101. Fleabytes

Comment #141960 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm

4545. Comment #141869 by Tyler Durden on March 11, 2008 at 10:01 am et al.

Sorry just finishing work after my last post. I was responding to a post from Steve Zara about the irrationality of faith in God. The most succesful method of treating alcoholism is the 12 step programme of AA. Whilst there are many in AA who don't believe in God, there are many more who have found freedom from alcoholism as a result of developing a relationship with their Higher Power in prayer.

Should've added that the wisdom of many people of faith is another factor in helping to persuade me of the truth of God's existence.

102. Fleabytes

Comment #141815 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 8:53 am

It's irrational for a recovering alcoholic not to pray.

I find evidence for God's existence in supposed coincidence, and the moral awareness of Catholicism that is lacking in secular society. As I'm not a scientist I leave science to those that study it and assume that, as many scientists believe in God, there's no conflict there anyway. At their core thay are both a search for the truth, I'm happy with that.

103. Fleabytes

Comment #141768 by fides_et_ratio on March 11, 2008 at 7:15 am

4273. Comment #140883 by Steve Zara on March 9, 2008 at 3:13 am

An interesting question. I came on here originally as a result of the frustration I felt at reading TGD. I've stayed as I've found it educational. My knowledge of science ranges somewhere from slim to non-existent, so I've enjoyed learning from the scientists and science articles posted on here. In terms of engaging in conversations, I'm motivated by misrepresentations of my Faith, and by the irrationality of some who claim reason as their standard. I've encountered lots of reasonable and some extremely intelligent people on here, I've also come across many who are definately undeserving of the term 'Bright' that Prof. Dawkins would like to bestow on them.

In addition, I've only just found this thread. I thought Paula's dismisal of McGrath was insufficient. It was an evidenced-based piece of work that was very well referenced. Portraying it as mere rhetoric is inaccurate at best.

104. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139573 by fides_et_ratio on March 6, 2008 at 5:51 am

So the Archbishop discussing religious law being incorporated in civil law, which has some basis in religious law, is as relevant as the president of the NFU discussing the same. I disagree.

105. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139562 by fides_et_ratio on March 6, 2008 at 4:59 am

82. Comment #139485 by epeeist on March 6, 2008 at 1:11 am

And when he speaks on matters affecting inter-faith dialogue such as the ones mentioned in the programme, his views carry more weight than the president of the NUF?

106. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139139 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 7:51 am

66. Comment #139135 by Philip1978 on March 5, 2008 at 7:37 am

I think that our democracy is enhanced by the presence of a variety of institutions (many of who, I disagree with) who represent different people on a variety of issues in different ways. It's right that the leaders of these institutions should be involved in public life and the issues of the day. As I've already said, parliament should make the laws. In the unfortunate event of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being in a position where it's leader(s) represent a large number of people, then yes, it should be given a voice on the public stage. This is because in a democracy your authority in these matters comes from the people you represent and is embodied in the office you hold.

107. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139098 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 5:56 am

45. Comment #139090 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:42 am

'The opinions of the Archbishop or Chief Rabbi are no more valuable than the head of the CBI when it comes to talking about AIDS for example and both sets of opinions would be of significantly less value than that of the Chief Medical Officer.'

I didn't suggest they were. Specifically what do you disagree with about my original post? It seems to me that most of what you've said is echoing my own sentiments. Except of course for the stuff you've made up to fuel the angry one's point-totalling ire.

108. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139096 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 5:52 am

44. Comment #139087 by irate_atheist on March 5, 2008 at 5:38 am

I said their voice not their opinions were authoritative.

I agree that their voice should be listened to because they represent poeple. I don't agree that the media or others should treat them with automatic deference as that implies that their views should go unchalleneged. I see the value of their views being debated.

109. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139079 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 5:28 am

41. Comment #139067 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:15 am

I think you've misread my post.

I disagree with you on your second point as I think the figures you've mentioned have a valuable part to play. It's unrealistic of you to think that the media shouldn't pay more attention to the union leader than the ordinary union member (automatic deference isn't a phrase I've used nor one I agree with), or the head of the CBI rather than the cornershop owner, or the Archbishop rather than myself. In fact, given that I didn't use the phrase mentioned, what specifically do you think I'm confused about in my post, and what do you disagree with?

110. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139055 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 4:56 am

37. Comment #139042 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 4:20 am

In an effective democracy power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a political elite to the extent that it excludes any other voice. Business leaders, Academic leaders, leaders from all fields including faith should be able to add to the debate. What makes their voice authoritative is often the office they hold. I think this is a good thing. Not that politicians should have to bow and do what they're told by these people, but that they can raise issues which otherwise would not gain publicity. When Robert Runcie raised the issue of the inner cities, Thatcher had to engage with it. When His Holiness the Pope spoke against war in Iraq, politicians around the world had to engage with it. Religious leaders are also representative, perhaps not of you, but of someone, this further justifies their role on public life. It's worth remembering that membership of faith groups is far larger than membership of political parties.

111. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139040 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 4:09 am

Depends if there's any banks going on the cheap.

112. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139028 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 3:43 am

The God

113. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139024 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 3:25 am

Interesting that the two clashes with PM's highlighted were with Mrs. T over the inner cities and with Blair over Iraq. I say fair play to the Archbishop in both cases. I was a great fan of Thatch but still see the value in a prominant apolitical figure raising relevant points in the media. I don't think our country would be a better place if politicians were free to wield their power free from such sobering voices as this and past Archbishops. If it's his office which enables him to challenge that power, then thank God for his office.

114. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #138966 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 1:58 am

I wish they'd showed his photo to someone other than a bunch of Mancs. If it's not on Coronation St. or in a bag of chips, it's unlikely they're going to know anything about it.

115. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135647 by fides_et_ratio on February 29, 2008 at 7:14 am

The evidence in my corner of London suggests that the taxpayer gets much better value for money from faith schools than non-faith schools. Maybe that's a good reason for supporting them. They do what schools are supposed to do and they do it very well.

116. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132747 by fides_et_ratio on February 25, 2008 at 7:16 am

A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry
For Whom the Bell Tolls - Hemingway
Our Man in Havana - Graham Greene
Siddhartha - Herman Hesse
Roots - Alex Haley

117. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #104026 by fides_et_ratio on December 27, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I understand there's been some repetition on this thread. I apologise for my part in this.

118. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102741 by fides_et_ratio on December 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm

And the 'oasis' grows ever murkier.

Let's observe the process.

Step 1: Belief in God is widespread and ancient, many books have been written about it.

Step 2: Richard Dawkins et al write books critiquing this belief and some of the books about belief.

Step 3: Some people read the aforementioned books critiquing belief in God and religion, and critique them.

Step 4: RD is asked in an interview what he thinks of some of these books and produces a rather amusing quote from Yeats about a dog not praising his fleas.

Step 5: Some people on the RD forum get a little carried away and in their excited state fail to realise the irony of belittling a critique of a critique for being a critique.

Step 6: Some of the critiques of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work.

Step 7: Many posters on RD's forum criticise the critiques of RD saying they haven't read TGD, again failing to recognise the irony inherent in a situation brought about by their non-reading of the aforementioned critiques and their brief critiques of them.

119. This Week's Flea

Comment #100712 by fides_et_ratio on December 19, 2007 at 7:10 am

60. Comment #100706 by Steve Zara on December 19, 2007 at 6:51 am

'I would have some respect for someone who wrote a book titled "Why I believe in Religion".'

There have been a few, which ones do you respect?

120. This Week's Flea

Comment #100702 by fides_et_ratio on December 19, 2007 at 6:26 am

Step 8: Said posters congratulate each other on their superior grasp of reason.

121. This Week's Flea

Comment #100700 by fides_et_ratio on December 19, 2007 at 6:25 am

And the 'oasis' grows ever murkier.

Let's observe the process.

Step 1: Belief in God is widespread and ancient, many books have been written about it.

Step 2: Richard Dawkins et al write books critiquing this belief and some of the books about belief.

Step 3: Some people read the aforementioned books critiquing belief in God and religion, and critique them.

Step 4: RD is asked in an interview what he thinks of some of these books and produces a rather amusing quote from Yeats about a dog not praising his fleas.

Step 5: Some people on the RD forum get a little carried away and in their excited state fail to realise the irony of belittling a critique of a critique for being a critique.

Step 6: Some of the critiques of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work.

Step 7: Many posters on RD's forum criticise the critiques of RD saying they haven't read TGD, again failing to recognise the irony inherent in a situation brought about by their non-reading of the aforementioned critiques and their brief critiques of them.

122. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #100048 by fides_et_ratio on December 18, 2007 at 6:17 am

Hopefully the study will look at the effects of belief on the brain after different variables have been introduced. My experience of belief is similar to Debaser's. It's not a constant, hence the need for students to study, alcoholics to attend meetings, religious people to practise their faith, and visitors to richarddawkins.net to keep reading articles. The moment of insight ensures that the penny keeps dropping.

123. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #100013 by fides_et_ratio on December 18, 2007 at 4:15 am

I find this all very exciting. As a layman though one thing concerns me. My Dad's been in hospital since March and has had a few MRI scans which have shown different things at different times. It seems to be in its infancy. Is it too young to expect conclusions on faith yet? (given that for many religious, faith is often accompanied by doubt)

124. World History

Comment #98827 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 2:00 pm

56. Comment #98765 by octopus on December 14, 2007 at 8:31 am

Your point on corrolation and causality is one I agree with, but you seem to have misunderstood the small piece you've quoted. Placing it in context may help.

Having read articles that point out that HIV transmission is lower amonst practising Catholics in sub Saharan Africa than non practising Catholics, I was attempting to show that the notion that the Pope or his teachings are responsible for millions dying, is a mistaken one. There have been studies that have shown that the abstinence and fidelity approach has been more successful than the secular approach which concentrates heavily on the distribution of condoms with little emphasis on sexual practise.

I thought it was clear that the comparison I was making was like for like as in Sub Saharan Africa, having looked at the original post it probably wasn't clear to a reader not familiar with the frequency with which anti catholics use HIV in Africa as a stick to beat the Pope with. I think it did become clear in later posts though.

125. World History

Comment #98702 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 4:55 am

Tyler

"Really? Why? Because they don't suit you? Exactly what's "absurd" about them?"

Because they seem to have been made up. There would also need to be some analysis of HIV transmission within those groups for them to be of relevance. If HIV is transmitted more frequently amongst practising Catholics you may have a point, if it's less, you probably haven't. The statistics you quote don't address this issue and are therefore as irrelevant as they are absurd.

126. World History

Comment #98657 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 2:02 am

No Tyler,

Undoubtedly, the most effective way to stop HIV being spread by sexual intercourse is to abstain from sexual intercourse if you have the virus. I'm sure deep down you agree with this. If you met someone who you knew had the virus would you sleep with them as long as they wore a condom, or would you abstain?

127. World History

Comment #98654 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 1:58 am

Philip,

In a nutshell, there's a gulf that separates the Church that you (and most others on here) describe, and the Church I am a part of.

I grew up, and still live, in one of the more deprived areas of East London. I've seen who's there when people need help. The callous church you speak of is just not reality, it's merely a reflection of media portrayals of some people and some events.

More specifically, on the subject of that young girl. You seem to be blaming the Church for what happened to her. You also pay no attention to any psychological damage that she might suffer as a result of her own child being killed. It's a difficult situation undoubtedly, but the unavoidable flip-side is the millions of children's lives are terminated every year, and the Chruch is the major, and in some cases, only opponent of this.

128. World History

Comment #98640 by fides_et_ratio on December 14, 2007 at 1:09 am

46. Comment #98432 by Goldy on December 13, 2007 at 3:26 pm

No, Greek Catholics, not Greek Orthodox.

129. World History

Comment #98431 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Steve, I really have to go. I was hanging arund in the hope that you might find a quote from the Pope telling me how I should view you. Ask Goldy what search engine he uses, he managed to find one. I like it myself, and will endeavour to follow it closely.

130. World History

Comment #98429 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Greek rite Catholic priests (in full communion with Rome) amongst others are allowed to be maried. Fully legit.

131. World History

Comment #98426 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Thanks Goldy, interesting how when the Pope says, 'forbids any disrespect', you say, 'you can treat him as a person' as if it's an option. The oasis grows ever murkier.

132. World History

Comment #98419 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Oh, and there already are married priests (not just ex anglicans either).

133. World History

Comment #98416 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 3:11 pm

So what has the Holy Father told me to think about you Steve? You seem to think there's a problem with me not having a problem with your sexuality. Reminds me of a certain Little Britain character.

134. World History

Comment #98407 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Depends what dictionary you read I suppose. I understood that celibacy means not getting married.

135. World History

Comment #98405 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 2:53 pm

It's time for this faith head to rest his junkie bones. I look forward to seeing the results of your googling for Papal wisdom tomorrow. Whack in fides et ratio and Pope John Paul II while you're at it. It's worth a read.

136. World History

Comment #98383 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Really, how did he tell me to react to you?

137. World History

Comment #98374 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 2:31 pm

24. Comment #98358 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 2:05 pm

I take it you mean chaste, and if so, I'm not bothered what you do.

138. World History

Comment #98351 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Philip, you've steered away from the point again.

Tyler, that's ridiculous. The link you provided said that half of HIV infections in Estonia were down to needles and the rest were the addicts infecting their partners. It's just a hunch, but I'm not sure that too many of those people might curtail their drug fuelled passion to put on a condom as a result of reading the latest encyclical from the Pope urging them to do so.

And another thing, those statistics are absurd.

And another thing, we were talking about Africa, not Europe. Compare the campaign for fidelity approach in Uganda and its effects, to the condom approach in South Africa and Zimbabwe, and its effects. Reason can tell you the most effective approach to dealing with HIV. The Holy Father knows it, and so would you if you conducted an honest appraisal of the evidence.

139. World History

Comment #98176 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 7:49 am

Phillip,

I thought the evidence suggests that AIDS is lower in countries with higher percentages of Catholics than those with lower Catholic populations. It seems that if more followed His Holiness' advise, less would suffer. Would be rather inconvenient for his detractors though.

140. World History

Comment #98147 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 6:22 am

Also interesting that the Pope has apologised for most of the actions describes above, yet apparently he's blaming them on others. Yet more evidence of the murkiness of this paricular oasis. I't can't really be good for those who drink from it.

141. World History

Comment #98143 by fides_et_ratio on December 13, 2007 at 6:19 am

After the war,English diplomat said to Stalin that he should't be so harsh against religion. Stalin said, 'how many division does the pope have?'

Is it really so difficult to see the link between Stalin's athiesm and his despotism, or is it just that some have allowed themselves to be duped by the 'Hitchins Delusion'. Those mental gymnastics that bring all faults back to the doors of religion.

142. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93462 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 7:30 am

93. Comment #93455 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 7:14 am

'Supposed I came up to you and said "I can tell you the truth sometimes. Who says when I am telling the truth? Well, me of course. Why should you trust me on this? Well, we have a family tradition of believing this." What would you think?'

I'd think that I wouldn't trust a man who covered his eyes with his hat, and if it fell a bit lower it would maybe explain why the words seem to be coming from it. God knows what the little green men would think of that.

143. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93452 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 7:12 am

'What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' Verse 19 goes on to say.

144. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93445 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 7:03 am

86. Comment #93435 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 6:40 am

Come on Steve, you're an intelligent man. Clearly self-proclaimed means, well, self-proclaimed and clearly papal infallibility is based on the words of Jesus (not a pope) to Peter, a pope. Surely your literacy isn't confined to science.

145. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93434 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 6:37 am

82. Comment #93411 by Tyler Durden on December 3, 2007 at 5:33 am

Good, now that's resolved I'm sure we can both see nothing hypocritical about the use the internet, an aeroplane, a telephone or a pocket calculator. (See Comment 76)

146. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93430 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 6:31 am

81. Comment #93405 by steve99 on December 3, 2007 at 5:13 am

No, self-proclaimed is when you proclaim about your self. Papal infallibility was conferred by Jesus on Peter and his succesors.

147. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93403 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 5:02 am

Anyone interested in an honestly engaging with what The Holy Father actually said could also do with reading paragraphs 20 and 21 of the document on Marx. Unlikely though, in the self-proclaimed 'oasis', truth rarely gets in the way of self-righteous ranting.

148. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93398 by fides_et_ratio on December 3, 2007 at 4:50 am

Just for the purpose of clarification, what His Holiness didn't say was, 'Don't use technology, it's evil.'

149. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92828 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm

I think.

150. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92827 by fides_et_ratio on December 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Hello again, my scientific literacy is undoubtedly much lower than your own. The points I raised were more a response to Dawkins own words, rather than any scientific commentary.

'We scientifically literate don't confuse complexity of outcome with complexity of cause'

Dawkins speaks about the complexity of God, this is outcome, not cause. In fact, he uses his musings on the outcome that is his idea of God, to attempt to debunk the cause.