appreciate me not telling you how to do it.

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

Comment #152080 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 4:46 am

In an attempt to find some common ground.

1. We agree that the actions of the parents in the article were wrong.

2. We can see that their decision isn't representative of all religious people.

3. Churches may contain (traces of) nuts.

4. It's time for coffee, and in my case football.

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

Comment #152069 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 4:27 am

Hobbit.

what on earth are you praying for if not to help these disabled kids?


We did help them, granted we didn't give them the holiday destination of your choice, wherever that is, but then you could do something about that by giving up your own time and money to help someone in a similar position instead of criticising those who do couldn't you?

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

Comment #152050 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 3:56 am

297. Comment #152038 by Steve Zara on March 30, 2008 at 3:43 am

You're not listening Steve. See

289. Comment #152029 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 3:31 am

Specifically

Where in the bible does it tell me not to take my daughter to the doctor. Something that would contradict Jesus' statement that, 'Healthy people don't need a doctor-sick people do.'

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

Comment #152047 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 3:52 am

So these people are not true Christians because they follow the wrong dogma?


I haven't said that. I don't agree with them, I think they're wrong, I think they would benefit from assessing the teachings of Christianity more closely, but if they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then they're Christians.

Does this mean that you (and all the Catholics you know) don't believe in the power of prayer and just go through the motions of make believe to appease the other church goers?


I refer to the answer I gave in my earlier posts.

So how many of the children were NOT disabled when you got back from Lourdes? What prayers did you make whilst there? Did you ask for the children to be healed? If not why not? Why else would you go there? If yes, and none of them were healed, what's the point?
the aim wasn't to bring them back without their disablility, it was to give them a nice time. It succeeds year upon year. It succeeds because people are generous with their time and money. Prayer seems to be the common denominator between the volunteers and fundraisers involved.

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

Comment #152036 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 3:41 am

290. Comment #152030 by Steve Zara on March 30, 2008 at 3:36

Probably for the same reason as you.

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

Comment #152029 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 3:31 am

285. Comment #152025 by Steve Zara on March 30, 2008 at 3:21 am

At the risk of sounding obtuse or offering a poor imitation of Jeremy Paxman. Where in the bible does it tell me not to take my daughter to the doctor. Something that would contradict Jesus' statement that, 'Healthy people don't need a doctor-sick people do.'

So, I suggest the following. Why not provide such an instruction guide so people can be sure. How many "hair Marys" to, say, heal a toothache?


In this case I go to the dentist. Though in fairness, when I'm in the chair I recite the rosary, I find that it focuses my mind on something other that the painful experience.

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

Comment #152022 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 3:11 am

or visit places like Lourdes


I've been to Lourdes several times. It's a good case in point for what I said about prayer and the benefits of prayer. I've been part of pilgrimages consisting of thousands of people from Britain. Disabled children are taken for a weeks holiday to Lourdes provided free of charge and staffed almost completely by volunteers (including many doctors), whose lives are rooted in prayer. Generally a good week is had by all. Of course, things like that don't tend to get reported in the press, unlike the story above.

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

Comment #152021 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 3:05 am

276. Comment #152015 by Quetzalcoatl on March 30, 2008 at 2:58 am

Tell me where the bible tells me not to take my sick daughter to the doctor.

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

Comment #152018 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 3:02 am

Richard Morgan,

I suspect the reason I haven't heard religious people say this is because they don't believe in 'just the safe bits' they take their faith in its totality. Of course, that's minus the dangerous bits that people who don't share their beliefs try to ascribe to them.

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

Comment #152014 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 2:55 am

I think they were wrong and should've taken their daughter to the doctor, why, because when my daughter's sick, I take her to the doctor.

Secondly, the point of prayer is not to change the mind of God, but to change the life of the one who prays. So when I ask for God's help, it's not part of a deal-making process, it's to accept the reality that I'm not the highest power in my life. Incidentally, it works very well for me.

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

Comment #152008 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 2:41 am

270. Comment #152007 by Quetzalcoatl on March 30, 2008 at 2:33 am

The small, big-footed one invited me on here, hence my response. Which point in particular would you like me to address?

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

Comment #152006 by fides_et_ratio on March 30, 2008 at 2:30 am

267. Comment #151986 by Hobbit on March 29, 2008 at 9:41 pm

If you genuinely want a discussion, 'faith head' doesn't indicate a desire to engage in constructive dialogue.

Steve Zara

Religion can lead to gullibility, but "that's not MY Christianity - I can believe just the safe bits, as I am a moderate"


You're currently talking on another thread about the positivity of free thought. Is this something you disagree with in this instance? Incidentally , I've never heard any religious person say this. Of course that's because, despite what some on here BELIEVE, not taking your daughter to the doctor amongst other things, isn't Christianity-lite.

97. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151968 by fides_et_ratio on March 29, 2008 at 7:17 pm

119. Comment #151864 by Steve Zara on March 29, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Glad you've come round. You've restored some of my faith in this site.

98. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151966 by fides_et_ratio on March 29, 2008 at 7:14 pm

118. Comment #151857 by Hobbit on March 29, 2008 at 3:09 pm

If my child is sick, I take her to the doctor. I think everyone should do that. All the Catholics I know would do the same. In fact we believe in the effectiveness of medicine so much that we establish hospitals and hospices etc. 'faith head', keep thinking freely eh.

99. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151770 by fides_et_ratio on March 29, 2008 at 10:58 am

Steve, eating healthily and thinking freely are incompatable for the purposes of analogy of the type you used.

Furthermore, if you continually tell a child that she is thinking freely so that she repeats the statement in a mantra like fashion, she really isn't thinking freely. Free thought isn't a statement, it's a state of mind.

If you want to discuss whether or not someone should have the freedom to NOT "think freely", so that if they are told to "think freely", then that is a form of repression of free thought, then I am going to have to reach for the aspirin.


I think you seem to be a little confused on this issue Steve. I haven't argued the position that you're attributing to me. For the purposes of clarity, children don't think freely because you tell them to, they do it because an environment is created that enables them to think freely. For the record though, I don't think any such environment truly exists. In fact, I don't think I've ever met anyone who truly thinks freely, and if such a person thinks they do, I'd love to know how they know that they do. I'd also suggest a period of psychoanalysis, to disabuse them of the notion that their minds operate free from any baggage. If the mind, thought, is affected by relatively minor things such as a nice latte, any perceived freedom really needs to be questioned more than it seems to be by many here.

100. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151648 by fides_et_ratio on March 29, 2008 at 6:09 am

Steve,

Try this analogy:

Sounds like someone with influence is telling this girl that she has a good diet, and that a good diet is good. Can you really eat healthily if you are told you should?


This analogy just doesn't work at all. It's not the same thing. If you said that someone told her she must eat her greens, therefore it's not her choice to eat healthily, you'd be closer to the point I think.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next