201. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93294 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 3:40 pm

"The non believers don't seek to impose their rules on you. No one forces you to have an abortion if you don't want to have one. It is the believers who seek to impose their rules on us based on their beliefs and nothing more. I can't see what concession we need to make."

I wish I could agree that that was the case. Fundamentalist secularism is every bit as aggressive as fundamentalist religion ever was. Is it not an imposition to require Christians to shut up about their faith outside the confines of their own home. The moment they enter the public square in whatever capacity of public life they are (increasingly) required to refrain from proclaiming or even confessing their faith as being of relevance to their public role. Is that not an imposition? And Dennett among others would also have the state, if he could, intervene in how Christian parents bring up their children! If that ever were to happen it would be an imposition. And don't come back at me with the notion that Christian parents, by being Christians and bringing up their kids in accordance with their convictions are guilty of unwarranted imposition. The same is true of secular, atheist parents who convey their "convictions" to their kids and bring them up accordingly. For better or worse, in both cases kids, though influenced by their parents, end up believing what they want to believe (or not).

202. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93289 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Reason has moved many a rationalist towards faith! CS Lewis is a case in point!

203. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93281 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 3:10 pm

The thing is Steve that I seem to be the only one here required to make concessions. If concessions are what we need, does this only apply to me and my fellow-believers?

204. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93280 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 3:08 pm

I may believe that sexual infidelity is wrong, but just because I believe that I do not go around imposing my views on anyone (God forbid!). But where human life is at stake (especially the most vulnerable, innocent human life imaginable) then I am entitled to kick up a fuss. Just as anti-war protesters are netitlet¡d to kick up a fuss when a country is invaded because of what turns out to be an unfounded suspicion that there might be hidden in some bunker. I have a right to (and a duty) to kick up a fuss when children in developing countries are wrenched from or sold by their parents or relatives to be used and abused as sex-slaves by some filthy-rich Western entrepreneur! Even if we are not 100% sure that the fetus is a person or at what stage, the fact that there is a possibility of this being so should galvinise us into action in defence of the unborn. This is not imposition. It is justice! Justice on behalf of those who will never have a voice to speak for themselves!

205. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93273 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 2:56 pm

The choice of age is more or less related to the presence of a nervous system. But as I said, I am opting for conception, allowances made for the doubts you express about the status of a cluster of cells. I realise that there are Christian believers who take a different view from me. I have not, I admit, explored these finer points in great depth. That's why I said 12 to 18 weeks - it's a concession.

206. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93268 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 2:46 pm

What do YOU mean by a person Steve?

What I mean is a human being, an object of God's love, a unique individual.

207. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93267 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 2:44 pm

"I can't believe someone said Alister McGrath is not a complete douchebag. He IS a douchebag, completely."

I reckon your definition of a douchebag is anyone who speaks out in favour of theism. McGrath is a douchebag, Lennox is a douchebag, William Lane Craig is a douchebag, John Polkinghorne is a douchebag ... Francis Collins, and the lot. Hitchens, Dawkins Harris and Dennett are, by contrast, shining examples of human intellect at its finest - pure unadulterated reason!

208. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93264 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I know that Goldy. I am not a Catholic, and there are a great many things in Catholic dogma that I take issue with - this is one of them. Mind you, if there were a practising Catholic contributing to this forum we would be agreeing with each other about a great deal!

But I don't think it's fair to say that taking a pro-life stance on abortion is one section of society imposing their view on others "because of some belief they have". We may quibble about when the embryo/fetus becomes a person, but not about whether the fetus is a person. Certainly after 12 to 18 weeks of gestation (please note that I would say before, but for the sake of argument ...)we are talking about the destruction of a person.

Sayiing that is "imposing the view of oe section of society on another" is like saying that those who campaign for the abolition of the death penalty, or for putting an end once and for all to child prostitution or sex slavery, are making an "imposition on another because of some belief they have". Maybe so, but sometimes such "impositions" are crying out to be made.

209. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93253 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Goldy I am in favour of contraception. I think the RC's stance on condoms in Africa is wrong!

210. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93224 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Listen you guys, I'm trying to answer your questions, but bear with me. They are good questions but I'm no expert on this topic so I may not be able to do justice to them. I may be using analogies that are of beam. But my conviction is that there is a spiritual element (you may well sigh). I believe that each fetus is unique (and each embryo for that matter). I blieve that the unborn human child is the object of God's love, and that makes him or her inviolable, just as every human being after birth remains unique and inviolable. It's a continuum starting from conception. I respect those who hold dffering views about where the establishment of personhood should be established. But earlier I asked a question which hasn't been answered. How do you all feel about the routine recourse to abortion, for the most spurious of reasons, as if it were no more significant than tooth extraction?

211. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93213 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Steve I think we are going to have to agree to differ. I agree that it this material may develop into two twins and (if you say so) remerge. In the same way the dough with which you bake a loaf can be used to bake two. But the substance is the same. We are not only talking about dough here of course, but the substance out of which a person (or more than one) emerges. But let the analogy stand, as far as it goes. The "dough" is the genetic material, the substance of the person. It carries within it the foundations of invividuation, the identity of the person. I believe we are more than our genetic configuration of course. But dispensing with the "dough" means dispensing with the constituents of the person, because the human being, obviously, is inseparable from it.

212. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93203 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:24 pm

"Do you mind addressing my main point? When is a house a house? Is it demolition if I close down the warehouse and tear up the blue print?"

Sorry Bonzai, I must be very thick. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I was trying to argue earlier that the cluster of cells with the genetic material out of which the person is formed is more than just a blueprint. It is also more than a few bricks. It is the substance of the person.

213. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93196 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:14 pm

"ONLY a genetic draft" Bonzai? the use of "only" rather undermines the nature of what this draft is, don't you think?

214. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93193 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:08 pm

"You aren't made up of the same material as the fertilised egg. Not a single atom is the same."

This is true. And neither is a single cell of your current body the same as those that made up your body ten years ago. But the material is the same in the sense that the DNA contained in each cell of your body as it is now is the same as the DNA contained in your body 10 years ago. I was talking about DNA - the genetic material - not the hardware.

215. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93181 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 11:32 am

"ADH, we'd need to resolve the first matter of fact: is God man made?"

Indeed we do Dr Benway. But we are not going to agree about that, are we? So we are not going to be able to establish agreement on that issue before moving any farther forward. The proposition that I am positing here is that "God exists independently of our mental projections and thought models." Your proposition is clearly that "God is the result of our projections and thought models". If you object to my proposition and insist that God is an invention, then I can also suggest to you that you have de-invented God (so to speak) because of a fear of having your life interfered with by God. In another thread you mentioned that you have read CS Lewis. You will probably know then that CS Lewis desperately wanted God NOT to exist. His "wishful-thinking" was inclining him towards atheism, not towards belief. When he was converted it was because he realised the logic was compelling, and it was in the teeth of fierce resistance due to his innate preference not to be interfered with - to be left to himself.

216. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93169 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 11:08 am

Not a very good analogy Bonzai. The difference between the blueprint and the house is that the blueprint only exists on paper and before that in the mind of the designer. It is not made up of the materials out of which the house itself will be built. If it did, then destruction of the blueprint would indeed be demolition. The cluster of cells out of which the person arises is one and the same substance as the person that will arise out of them. In a sense it is a genetic blueprint of the future self, but it is a blueprint that is made of the bulding materials of the self. This puts the "tearing up" of this particular blueprint in a wholly different category.

217. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93160 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 10:47 am

I disagree Steve. Conception, as the etymology of the word itself suggests, is the beginning of the process of individuation. As regards cloning, a clone is just, as you have pointed out, an identical twin. That will always be the case, whatever the biological origin of the new entity. Does anyone ever argue that twins are split selves? No, they are fully autonomous selves, with their own capacity for individual choice, for reasoning, for forming relationships and freely interacting with their peers. That will be the case if cloning (God forbid) ever becomes routine. If we were nothing but our DNA there would be no distiction between identical twins or clones.

218. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93150 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 10:24 am

"If the proposition on the table concerns the motives of the debator, it's appropriate to discuss those motives."

Surely that is the case in the D'Souza Dennett debate: that God is an invention. Is it not also legitimate to posit that God has, for a variety of motives, been airbrushed out rather than painted in?

219. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93149 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 10:20 am

Maybe we don't know it, but it's the prevailing thought model at the moment, even in the event of the multiverse theory ever actually producing some evidence - even a multi-verse had to be triggered by something. But anyway, this isn't a cosmological discussion. I was just offering an analogy. Let's pretend ...

220. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93145 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 10:13 am

Dr Benway, how does Christopher Hitchens fare under your definition of a debate? He has made it very clear that his reaction to religion is not cerebral but visceral. It is not that he delieves Christianity to be false, but that he doesn't want it to be true. He represents himself not as an atheist but as an anti-theist. That is, everyone claiming to be a theist becomes his enemy even before he has heard their arguments.

Hve not you yourself attributed belief in God to psychological insecurity? Have you not thereby also shifted "from arguments for or against the proposition to some personality problem" on the part of the believer?

221. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93143 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 10:03 am

"by your definition the "self in the making" could be extended back indefinitely, through the line of ancestors."

I don't think it can be. The fertilisation of the egg is the beginning of the process of human life coming into being. Obviously it does not happen without copulation (or some technically assisted equivalent). But that does not make copulation the beginning of the process. It's like the Big Bang. It was triggered by an external event which was not itself part of the process.

222. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93139 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 9:54 am

"Actually that's not an ad hominem. That's merely abuse. The core of D'Souza's argument against atheism is an ad hominem, however - i.e., refusal to believe due to egocentrism."

or a truism. If it's "refusal" it may be due to a perceived lack of evidence, or to wilfulness.

223. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93131 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 9:28 am

Steve, I said a "self in the making", which will, left to itself, develop into a fully-fledged self. For the reasons given, I feel that it is wrong to interrupt that process. That is not to deny that the fertilised egg might split and form two selves, or having split re-merge (I wasn't aware that this was possible, but it makes no difference to my argument). This self, in essential terms, is becoming increasingly distinct from the mother who carries it and from the father whose sperm fertilised the egg, throughout the gestation period. In a sense the exact point at which it becomes entirely distinct is neither here nor there. It is growing towards and into selfhood from the moment of fertilisation. When does autonomous selfhood begin, after all? You could argue that is actually some time after birth. Even after the umbilical feeding cord is cut the baby remains dependent on his or her mother's milk (or a reliable substitute) for several months. And other kinds of dependence endure much longer. Does that mean that we can dispense with the "dependents" on the grounds that they are not yet fully fledged selves? I know you're not saying that. But this shows that the cut off point cannot be the achievement of full-blooded selfhood.

224. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93125 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 9:08 am

I'd like to make a point regarding the teaching of religion in schools. As a Christian I have no problem with the whole smogarsboard of human religion being represented, without the dice being loaded in favour of one or the other. If I were an RE teacher I would do my honest best to do justice to my duty to present the facts about the rituals and underlying worldviews of each of them. I would not by any means (I hope) try to win converts for Christianity while doing my job. I would be prepared to have the content of lessons vetted by adherents of all the religions being studied to make sure that I ws being fair.

What Dennett wants is to teach religion as a function of natural selection. In order to teach religion in that way you have to have a prior commitment to natural selection, which, insofar as it claims to explain everything, is a philosophical worldview that not all RE teachers will necessarily hold. Or should they be required to demonstrate a commitment to natural selection before being appointed? Is this the kind of scenario that Dennett envisages? Do you people, committed as you surely are to the principle of freedom to believe or not to believe, really want to see this happening? - teachers and educators of all kinds being selected on the basis of a priori ideological commitments? Natualistic selection procedures! Purposeful (not at all random) weeding out of undesirable mutations within our educational fraternities!

225. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93119 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 8:44 am

"The worst thing that spouts out of the orifice of that awful being ..."

Can I ask you why you indulge in this ad hominem abuse? As was pointed out to me earlier (quite rightly), this is a public forum and that it exists to thrash out arguments. It does not exist (correct me if I'm wrong) to heap abuse on their exponents (in this case in their absence and, for the most part, in the absence of anyone else holding the same views). Maybe it's a case of feeling the sting of Dinesh's arguments and writhing under the uncomfortable truth of them. I'm not saying that is the case. But it is a common reaction when from someone who is bereft of anything resembling an argument.

226. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93111 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 8:16 am

The jury is still out on this one. There have been other responses since, one of them taking this same traditional position and the other conflating humanness with selfhood, which is impossible without at least the beginnings of a nervous system and brain. All the contributors so far have been Christians. The bottom line for me is that from conception we have a "self" in the making, which develops naturally towards and then within selfhood without any external interference. It would therefore seem to me to be totally unwarranted to interrupt this process by external means. Having said that, I would say that rape, severe deformity, and a serious risk to the life of the mother are cases where abortion would be admissible.

What is unconscionable is the performance of abortion at any stage as if it were merely one among many forms of contraception, as if the "extraction" and destruction of an unborn child were of no greater consequence than the excision of a tumor.

227. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93101 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 7:49 am

Steve, I am still looking into the question you raised, and I have raised it myself on a Christian forum. This is one of the answers I received:

Sorry I still haven't learnt to ue the quote facility)

"Well, I don't know if I'm someone "in the know," but I'll try to address your concerns.
Giving a definition of personhood is always tricky and controversial. However, I think it is indisputable (those that dispute this are either seriously confused or insane) that persons are substances (a substance is a thing that endures through time, maintains identity through change, and has causal powers). Among the properties persons have are the capacities to reason about abstract as well as moral and aesthetic truths and the capacity to feel emotions (there are of course many other properties of persons). Persons aren't these properties, rather they are the things that have them. Moreover, it is not essential to being a person that one be utilizing any of these capacities at any one time. For example, if one is in a deep, dreamless sleep, one is not reasoning about, say, mathematical truths. It does not follow from this that one is not then a person. That would have the absurd result that one gains and loses personhood every time one sleeps. Moreover, it does not follow that one is not a person if one is prevented from expressing these capacities by something physical. For example, if someone injects me with a powerful anesthetic, I lose consciousness and cease to reason. I would still be a person, however.
The question becomes, when does a person come into existence? There is no nonarbitrary place during the development of a child when a person begins to exist other than at conception. The first time all of these capacities are expressed is presumably sometime long after birth. It does not follow that infanticide is therefore morally permissible, and surely it is as obvious as anything is that infants are persons (they're just very early in their developmental process). So at what point do we say that a person begins to exist? Birth? There is obviously nothing ontologically significant about birth, and surely nothing relevant to personhood. Viability? The same thing applies. The first moment when a brain or central nervous system exists? The same point applies. Without a brain, all that follows is that a person cannot exercise her ability to reason, not that a person does not exist. The only non-arbitrary place to put the beginning of personhood is at conception. And this just seems intuitively correct. Conception is the beginning of existence of a new human organism. Why should one say that the substantial person begins at some time other than the beginning of her body? (This is a particularly acute question for animalist materialism, which says that persons just are human organisms; such a view straightforwardly entails that persons begin to exist at conception.)
As for stem cells and such, just because we are now capable of causing a human organism to begin to exist using techniques applied to stem cells, it does not follow that a person already exists prior to the application of these techniques. We are also able to create people using other cells, for example, gametes (just put an egg and a sperm together). Persons only exist after the application of the technique; without it, you've just got some cells, not a human organism or a person."

228. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93014 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 1:13 am

"We are surely more than just a set of DNA molecules. What makes us who we are is our minds. I can't see how it is reasonable to consider that there is a 'person' until there is a mind, and that can't can be present if there is not a sufficiently developed brain. Clearly a fertilized egg is a potential person, but so is almost any cell in the body given the right cloning technology."

Steve, this is a very good point, and it is obvious that I need to look into it a bit more.

I'm not arguing biology (or cosmology) from Scripture. I'm not really in a position to argue biology at all. I take Scripture as an authority when it comes to the definition to personhood, the nature and basis of our relationship whith our Creator and the place of humankind in the cosmos. It traces the story of our collective rebellion, our straining after "godhood" as opposed to "creaturehood", our self-inflicted exile from "Eden" and God's initiatives in bringing humankind back into a relationship with Him. That is the underlying paradigm. As regards biology and cosmology, many educated Christians remain open to a variety of possibilities.

229. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92860 by ADH on December 1, 2007 at 3:50 pm

That's a good question Corylus. Obviously I believe the two said babies are individuals, despite the splitting of a single egg. They develop individually within the womb as separate foetuses. I guess they become "persons" with a soul at the moment at which they become separate individuals, ie: after the egg has split. I don't think we can say: "at any point". Who decides at which point? I can't conceive of God so intervening at one week for one foetus, six weeks for another, 6 months for another. Individuation could be said to occur with sentience, I suppose. But I believe that from conception there is an individual in the making, even if individuation has not yet occurred. The longer the gestation prior to abortion, the closer to "murder" the act is. My view is that after conception termination is unwarranted. Whether it can be described as "murder" before sentience I'm not sure. Some would have it, without any foundation at all in my view, that the "cut off point" is not sentience but consciousness, and they add that that does not occur until 24 hours after birth. For my part, I will stick with "conception", though as I say, I'm not sure that the term "murder" can be applied to the action at that stage.

230. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92853 by ADH on December 1, 2007 at 3:29 pm

I'd like to see Dennet or Harris taking on William Lane Craig or John Lennox. They are by far the most effective Christian debaters in town.

231. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92837 by ADH on December 1, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Ok, to answer your questions. Clearly it is not possible for me on this forum to establish to everyone's satisfaction that human life begins with conception. The Bible does refer to the unborn child being the object of God's love. That is why I accept that the human "person" does not begin with birth, or even with the development of the neurological system, and the consequent capacity to feel, but with conception. "You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book".

In the Old Testament Law, anyone guilty of an act of violence resulting in the death of the foetus they have to "pay a fine" to the woman's husband. Though significantly it is in the event of the woman also dying that the aggressor had to forfeit his life.

I realise that there is some diversity of opinion among Christians as regards abortion. But even those who do not rule it out in every circumstance would agree that it is totally wrong if it is carried out before the development of the nervous system.

How do you all feel about the practice of abortion as it occurs in the UK now? Does it not seem to you that we have let the train gather steam and now it is hurtling out of control?

232. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92818 by ADH on December 1, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Sorry if you find my sneering tone offensive Bonzai. Listening to contributioins like that of Pat Condell bring out the worst in me. But you're right I should not resort to sneers with sneers.

233. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92699 by ADH on December 1, 2007 at 8:48 am

For better or worse, the Bishops of the Church of England cut very little ice with the general public. That's maybe one of the reasons why abortion is now matter of such grave concern, even for its formerly most ardent supporters. After all, who are they to tell us when human life begins? or if it ever really begins at all? or what bloody difference there is between human life and bacteria life anyway?

I'm actually pretty sure you're right. The hugely positive influence (in terms of the definition and defense of human personhood and in the preservation of human dignity) that the Christian faith has had over the centuries is in free fall. It very much looks as if secular humanism rooted in materialistic philosophy is going to rule the roost. Let's see if human rights and our collective responsibility for the planet of which God has made us the custodians, fare any better under its sway. Watch this space!

234. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92691 by ADH on December 1, 2007 at 8:30 am

Don't be absurd Corylus. You know as well as I do that even kids educated at the most rigorous faith school (at least of the Chritian variety) end up believing what they want. Many of you are living witnesses! When was the last time any of you were summonsed by the Holy Office?? The present government!! Don't make me laugh!

235. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92679 by ADH on December 1, 2007 at 7:50 am

Chill out Pat. No one is forcing you to believe anything against your will. Fortunately for all of us, Christians are (still) just as free as atheists to do what they can to persuade people to get on board. But in this country it will probably be some time before atheist dogma is actually rammed down anyone's throat, just as it is very long time since the powers that be (or any other powers) used force to "impose" belief in God on anyone. If you don't want it, forget it. No one is going to take offense.

And by the way, you have issued a challenge to your fellow atheists to chuck in argument and just lash out with insult. Many of your co-(non)religionists took your advice a long time ago. Occasionally I find an attempt here to formulate an argument. But for the most part the contributions are right up your street!

236. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92604 by ADH on November 30, 2007 at 10:27 pm

"D'Souza seems to specialize in spewing as much crap as possible at his opponent that it takes longer than the given 10 minutes to refute it all."

To make this sentence true all I need to do is replace the name with "Hitchens", for example. Not with Dawkins or Dennet though. I consider them to be serious debaters who engage rationally and respectfully with their opponents - in the case of Dawkins much more respectfully thn one is led to expect from a reading of TGD.

In the case of this debate I expect a thought-provoking intellectual encounter between two very competent and articulate debaters. Needless to say I'm sure Dinesh will win, not because he's a better debater but because he has better arguments.

237. Stem cell breakthrough

Comment #90542 by ADH on November 25, 2007 at 1:13 pm

"This is excellent. It will be interesting to see whether the built up resentment of 'stem cells' will mean that developments purely based on these adult developments will be seen as dubious by campaigners whose original problem was with the embryo issue."

Not so Mercer. No problem at all with adult stems cells. This is science at its best.

238. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86945 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 1:48 pm

I have done but you weren't listening or didn't understand! Your post about an all-powerful God being able to do what is logically contradictory was frankly inane. Can he make a square triangle?

I said that CS Lewis does not supersede Scripture. He offers an interpretation of Scripture which I have patiently tried to elucidate.

As for my kids and their fate, that is between them and God. Kindly lay off!

Goodbye! My patience also has its limits.

239. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86941 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 1:34 pm

"Either you are a rational person, or you aren't. You are either intellectually honest, or you are either trolling us with lunatic stupidity. Which is it?"

I'll keep you guessing. But it seems you at least have already made up your mind. As have I!

240. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86926 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Steeve, the ability to "pervert" is called free-will. You wouldn't have preferred not to have that would you?

241. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86923 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 12:52 pm

"God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible."

Please (re)read post 378

242. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86920 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Thank you for that comment about Sacks Krisking. A salutary warning! These guys don't seem to realise how much of their conception of duty and decency actually derives from the judeo-christian heritage within which they were brought up!

243. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86919 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 12:43 pm

This brings us back to the doctrine of the fall. (OK I say doctrine. I accept it on authority). God permitted rather than decreed that the Great Rebellion would occur. When it occurred, everything got skewed. Every good thing became susceptible to distortion and perversion: justice, love, beauty, poower. Everything that we can think of as evil is a perversion of something good.

244. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86913 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 12:29 pm

"You seem to be forgetting that christians believe that God is the "first cause", the origin of the Universe. In their view, he literally designed all of the laws of nature, including Pi, the Primes, and logic itself."

Indeed this is true. He is the self-suffient cause, and source of all logic. "In the beginning was the LOGOS". But he is not the Aristotelian "Prima Mobile". He is a personal agent, who had his own largely inscrutable (excep in so far as he chooses to reveal them) reasons for acting as He does. He is the source of all justice and love and beauty, because He IS Justice, Love and Beauty (among many other attrubutes).

245. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86907 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Can God create a four-sided triangle, a square circle, a married bachelor ....? When you say something absurd you do not remove the absurdity by sticking "God" next to it.

The quote from Epicurus is a well known aphorism. The problem of suffering is clearly a very serious matter. But it presupposes that God, in allowing suffering, is limited to or caught between those two attributes. It is conceivable that God, in allowing suffering, might be pursuing a purpose for the sufferer that involves a higher good. Even secular literature offers cases of "redemptive suffering" - suffering which somehow ennobles the sufferer. King Lear is an example. A beautiful story of an old king's despair, but a king who through his suffering is somehow transfigured. I know that this will cut no ice with most of you. But if you remove God, you do not thereby remove the suffering - but you do remove the possibility of it having any ultimate purpose, or of it ultimately being relieved. There is no atheist "eschatology" whereby tears will be wiped away. Ok you will say that "Nature's red in tooth and claw? and we just have to accept that. It certainly doesn't offer much hope or sufferers though. Atheism is a prophecy of despair - the opposite of an "euangelion". It is "an anit-euangelion". It it could be shown to be true, then we'd just have to swallow hard and accept that. But it HAS NOT been shown to be true. Far from it!

246. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86888 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 11:20 am

Mejdrich, why can't something be symbolic and historical at the same time? When we say "Elisabeth has been on the English throne for more than 50 years" we don't mean that the poor lady has been sitting there, getting bored out of her mind (though perhaps she might as well have been) for the last 50+ years!! And yet it is historical and literal in the sense that it means she has been Queen of England for all that time.

Yes the Resurrection DID really happen, but there is a symbolic meaning woven into the event. It is not a mere "conjuring trick with bones". It is a statement about the New Creation - about God's restoration of the material world rather than his etherial detachment from the material world and ascent into some kind of spiritual realm remote from body and matter.

247. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86883 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 11:15 am

"Better to face the truth"

Are you sure it is the Truth that you are facing. That is precisely my point. You may in fact be withdrawing FROM the Truth into a kind of self-constructed refuge, where you rely heavily on the texts and "insights" of your Mentors and Prophets - the High Priests of atheism.

Just what you accuse religious people of doing.

I have argued and will continue to insist that Atheism is a surrogate religion: "Happy band of Brothers", convert's , epiphanies, testimonies, boot camps for children ... etc. You must at least amit that with "trappings" like these you stand open to the charge of becoming a surrogate religion.

248. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86876 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 11:07 am

The Bible uses a lot of symbols to describe realites which actually transcend that of the symbol in question. It is a work of literature which includes poetry and history, sometimes in the same book. I believe it's perfectly possible for Hell to be described as fire to convey something of its nature. That does not mean that it will be literal fire. Just as heaven is described as having streetrs of gold. I don't for one moment take that image literally, and I don't know of anyone who does. It is used to convey some idea of the spendour of the new creation.

249. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86870 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 10:58 am

"If the authority of scripture can be superceded by C.S. Lewis, in regards to Hell, why do you reject the higher authority of astronomers and physicists in their areas of expertise?"

CS Lewis does not supersede Scripture.

I have no quarrel with Hawking and company. Big Bang cosmology actually supports the idea that the universe had a beginning, outside of itself. 14 billion years ago, give or take a month!

250. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86864 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 10:47 am

"It is impossible for them to acknowledge that they are wrong, because to do so would literally destroy their whole world view and conception of themselves. That is a process that is simply too painful for most "believers" to endure."

Dvespertilio, could precisely these words not apply to the atheist "fraternity"? I get the impression that that is one of the reasons for the emergence of communities like this one: "Happy band of brothers". The wind of Truth can be chilly - you have to draw close together for warmth, fellowship and mutual support. And indulging in these fidephobic orgies does one a power of good!