251. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86825 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 8:35 am

Bozai, you may or may not feel inclined to have a look at this.

http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/articles/article_archive/Denis-Alexander-evolution-religious-significance-v2.pdf

Have a nice weekend

252. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86823 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 8:24 am

I told you I was out of my depth.

Cheers

253. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86818 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 8:07 am

OK thanks to those of you who have asked me reasonable, thoughtful questions (most of you). But I think I have overstayed my welcome. The think is I keep getting asked another question!

Steve, the delight is mutual (even though you reckon you were overstating).

All the best.

254. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86817 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 8:03 am

Good questions Bonzai. I believe that there are a number of possibilities here. Either God singled out homo-sapiens, selecting a pair of the species for "humanisation". I realise that there are problems with this view, such as the interaction between this human pair and their non-human fellow-hominids. Another possibility is that God allowed the process towards hominisation to proceed, and then intervened, creating a separate species with characteristic features common to other non human hominids, as a kind of perfecting of the model which had already been evolving. But I realise that I am out of my depth in this area. But nothing I have seen or read actually shows that the Genesis picture of special creation of a separate human species is incompatible with scientific findings as they stand.

The fact is that the story of human origins is far from complete. There is still debate over whether the Neandertals were an entirely separate species or not. My understanding is that they have been shown to be genetically incompatible with homo sapiens. There are a large number of unanswered questions as regards the whole process. Each of a number of hypotheses has its supporters and detractors.

255. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86812 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 7:50 am

dvespertilio, I suggest you do a Google search. These people are bona fide Biblical scholars. Yes I am familiar with the works of JD Crossan, though I admit I haven't read them. I have heard him in debate with William Lane Craig, and even his supporters acknowledge that Crossan was beaten fair and square.

Actually I don't go in for direct revelations. Were I to "receive one" I would weigh it up against other sources of evidence, but I would not dismiss it out of hand. Personally I cannot pronounce on the authenticity or otherwise of the visions you mention. My natural impulse is to be highly sceptical of such wisions and appearances. I believe they can be (though may not necessarily be) delusions. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." or rather "By their fruits you will know them". Anyone who claims to have been told by God that he/she is a prophet and to announce this or that future event, and starts to pass round a bag to collect "gifts" from the unsuspecting "victims" of his/her deception is just a charlatan. There are plenty of them in "Christian" churches. That is actually why Scripture is important. Contary to what you might think, it actually puts such charlatans in their place. The letters of Paul warn believers about such deception, and warns Christian ministers against deception or fraud. The reason why this phenomenon prevails in so many Christian communities is not the result of excessive acquaintance with Scripture, but rather of insufficient acquaintance.

256. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86806 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 7:32 am

Bonzai, it depends on how you interpret the book of Genesis. I see it as a theological text, with historical underpinnings of course, the purpose of which is to show how humankind began their trajectory in harmony with the Creator, but later chose to make themselves the arbiters of their own destinies. The eeds of Redemption are already pressent in the tragic scenario subsequent to the Fall (ch 3 v 15). I do not see how this story (historical indeed) is undermined by an acceptance of evolution as the "mechnical process" whereby life, having been created, developed, in its diverse forms. That's what "evolution" means - the development rather than the origin of life. I'm aware that Evolution, as a thought-model, is not without its problems and its detractors - not all of them Christians, but not being a scientist I'm not in a position to comment. Obviously a literal reading of Genesis as if it were a scientific document clashes with scientific findings. But there is no evidence that it was ever intended to be read as such. It is interesting to note that some of Darwin's closes collaborators were, in fact ardent Christians. One of them, Asa Gray, was his main "propagandist" in the US.

257. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86796 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 7:03 am

Hi Bonzai, with this answer I'll sign off. No I do not dismiss what we KNOW through science. But even Dawkins has admitted that we cannot KNOW through science that God does not exist. I believe that science is very far from showing that God does not exist. Contrary to what you all keep insisting on, the "old book" that you refer to does not contradict science and nor is it contradicted by what science has SHOWN to be true. My subjective feelings are not of the "I've seen a flying teapot" variety or "I've just had an encounter with a pink unicorn". It is an experience that is shared by millions of people, each in his or her unique way (because God is a Person and reveals "Him"self to us personally) and is warranted by the coherent historical narrative that Scripture constitutes.

258. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86793 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 6:49 am

Actually, Coretemprising, the main reason I'm still here is to answer the questions that I have been asked. I think I have done that to the best of my ability, so I will take my leave and let you all get on with what this message board is really all about: tearing the stuffing out of theists in their absence.

Bon apétit!

259. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86787 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 6:33 am

"You equate what you're doing on this forum with being at a zoo rattling cages? Did I get that right??"

Chill out Coretemprising, I was only joking!

260. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86784 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 6:31 am

"Re my comment 285 to you from yesterday, 11/9/07. I am still waiting for a response from you. The gospels you purport to be "eyewitness" accounts" are not, in fact, anything at all like that. They are stories, collections of sayings, etc, and as such are works of literary fiction, not historical accounts of actual events."

That is a matter of opinion. Many Biblical scholars (not backwoods fundies) have written extensively on this question and have shown that the gospels are, by and large, reliable as eye-witness accounts. Bishop NT Wright, Richard Bauckham, Darrell Bock, Chris A Evans, Ben Witherington, Edwin Yamauchi, to name but a few. Needless to say you will discount their accounts as necessarily unreliable because they happen not to agree with the sources you have in mind. These people actually represent a variety of theological positions, but they are in agreement on this particular issue. All you can say, at the most, is that the jury is still out. I have read quite a bit on the topic from different perspectives, and I have come across nothing so far that significantly calls into question the conclusions that these people have arrived at. You will say that I am prejudiced in their favour. I could say that you are prejudiced against them. By the way, 30 years spent exploring something is not in itself a guarantee that you will end up coming to the right conclusions about it.

261. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86779 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 6:19 am

Steve, note the words A PRIORI. I am not saying that these claims should necessarily be accepted as they stand. ests need to be applied - the clinical history of the person making the claims, their proven sanity (or otherwise) on other counts, their reliability a truthful witnesses, and the nature of the beliefs themselves and whether they are corroborated or warranted from other points of view. But, as we theists keep insisting, biological or chemical evidence (empirical 5-senses evidence) is not the only kind of evidence in town. We accept a lot of things as fact even though we cannot provide empirical evidence for them. Even empirical evidence, as you point out with your example of the super-computer, can be misleading. How do we know that we are not artually plugged into a Matrix, characters in asomeone else's elaborate virtual reality programme, our "software" having been fitted with memory traces and virtual sensory perceptions. Common sense tells us that this is not the case, but it cannot be proved scientifically, despite empirical "evidence" to the contrary.

So what I am saying is that we should not preculde, a priori, evidence which is not of a scientific nature - the kind of character-based evidence I mentioned before, and also the extent to which the belief in question is warranted by history and by the experience of others.

262. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86768 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 5:48 am

As regards mythology, I do indeed believe that myths (yes pagan myths) do embody (or pre-embody) aspects of the Truth later fully embodied (revealed) in Jesus. Would I go so far as to say that the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden is a myth of this kind? No I wouldn't, although I know some orthodox Christians who hold this view. I believe that the historicity of the Fall is central to the Christian "meta-narrative", because it shows that just as "sin" (rebellion against God) entered the world via a human being, so the Redemption of humankind is achieved through a human being, God embodied in human personhood, in space-time history. I totally disagree with Spong. In fact you will find that few Biblical Scholars (not even the components of the ultra liberal Jesus Seminar) take him seriously. He has simply rehashed the New Testament story in accordance with his own "politically correct" post-modern preconceptions, without even a whiff of historical evidence.

But I am quite prepared to believe that pre-Christian myth played a role in preparing the minds of Pagan as opposed to Jewish societies to receive the story of God incarnate, and his sacrifice for our sins and bodily resurrection. Finding parallels in pre-Christian narratives should not surprise us. It would be surpising if there were't any parallels.

263. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86764 by ADH on November 10, 2007 at 5:35 am

"But you would not necessarily rule out an external cause simply because a reaction occurred,"

Please take careful note of these words. I did not say that chemical reactions within the brain CANNOT be of internal origin. What I said, and the examples I gave bear out my point, was that we CANNOT RULE OUT an external cause a priori. The chemical reaction in itself does not explain away the putative external nature of the experience. At this point I am not arguing for the authenticity of specifically Christian experience as opposed to other forms of religious experience. That's another ball game.

264. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86665 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Sharon, you ask me for historical evidence that human evil originated in an act of human rebellion. Needless to say I have none. I accept it on authority - yes, the authority of Scripture. Before you tear me to bits for saying that, let me ask you a question. Is there not a great deal that you accept on authority rther than because you have tangible evidence for it? Why do you believe that the origin of evil is inherent in the process of natural selection? Yes there is evidence of aggression in nature, of violence and so on. But I challenge you to produce evidence that injustice and justice are of natural or cultural origin. That's just one example. Most people replace the authority of God and Scripture with the authority of the media, of the vox populi, of the gurus on this or that subject who pontiicate ad nauseam and line their pockets in the process. The issue is not whether we accept things on authority, but whose authority we accept.

265. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86664 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 10:36 pm

Ok Coretemprising, when I go to the zoo I enjoy rattling cages. Otherwise it's not worth going.

Dr B.

They say that Sigmund Freud had a very problematic relationship with his father. Out of this arose his conception of God as an intolerably overbearing Patriarch, who was rightly dispensed with by the "tribe" or the community. By your reckoning, does this not disqualify him from saying anything meaningful with regard to God's existence? Could we not apply the same (psycho) analysis to a great deal of contemporary atheist thinking? People accuse us believers of inventing God because we need a "blanket", a psychological crutch. Could we not say that atheists have repressed their instinctive awareness of the Divine because of a deep seated fear that there might actually be Someone there to whom they will have to give account? It is also "wishful thinking". They suspect God exists but they very much wish he didn't, so they erect an intellectual scaffolding to make their wishes seem plausible to themselves.

I'm not saying that the fact that they do this proves God to exist. But the fact that Christians find psychological support in their faith certainly does not prove Him not to exist. The believer has been likened by Freud to a child crying in the night, longing for their father to come and gather him or her intThis may well be true, but it does not prove that no such father exists.

Steve, re Ockham's razor. I'm afraid it cuts nothing here. Dr B's explanation was not an explanation of the origin of the said feeling but of the cerebral mechanics, what can be observed in the brain when a certain feeling or experience is induced. It says nothing about what inuced the experience in the first place. Would you apply the same principle if a child in your care were terrorised by something during the night and came running to you or help. Ok, it could just have been a nightmare, and you would lull them back to sleep. But you would not necessarily rule out an external cause simply because a reaction occurred, because her brain registered a feeling of terror. The same is true of love. The fact that the affection of one's partner induces a chemical reaction in the brain does not invalidate the external origin of this reaction.

266. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86529 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Sorry but I've been on and off this messageboard all day. I really must get on with some other things. I'll be back. I'm not being evasisive, I promise.

267. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86528 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Bonzai, I don't see why. What is not ictional is that humankind is a special creation by God, and they rebelled agaisnt their Creator. I can accept evolution as a process whereby nature reached the shapes and forms that it reached (though I'm not committed to this particular paradigm). If the chips were down and I had to choose between the two, I'd go for the historicity of some variation on the Eden theme. But as I say, there is no incompatability. Older and wiser men and women with much more impressive credentials than I have have seen no incompatability, so why should I?

268. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86516 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Steve, you've been reading CS Lewis's "Till we have Faces"!!

269. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86514 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Good question Bonzai. I don't think the event is fictional, just the details. But the event of an act of rebellion which embraced the whole of mankind was as historically true as the battle of Trafalgar. It was the event of rebellion that necessitated the coming of a Redeemer.

270. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86506 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Yes I remember that scene. Presumably that was the director's take on religion, as it has been many other people's. I don't think it squares with the facts though.

271. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86505 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Sorry to get your back up contemrising. I'm about to exit anyway. I need to attend to other things. I know that you all fiercely disagree with me. But I appreciate how civilised your questions have been. I've enjoyed the discussion. Whay am I here Contemprising? Because I like talking to people who don't agree with me.

272. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86501 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Bonzai, an order WAS given. "Of the fruit of the tree that stands in the midst of the garden thou shalt not eat of it, lest you die".

The origin of evil is complex. The Silmarilion makes for interesting reading by the way - Tolkein's take on "War in Heaven". But whatever the origin of it there was evil to which it was possible for humankind to succumb. What did they succumb to? "You shall be like gods ..." basically that was the thrust of the temptation, and it was I guess not an easy one to resist. We've been succumbing ever since!

273. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86493 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Bonzai, the Garden of Eden story shows God having placed humanity in the Garden to cultivate, it nurture it, make it productive, explore and cGOd gave humans permission to enjoy absolutely everything in it to their hearts content. But He also chose to place in the garden the means whereby human obedience would be put to the test. The story speaks of a tree laden with fruit. I don't know what form the test took, but the picture of a tree is a pretty good representation of it. We should be careful to notice that only one tree was out of bounds, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that the fruit of that tree was any better than that of any of the others.

God could have refrained from placing such a tree (or whatever the test was) in the way of human beings. He could have refrained from confonting them with a choice. Then there would have been no rebellion, but neither would there be any such thing as moral choice. Life would be wonderful ... or would it? Some of you have already pointed out that therein lies our humanity: not giing in to coercion, making real choices. It was a risk, of course. But what sort of humanity would have resulted from the absence of such a choice: scientifically, technologically efficient automata.

274. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86489 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:07 pm

"I am afraid it is either true or not, and it isn't. How can it be helpful to imagine a false past when Nature was kind and we all lived in blissful painless harmony? This is shameful. It demeans the achievements of humanity over the millenia. We have come so far, and provided so much benefit for each other in terms of medicine, culture and education. I think it does nothing but harm to consider what we have achieved in the face of Nature as 'fallen'."

I'm afraid I won't be able to give you a satisfactory answer here. The Genesis account, I believe, is true in the sense that it portrays human rebellion and its consequences. What humankind's relationship with God, with nature, with his/her/their partners and within him and herself was like before that is something that we are not told, because it forms no part of our story. We get glimpses of it from time to time. Literature and art, not to mention music, are choc-a-bloc with thi deep, mysterious nostalgia, this hankering after a long-lost paradise, a golden age that elludes us but enticingly beckons us inward. That c"nostalgia" can of course be crippling and disabling. It's what happened to the Romantics in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Scripture does not encourage that nostalgia. On the contrary, it points us realistically towards the world as it now is. It engages us as workers in every conceivable field of endeavour to ply our art and skill to the best of our ability, for the betterment of our planet and our fellow-creatures. That was actually one of the consequences in Europe and America of the Reformation. That's why so much science grew out of the Reformation. It grew out of a Biblical understanding of our duties as Gods "co-workers", as explorers of "the Garden" under his mandate.

275. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86486 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 11:50 am

"I don't want to have my mind so open that my brains fall out as you have done."

Thanks. That's a quip I've used myself from time to time. I think it's time I looked for another one.

276. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86483 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 11:47 am

Bonzai, you have caved in to anti-theistic stereotyping.

277. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86482 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 11:45 am

"We never did chime in harmoniously. Only a fundamental Creationist would claim that, and I am sure you aren't one. Life was hard, and bitter. We can see this from medical examination of ancient skeletons. We know that people suffered from the pain of arthritis, and dental problems, without our modern medicine. Can you imagine that kind of life?"

OK it's a thought model. Nevertheless I am a creationist in the sense that I believe the Truth of the words "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth .." Exactly how it all came together, I will find out one day. But I do believe that due to human rebellion, however that occurred, alienation set in, first between humankind and God, then between humankind and nature, also between one human and another, and also within the human psyche. The story of the Garden of Eden is intended, I believe to show this. It probably did not happen literally in the manner recorded in Genesis, but it is true in a sense which is much more crucial to the way things are than in the merely literal sense.

278. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86478 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 11:28 am

"To me intellectual integrity, independence of the mind, indomitable spirit in the face of coercions, sacrifice without the hope for rewards are some of the noblest characteristics of humanity; doubt is an integral part of our humanity, for it spurs us to question and think for ourselves instead of blindly submitting to authority. It is the ability to question that sets us apart from animals. If I have to use Christian lingo, doubt is the essence of the "soul", doubt is sacred"

Bonzai,I completely disagree that the picture I give of heaven is "castrated". You have been too easily influenced by the stereo-types. Yes I admit that many a Sunday School teacher has been guilty of perpetuating these stereo-types: Strumming harps on cloud 9. That is a castrated picture of heaven but it is not the Biblical one. Nothing we have ever experienced on earth as it is now will be as full-blooded and full-bodied as what the new creation will bring with it. We will realise that this has ll actually been a mere shadowland by comparison.

But I actually agree with a great deal of what you say. Christians don't (or shouldn't) strive to do God's will with a view to what they will get out of it. I admire your intellectual integrity and indomitable spirit. Like you, I abhor coercion. But you've set up a false dichotomy here. We actually, paradoxical though it may seem, become more fully ourselves when we surrender to God. A woman (sorry if this sounds anachronistic in the present day and age - but use your imagination) who is wooed by a man (or vice versa I guess) and who gives herself to him does not lose her identity because she allowed herself to be so wooed. Potentially (ideally I guess) she becomes more fully herself. God represents himself in scripture not as a Conqueror, overriding the will of the conquered, but as a Lover.

As for doubt, you have struck a chord with me there. I believe doubt plays a role in faith becoming stronger. God does not ride roughshod over our doubts. He encourages us to cultivate an enquiring, questioning mind. But doubt for the sake of doubt is going to get us nowhere. I would actually encourage people on this thread to doubt their certainties from time to time. Don't close your minds so readily to seemingly unscientific (stress on the word seemingly) and non-empirical routes to truth.

279. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86474 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 11:04 am

Fascinating Eli. Thank you for that gem.

280. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86471 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 10:58 am

"Thus we explain much religious experience without invoking any miracles."

A classic case of the genetic fallacy Dr. B. Just because you can trace the mechanics of religious experience in our brains does nothing to disprove the authenticity of the experience.

281. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86467 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 10:47 am

Steve, just for the record. I don't think animals have souls in the unique sense in which humans have. But I cannot deny that between humans and certain other species a kind of affinity is possible that is not possible between humans and other species. I believe this sense we have of a mysterious affinity reflects how humanity chimed in harmoniously with nature before the fall. Now, as we cannot avoid seeing all around us, we are suffering from a profound "disconnect". But there are moments when we get glimpses of how things once were, how they could have been, and how they will one day be. I don't believe in the redemption of humans, and the rest of the planet can go hang. Scripture teaches that just as the Fall was all-embracing, all-pervasive, so will the redemtpion be. Heaven is not somewhere out there beyond the blue, even outer than outer space. It is the earth itself being transfigured - restored to its former harmony, by "the return of the King" (Tolkein is wonderful on that theme). We are responsible to our fellow-creatures. We are their guardians and their servants, in a sense. You can't blame the expoliation of the planet on the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is rather the result of our deliberate, profit-oriented, self-centred violation of our God-given contract with the planet.

282. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86452 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 9:07 am

SUffering from overload at the moment and I have some things to do in town. Please forgive me if I don't get back to you right away, but I will later. I'll have a few questions of my own too!

283. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86423 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 7:26 am

RascoHeldal, I don't know what hell is like. The Bible uses phrases like "outer darkness" and refers to fire (which I believe to be metaphorical, as I have explained above) It is where God is not. The utter and eternal absence of God. Of course most of you lot will say "so what?" or "no loss!", or "so what makes it different from the universe as it is?" Maybe that's when the truth of a godless existence will really be seen for what it is.

Sorry Phil, can you remind me of what your unanswered question was before I bow out? I don't want to leave without tying up the loose ends.

284. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86396 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 6:20 am

No prob coretemprising. I was just tying to answere some questions I'd been asked. I'll exit and let you get the thread back on track. No hard feelings I hope.

285. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86386 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 5:57 am

Good question BaronOchs. I'll need to think about it a bit more rather than just rhyme off a pat answer. But this is my first, maybe not definitive, attempt at an answer. Heaven and hell are complementary realities as regards our inner depiction of them. Heaven will not need hell in order to be heaven. If God could prevent everyone from ending up in that terrible state of eternal imprisonment within the "self" he would. But he will not override human choice. You might say that contradicts the attribute of Omnipotence. But God cannot create a free agent and at the same time make him or her "unfree". A contradiction does not cease to be a contradiction just because you stick the words "God can" before it.

We also need to remember that Hell was not concieved for the punishment of humankind, but for the punishment of "the devil and his angels".

By the way, you also say that no one who finds themselves there will want to remain there. Jesus told a story about someone like that. He was a rich man below whose window lay a down-and-out reduced to feeding himself with the crumbs that fell from the former's table. When the rich man died he ended up separated from the poor man, but not by the distance of window to ground - an unbridgeable chasm now separated the two: "poor old Lazarus" having become God's friend and the rich man in hell. THe rich man (interestingly unnamed in the story) pled for Lazarus to be allowed to "visit" his family so that they would not end up in the same state. He was told that if they refused to believe the words that they had heard concerning the danger they were in neither would they believe even if they were provided with such empirical proof as the appearance of Lazarus to their senses. An interesting reflection on just how decisive "empirical" proof would be for those whose ears were already closed to the Truth.

286. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86374 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 5:29 am

Steve, when I said it was a metaphor I did not mean to gild the lilly. I don't mean that that makes it any better than if it were real fire. If you access the link I provided to what Peter Kreeft has written on the subject you will get some idea of what I mean. Fire is a metaphor for destruction: the destruction of our humanity. Hell will be populated by ex-humans - the ashes, so to speak, of the humanity that they once had and could still have had if they had so chosen. Heaven is a flourishing of our humanity, as it will be restored to its proper submission to God while Hell will be the "self"-inflicted destruction of humanity.

287. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86370 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 5:05 am

"Therefore, with faith, you can believe in anything, even beliefs that can lead to violence, murder, etc. How do you impart to your children the dangers of believing without evidence? How do they identify the kind of faith that will not do themselves and others harm?"

If your faith is in faith then maybe you can believe in anything. Faith in Jesus Christ precludes recourse to violence of any kind as a means of propagating it, or of achieving any other end. The Christian faith is warranted, not by warm fuzzy feelings, but by the evidence of the transformative impact that it has in the lives of individual believers and in society. It is also warranted by the eye-witness accounts of Christ's life offered by the four gospels, culminating in the accounts of his resurrection. Needless to say, you will all write off these accounts as the result of a Vatican conspiracy aimed at filtering out all the competing "gospels". Nevertheless, documentary evidence does not support this contention.

Jesus said "my kingdom is not of (ie from) this world. If it were my servants would fight (ie take up arms, use violence)" Where Christians have taken up arms and used violent methods to foist their message on those who did not want it they have done so in blatant defiance of Jesus' words. Their violence is therefore unwarranted, but the Christian message itself is not.

288. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86350 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 3:11 am

Maybe I have derailed this thread for long enough. But I have been pressed for an answer to some tough questions. I hope I have done that. If I haven't, if there are any questions remaining - before I "bugger of" as I've been told to do, please remind me of what they are. I'll be happy to answer them as best I can.

In the meantime let me leave you with this link

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hell.htm

289. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86344 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 2:45 am

I don't know BaronOchs. All I can say is that whether or not there is deprivation of all kinds of pleasure, the damned will, even when damned, perversely prefer to be where they are than to be with God. I recommend another great book by CS Lewis: "The Great Divorce". He vividly portrays what Hell feels like to the damned and what it looks like to the saved. And what "heaven" feels like to the saved and looks like to the damned.

290. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86324 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:47 am

BaronOchs, thanks for the link. I am not a Catholic so I'm not clued in as to their theology on Hell. Have a look at this link.

http://www.ex-atheist.com/Hell.html

Or this excerpt from a debate between WIlliam Lane Craig and Dr Bradly"

"Thus, in a sense, God doesn't send anybody to "hell. His desire is that everyone be saved, and He pleads with people to come to Him. But if we reject Christ's sacrifice for our sin, then God has no choice but to give us what we deserve. God will not send us to hell--but we will send ourselves. Our eternal destiny thus lies in our own hands. It is a matter of our free choice where we shall spend eternity.

Now if this scenario is even possible, it follows that no inconsistency has been demonstrated between God's being all-loving and some people's going to hell. For given that God has created us with freedom of the will, it follows that He cannot guarantee that all persons will freely give their lives to Him and be saved. The Bible makes it very clear that God desires every person to be saved, and by His Spirit He seeks to draw every person to Himself. The only obstacle to universal salvation is therefore human free will. It's logically impossible to make someone freely do something. God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible. Thus, even though He is all-powerful, God cannot make everyone freely be saved. Given human freedom and human stubbornness, some people may go to hell despite God's desire and efforts to save them."

291. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86317 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:40 am

"On the subject of hell christian theology has traditionally taught the fixation of the will at death, hence why when it comes to it you're either in heaven or hell and you don't swap. Thus C.S. Lewis and his doors bolted from the inside is meaningles because they couldn't be unbolted."

Yes, in effect the will is "fixed" at death. But it is the WILL of the impenitent that is fixed. They are fixed in their impenitence. The door is bolted on the inside in the sense that it is the impenitent themselves who insist on being left in that state.

292. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86314 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:34 am

"Doesn't God know all of this in advance? If your kids reject him, isn't that, using a Lawrence of Arabia phrase, already "written"?"

No it is not already written. God may know what their choice is going to be. But he has not foreordained it. There will be moments in their lives (as I believe there is in everyone's) when God will encounter them, come close but without forcing himeslf on them. Only the individual him or herself knows what form these moments have taken in their lives. When I mentioned "encounter with God" in a previous post on this thread someone suggested that, given such an encounter, we would have no choice but to surrender. But the encounters that I'm speaking of are not coercive. There is always a choice. As Oscar Wilde said in DE PROFUNDIS, "Everyone has an Emmaus Road experience in their lives". This is a reference by the way to the encounter with the risen Christ recorded in Luke 24. We read that the two people concerned did not recognise Jesus at first, and he "made as if to continue on his way". This is a beautiul story, and a beautiful illustration of how these encounters occur.

I admit that there are moments when I wonder: "Is this really true? Am I deluded?" But looking back over my life, the experiences of God have been so real that I cannot gainsay them, and nor can anyone else. I'm not talking about warm and fuzzy feelings of security. I'm not only talking in fact about merely subjective experience. I particularly remember when I was at university in Belfast in 1981, when the "troubles" were at their worst. An event was organised in the Students Union involving an ex-IRA activist (I think he had been on the blanket protest) and an ex-Loyalist paramilitary. THey told their respective stories of how their encounter with Christ had come about. Both of them said that only a few months before that day they would have killed each other, had they had the opportunity. Now they had a profound love for each other which transcended the political positions which they nevertheless still adhered to. There have been other times since then when I have seen the transformative love of God bringing forgiveness where there had only been bitterness and hatred.

What I also can't help wondering is whether there are never any moments when you guys wonder whether you are not in fact "deluded". Do atheists never have moments of uncertainty? moments when you have to, so to speak, press your fingers into your ears to keep out the voice of God?

293. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86307 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 1:01 am

OK, let's set these trivialities aside. Once again, forgive my outburst. It happens to all of us now and again does it not?

Regarding the questions on Hell. It is true that I have used the words "separation from God" rather than "Hell" in relation to my own kids. It was perceptive of whoever pointed that out. But eternal separation from God is Hell, and vice versa. Hell is the absence of God - the most horrible thing about it is that God will be eternally absent. It is the destiny of all those who wilfully reject God. As I said before, the door will be shut on the inside. God would rescue from Hell anyone who called on his name, but those who die having rejected God all their lives will be no more inclined to accept his mercy after death than before. In fact they will be infinitely less inclined. Hell is and will be eternally self-inflicted. Needless to say, I will do everything I can to encourage my kids, and everyone else I know, to open their minds and hearts to the Truth, and to make God rather than themselves the Arbiter of their lives and destinies. I don't believe that Hell consists literally of fire. I believe that this is a metaphor for the self-inflicted torment - the Self entrenched in its own distortions for all eternity.

CS Lewis depicted it vividly in The Last Battle. The Door into the new transfigured and yet still material Narnia was flung open. THe Dwarves, however, remained bolted (on the inside) inside their own dungeon, determined that they would not be taken in by this nonsense about a renewed universe. "The Dwarves are for the Dwarves" was their battle-cry. They were not sent to Hell. They had shut themselves inside it! Obviously I don't want my kids, or anyone else, to end up in that state. But I have no control over their choices, nor to I want to have any such control. They are free agents, as all of you are.

294. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86292 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:09 am

Don't worry Steve I will be back with an answer to those questions. Yes it was an outburst. I just needed to get it out of my system. But indirectly it was an answer to the question about whether I consider chimps to have souls. Why stop at chimps? Does atheism not require you to assign equal value to every species? On a Christian premise it is very clear why there is something special and unique about human beings. On an atheist premise, as has been pointed out, there is nothing special about human beings, so favouring one species over another is, as Singer has said, "specism". OK, my post was over the top, jam-packed with straw men, but that is a question that needs answering. How can the slaughter of millions of Jews be considered any worse than the slaughter of millions upon millions of turkeys? Why do we find the former so much more abhorrent than the latter, if we are just another species? Is it because of our favouritism towards our own spoecies? Or is it because instinctively we know that it is many times more horrendous than the slaguter of turkeys or any other non human species? Don't get me wrong. I abhor cruelty inflicted on animals.

As for my outburst, put it down to my brain being addled by the last throes of a virus. Or to whatever you want to put it down to.

295. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86281 by ADH on November 9, 2007 at 12:12 am

Quite right, daily drivel, Hitler was a Christian to the last. His massacre of 6 million Jews was just a prolongation of the Crusades. Wasn't one of the Nazi icons a cross modeled on that of the Templar Knights?

But now another issue that needs addressing. We are coming up to Thanksgiving, and then shortly after that Christmas (the thought of it makes me shudder!) I suppose that for the moment there is not much we can do by way of stopping people from celebrating their disgusting religious rituals in their own homes. But soon consideration will be given to the poisonous effects of these rituals on the innocent children in the household. If subjecting children to these beliefs really is child abuse (which it obviously is) then someone somewhere will surely find a way of doing something about it. After all, if we know that physical child abuse is being perpetrated by someone in our block we don't sit back and let it happen, do we? Why should we then sit back and let parents abuse their children ideologically? The scars are just as deep, and sometimes deeper. Maybe children will eventually have to be separated from such parents and placed in institutions where they can be re-educated. (I know that RD is against the idea in the interests of not alienating people from his cause, but even his objections might have to be overridden). They could have stories told them based on the insights of Dawkins, a bit like Kiplings Just-So stories, but on the basis of sounder science. Richard has a fertile imagination, so I'm sure he'd be up to the task. When they're a bit older they could have Christopher Hitchens read to them aloud over breakfast.

Needless to say, there would be no Christmas trees or anything of the like in such institutions. "Winter break-fest" might be a good term to replace Christmas with in schools and homes for the reeducation of our children. (Mind you, depending on how it was pronounced it might be a little ambiguous). Or what about "The Festival of Light"? That is fairly multi-cultural isn't it? It could be interpreted as celebrating advances in science. Turkey dinners would have to be outlawed. Despite their being religiously neutral such an event involves the slaughter of millions of innocent turkeys. In view of humankind's place within the cosmos on an equal footing with every other organism, as has been clearly pointed out earlier in this thread, how can the rights of turkeys be regarded as of any less importance than the rights of those who eat them? Benighted specism!

Maybe you have some other ideas about how the State can ensure that these religious maniacs get squeezed out of every possible position of influence to make way for enlightened individuals such as yourselves, Mr Hitchens, the good Dr Dawkins and Professor Gradgrind.

296. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86102 by ADH on November 8, 2007 at 6:37 am

I'll look forward to that Philip!

297. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86096 by ADH on November 8, 2007 at 6:03 am

It's been an interesting discussion folks. But I think e should call it a day. I have other places be be rather than in the inellectual bull ring with you guys, stimulating though it has been. It's obvious that you are not going to persuade me of the truth of your position, and neither am I going to persuade you. In any case I've come down with the flu and have a splitting headache. I may be back when I'm fighting fit again. In the meantime divide the carcass fairly among yourselves.

298. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86034 by ADH on November 7, 2007 at 11:44 pm

Too many questions for one sitting! No I don't believe the universe is 6000 years old. I don't believe that it was created in six literal days. I'm perfectly happy with natural selection as the means whereby God's intentions for each species were actualised, though I guess there could be other, alternative explanations.

No I don't believe chimps have souls. I believe God singled out homo sapiens as his image bearers. I believe that humankind has a God-given mandate to care for the planet, and to care for every other species on it. That's why I believe that wanton cruelty inflicted on any animal is absolutely unacceptable. Every species is gobsmackingly beautiful, each in its own way. But that does not belie the fact that human beings are unique.

The charge of "specieism" is going to be more and more common, under the inspirational (?) influence of Peter Singer et al. Let me put a scenario beore yo in this regard. I'd like you to tell me what "ethic" or moral paradigm should be applied.

Suppose a bushfire was threatening to engulf someone's property. The number of firefighters available, and their resources The two buildings most immediately in danger is the familiy home, from which the family have not been able to be evacuated, and an outhouse with 40 heads of livestock. The occupants of only one building can be rescued: a family of 4 or 40 animals. According to Singer these animals, be they horses, cattle, sheep or pigs, have no less inherent worth than the 4 human members of the family. By a utilitarian principal, whereby we are morally obliged to secure the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of beings, there should be no doubt in the minds of the firefighters. If they were utilitarian firefighters, guided by a singerian ethic with regard to our fellow occupants of this planet, they would save the lifestock. Would they be right to do that? What would you do? On what basis?

299. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85950 by ADH on November 7, 2007 at 3:04 pm

"Actually only Christians believe in a personal relationship with God. Jews don't, Muslims don't. Such infantile outlook is unique to Christianity. One wonders why."

Maybe it has something to do with believing in the incarnation - the embodiment of God in human flesh. Jesus referred to his disciples as "friends". Christianity is all about human beings being drawn into a "relationship" with God as a result of God having become human. What's infantile about that?

By the way Steve, you describe yourself as an ex-Christian and somehow you seem to feel that that has given you a unique understanding. Ex-Christians can be so pompous: "been there, done that got the T-shirt ... and I've seen through it all". Do you entitle ex-atheists to the same insight? You will say, of course, that they were not "true atheists". So how do we know that you were really a Christian Lots of people jump on the Christian gravy train for a while until it ceases to serve their purposes - until they "see it for what it is" I suppose is how you would phrase it. I can't help wondering which is the case, whatever yopur protestations.

300. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85920 by ADH on November 7, 2007 at 1:32 pm

I believe, Walk, that people who choose to have nothing to do with God will get wht they want. The only thing I am unsure of is whether the reality of being separate from God is a reality of which those who are separated are conscious. God does not "torture" his beloved creatures. On the other side there will be "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth". But that is NOT physical torture. It is metaphorical and refers, I believe, to the devastating confrontation with the truth which those who allow themselves to be ... wait for it "deluded" by the lie that there is no Reality beyond ourselves, no God to whom we will have to give account, have evaded and wilfully suppressed.

But the door into God's pesence will, I believe, remain bolted on the inside.

This live provides us all with a God-given opportunity to enjoy, not only the wonderful things that the created world and our own natures contain (nature, art, reason (!!) etc.) but also a personal relationship with the Creator (yes I said PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP - exposing myself to ridicule of the "imaginary friend" type). That is where the purpose of life ultimately lies. Viewed in their proper perspective, other relationships and our enjoyment of nature and art do indeed bring meaning and happiness - but only because they have been GIVEN to us to enjoy. In the end we sell ourselves short if we revel in the gifts but ignore the GIVER.

My head is on the block! Don't fight over who strikes first!