Return to: Home | Life & Society

165 comments from readers

Gabriel
13 December 2007 at 15:51

No star, no stable, no winter's cold,

no child, no heaven, as was told?

O shepherds watching flocks by night,

hither Dawkins comes in sight,

but list... he'll soon be in the fold.

Iftikhar
13 December 2007 at 20:11

Salaam

25th December is also the birth day of the Founder of Pakistan Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

Peter RV
13 December 2007 at 20:30

Newton was a very mean person. He was a great scientist , not a great man.

elderchild
13 December 2007 at 21:01

"The Way of Truth is evil spoken of" because of pagan "catholicism" and her harlot pagan "christian" daughters ;-( Their "imag"ined "jesus christ" is not The Messiah! It was some five hundred years ago that they named one head of their three-headed pagan "god", "jesus", during a time that has been called the "reformation". Prior to that time there was no "j" sound in the english language.......period.......

Yet the "reformation" was an aptly named time! For it was a time when "catholicism" birthed her harlot "christian" daughters ;-( Her "christian" daughters are of her substance ;-( Her substance was merely "reformed" so that her "christian" daughters might appear a bit differently outwardly, yet inwardly they remained liken unto their pagan harlot mother ;-(

"christianity" is but the byproduct of the fornicative relationship pagan "catholicism" has always had with "the god of this world", he who is "the father of lies", he who is "the angel of light", "d"evil spirit that rules over this wicked world ;-(

All religious systems, muslin, jewish, buddhist, catholic, christian ,,etc,, are Anti-Messiah!

Religious systems of this world, all alike they are,

Their clones have fought, killed and died, both near and far ;-(

And then once a week, or multiple times a day they may pray,

Yet as hypocrites they begin each new day ;-(

Days that are filled with deceit and lies,

For in a "religious system" Truth can not abide ;-(

And so the fruit of death is born of religion's way,

Because life is but a pawn in the wicked game they play ;-(

Simply, Faith will not create a religious system!

The Messiah testified of a "wicked world", and of His disciples being "in, not of, this world".

John exhorted those who believed "to love not the world or it's things" for "the WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one"!

And James testified, "whoever is a friend of this world is the enemy of GOD(Father, Great Spirit, Creator,,)"!

And "the god of this world", "the father of lies", "d"evil, is the author of all religious systems and has his way with those who are "of this world" because they follow their own "vain "imag"inations" ;-( And so it is that mankind's "imag"ination is destroying and perverting Creation ;-( And Our Father has promised that HE "will destroy those who are destroying and perverting HIS Creation(earth, air, water, creatures, Truth, Love, Peace, .etc.)"!

May there be those who heed GOD's Call to "Come out of her, MY people"!

All who take heed unto The Only True GOD's Call will exit "the broadway to destruction" and they will follow The Messiah on "The Way to The Truth of The Life"! They no longer will have their portion with the "catholic/christian" LIE or any other religious system of this world.

The Messiah testified, "whoever lives and believes in Me(His Teachings and Life example) shall never die."

And then The Messiah questioned, "Do you believe this?" YES!

And you? Do you believe? Or do you believe in death?

While there is breath(spirit) there is hope!

For Miracles Do Happen! HalleluYAH!

Hope is that there would be those who "come out" of the "strong delusion" that is the religious systems of this wicked world. Hope is that there would be those who believe in and receive of The Life. Hope is that there would be those who would "experience The Messiah and The Power that raised Him from among the dead".

Hope is you will, or have experienced The Miracle that is "receiving a love of The Truth".

All who have "received a love of The Truth" will have:

Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(religion) that is of this wicked world....... francisco

taghioff.info
14 December 2007 at 07:38

Get over it Richard,

people believe all sorts of irrational nonsense, I am sure you have a set of delusions about yourself that you use to keep you happy, just ask your wife or one of your relatives.

It's not like Newton's vision of the world as a huge divine mechanical perfection was so secular anyway. Nor has it entirely stood the test of time.

And its pretty clear that the loss of public celebration in Europe, associated with secularization, is also linked to rising levels of mental illness.

So why poop the party?

EliezerYudkowsky
14 December 2007 at 07:57

Where I come from, Dawkins, we call it Newtonmas.

k0natus
14 December 2007 at 09:52

Erm...wasn't Newton born on January 4th? I mean I COULD be wrong but various sources would point out that this is a fact.

Tippman
14 December 2007 at 09:58

Thanks Richard, you have just given me great idea for Christmas Gift for the Mother in Law, £8.99, whats that in €.

PL
14 December 2007 at 11:10

Newton, himself a convinced Christian, would have had no trouble answering Dawkins' objections to his religion. They were the classic arguments for disbelief even in his day--- objections that were old and familiar even in Newton's day.

S3
14 December 2007 at 11:52

"surely one of the single nastiest ideas ever to occur to a human mind" - Richard, you are too modest, surely your own contribution, "the sub-paedophile spectacle of young girls in virginal white First Communion dresses" deserves to at least be considered for this award.

bobrussell1957
14 December 2007 at 12:15

Bravo Richard

David S.
14 December 2007 at 12:19

Newton's birth date depends on which calendar you use. He was born on Dec 25th 1642 according to the Julian calendar that was still in use by those crazy English at the time, but in 1752 (25 yrs after Newton's passing) they joined the rest of the Christian world under the Gregorian calendar and his birthday became Jan 4th 1643.

Either way we know for a fact that Newton existed and that he achieved "miracles" in mathematics, physics, optics, etc. (not so much in chemistry though, he was still in the thrall of alchemy - after all, he wasn't God...) And as I recall, though he went through the motions of belief he considered himself a heretic in private.

MLee
14 December 2007 at 12:47

As Alexander Pope put it:

Nature, and Nature's Laws lay hid in Night:

God said, Let Newton be! and all was Light...

JohnnyT
14 December 2007 at 12:56

I hope readers of this article will take the time to research Dr. Dawkins' facts and conclusions for themselves. I admire this man's forthrightness but not his hermeneutics.

His defense of the historical importance of Christianity in the UK is admirable, his experience as a child is so typical of all children at Christmas time, as is his belief now as an adult, more so than most would admit. Many American Christians are merely "cultural Christians" though they be in church every week.

Dr. Dawkins' thoughts on why God would do what Christians say He did and why he did it the way he did need to be carefully considered. As a Christian I often ponder these same things, yet I believe them. And while my suggesting that one go to the Bible to find the answers may be to some circular reasoning, it needs to be suggested nevertheless in light of Dr. Dawkins opinions.

elliott tepper
14 December 2007 at 14:06

Dear Sirs,

Newton is one of the greatest men of science, and though Dr. Dawkins is a clever man--Newton is a quantum leap beyond him in genius, ability and imagination. Newton also believed in Jesus, the virgin birth, the prophets, and God, the Creator of heaven and earth. Newton himself would have no doubts about whose birth event was preeminent.

Dawkins lives in a very small and dreary universe.

Elliott Tepper, Marid, Spain

Dan Kirklin
14 December 2007 at 14:13

Always fun to note the Happy/Merry difference between UK and US English. I'd bet not one in a hundred of us on this side of the Atlantic ever uses the word from January to November, but we trot it out for the season. Oh, well.

I think we could all, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even we atheists, benefit in this season from Leigh Hunt's poem "Abou Ben Adhem," which so far as I'm concerned, has a theme (and heaven help us, even a message) superior to that of the gospels and certainly more concisely expressed.

Sure, Newton was personally no treat, but his scientific achievement is definitely worth celebrating and in my opinion has on balance been worth a lot more to humanity than what institutional Christianity has done for us. So, what the hell: Happy Birthday, Sir Isaac, and Merry Christmas to all!

Ace2
14 December 2007 at 14:13

Newton was a horrible person, no matter how great his achievements; in another time and place he'd have been an Inquisitor. His treatment of other scientists and his rejection of any work that did not support his, his abuse of power at the Royal Society, his crypto-alchemism (is that a word?) his zeal to be a time serving public servant with a sinecure position, all these things make him a poor candidate for a birthday celebration. Of course, Calculus Day doesn't sound inviting, but wouldn't it be more honest to celebrate the ideas rather than the man, whether in Christ's or Newton's case? Or we could stop shopping around for the birthdays of humans to celebrate, and simply go back to the pagan festival of the solstice for inspiration. It does still herald the coming of spring and the light at the end of the cold wintry tunnel. Consumermas as it is misses the positive points of Christianity, no doubt celebrating Newton's birthday would end up missing the beauty of science. Let us create new abstract holidays that aren't tied to a specific date and can always be celebrated on a Monday or Friday, which is what we all secretly want anyway.

katherine_l
14 December 2007 at 14:19

Actually, as an American child in a very politically-correct town, our school was visited by a giant snowman who dispensed winter gifts in lieu of Father Christmas.

shoezee
14 December 2007 at 14:20

Not everyone raised in a religious, or even in a Christian, environment was told "No Questions Allowed" as Dr. Dawkins claims to have been told (subtly or overtly). Most Christians I know ask really good questions. And not a few such good questions receive good, interesting, plausible answers. Claiming that the religious never ask questions is a too-convenient way for Dr. Dawkins to sidestep having to deal with the answers some good questions receive.

But for all that, "Christmas" as celebrated in the West is a shoddy, materialistic sham having precious little to do with the Jesus who is the center of the Christian faith. That's a shame and something to lament. It is not, however, proof that there is no Jesus worth talking about once you peel back all the layers of holiday folderol.

One last note: I'm grateful to Isaac Newton and to all who had a hand in establishing science as we now know it. But had Newton not believed in a loving God who had placed us in a universe that was ordered enough so as to be knowable--and who had endowed humanity with the ability to investigate that same ordered universe--it's an open question whether we'd know Newton's name or have seen the rise of science in the West. Ironic, n'est ce pas?

-- Scott Hoezee, Grand Rapids, Michigan USA

jack nyc
14 December 2007 at 17:30

Dawkins' comments are an embarrassment to intelligence.

For myself I hope that god does not exist, because (insert divine pronoun here) has a lot to answer for, for the state of the world, if we ever catch up.

That said, the incomprehensible that Catholics believe, is no more bizarre than quantum physics, evolution by random error and permutation, or even that positive and negatively charged particles attract, or that, as per newton, bodies attract in proportion to mass and inversely to distance, by various exponentiating factors.

These are no more plausible than Divine Motivation, Aquinas' Primum Mobilum, dear professor.

The difference, as per LaPlace, talking to Napoleon, on causation, was that LaPlace offers natural causation,and, in God, is as misquoted "I have no need for that hypothesis"

Occam's Razor requires parsimony, and :God" is quite parsimonious, conceptually, even while utterly lacking the other aspect of science, predictability.

Dawkins is supposed to know all this.

Instead he argues with Catholic theology because the Catholic, and by extension, Christian gos, acts in ways incomprehensible even venal, petty, churlish, fragile, narcissistic, and oh horrors, irrationally and capriciously, with respect to Dawkins' view of The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly.

Dawkins offers no critique of the various other religious views, gloabbly, whose views do not depend on various Testamentary and Christological mysteries, epherma, mistransaltions, and ahistorical decontextualization.

Indeed, as a scientist he must know that non-empirical constructs, such as the Deity, is unknowable by empirical science, and thus, his only True Knowledge, is that he does not know, b

Benson
14 December 2007 at 17:42

we need to be a bit more circumspect over a matter like this. we need to consider whether 'science' is incompatible, nay impossible, with the holding of religious beliefs. also, we need to rememeber that a basic concern for the ways in which social issues are negotiated, ie an ethical imperative, is superior to either cold science or irrational religion. i would like to know dawkins's take on these matters considering the many instances wherein science and religion have historically been partners in the same project, and have existed side-by-side in the same social milieu and even in the same individual.

jack nyc
14 December 2007 at 17:50

Dawkins is an embarrassment to intelligence in this mean-spirited and petty superior piece, and a bad scientist as well.

As an aside, I hope that God does not exist because (insert Divine pronoun here), God has a lot to answer for when we finally meet up.

As Shaw said, he preferred Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company.

Dawkins' view is that the Catholic god, and by extension the Christian god, is capricious, petty, irrational, incomprehensible withholding, arbitrary, and his deification depends on mistranslations of historical text, ahistorical recontextualization, and a variety of other anathema.

Dawkins' own views surely include the incomprehensible nonsence of quantum physics, with time travel, faster than light particles, of the ineffable mysteries of why positive and negative ions attract reach other, why physical mass attracts other physical mass in some convoluted numerology of size of mass as a direct factor and distance between as an inverse factor, according to obscure variable exponentiation, and that biodiversity in its million-fold is all due to random chemical variations in DNA strands, thus randomness on earth but not in heaven.

None of Dawkins smarm or naivete disproves the existence of the Deity, only the angry disappointment of Dawkins' need for rationality and benevolence,as per Dawkins.

The Deity might even be as malevolent as Dawkins views yet still exist.

Dawkins is silent on other religions, with less activist deities and eschatologies, yet his criticism should just as well apply there, but he is selective, showing his own narrow bias, and ;agenda.'

Dawkins as presumptive scientist is deemed to know that a non-empircal construct like the Deity, is inaccessible to empirical determination, and so his proper scientific attitude is agnosticism, or 'unproven.'

Indeed, when LaPlace (allegedly, but misquoted) explained to Napoleon the mechanics of celestial movement, and Napoleon askes about the Source, LaPalce is misquoted as "I have no need for that hypothesis."

This is Aquinas' Primum Mobilum, First mover, proof by works. Naive Dawkins falls into this ancient debater's trap.

As a scientist, Dawkibs knows that the Gold Standard is Occam's Razor, or parsimony, meaning the fewest possible hypotheses.

GOD is a unitary hypothesis, Doctor Dawk!

The intermediary scientific hypotheses are a proliferation not far from non-western animism, the Spirit of the Angry (Happy) God, vs the Nature of Physical Mass...

God as hypothesis fails the predictability test, but then so do many of our partial theories of science.

= =

Beyond, Believers are as likely to live Good lives, socially and personally, as Bad lives, as per our usual liberal western rational values, and if the cost of such social virtue and personal strength and guidance, is an occasional fiction, held as firmly as we believe that gravity, um, just... IS..., well, Dawkins is an angry disappointed child, who saw that the Man Behind the Curtain, was just his own fevered delusional projection, and needs to leave the child behind, or at least inside.

Sorry, Doc, get over it, and deal with it!

aneaum
14 December 2007 at 18:24

Dawkins makes me ashamed to be an atheist.

Samantha Sosebee
14 December 2007 at 18:25

Just as an FYI, as an American, I've never once said "Happy Holiday Season," nor have I heard a human being of any nationality say that. Happy Holidays? Sure. And if you don't like it, Bill O'Reilly will be happy to commiserate with you. But don't invent something absurd to bolster your point -- all it does is suggest that your point may also be absurd.

j1ml0ng
14 December 2007 at 20:32

There are so many questions that science can never hope to answer that makes the existence of God not only plausible, but to the truly honest person, unavoidable. For example, the following is taken from "The Berean Call" newsletter for December 2007 (see www.thebereancall.org) ...

"We live in an incredibly complex universe on an earth teeming with life, all of which science has been studying and attempting to explain for centuries. We are told that no scientist believes in God anymore. Yet the brilliant men who laid the foundation for modern science (Bacon, Boyle, Dalton, Descarte, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Kepler, Maxwell, Mendel, Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, et al.) were theists, who saw the hand of God in His orderly creation making science possible. Newton, regarded as the most original and influential thinker in the history of science, "wrote and published more works on interpretation of the Bible than on mathematics and physics."1 Only lately have atheists aggressively taken the position of spokespersons for science.

"Even Stephen Hawking admitted, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God." "Fritz" Schaefer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia, third most quoted chemist today, has said:

"The significance and joy in my science comes in the...moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, "So that's how God did it!" My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan.2

"A significant number of Christians are among top scientists and modern Nobel laureates. William D. Phillips, for example, winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, "once quipped that so many of his colleagues were Christians that he couldn't walk across his church's fellowship hall without 'tripping over a dozen physicists....'" Professor Richard Bube of Stanford says, "There are [proportionately] as many atheistic truck drivers as atheistic scientists."3 But among Nobel laureates, the number who recognize the hand of God in the universe is very high.

"The atheist must explain everything without God, which science cannot do. Everything is made of energy, but science cannot tell us what energy is or how or why it came into existence. Stephen Hawking asks, "Why does the universe go to all the trouble of bothering to exist?" Why is a question that atheism cannot answer. Matter simply exists; it contains no explanation of why. The maker's purpose provides the meaning for anything that is made. Unless there is a Creator, the universe and all in it, including mankind, has no purpose or meaning. Atheists confess this fact.

"Today's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, boasts of the consequences of atheism: "There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another. Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by...natural selection."4 No evolutionist could argue with this repugnant statement.

"Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, as an atheist and evolutionist, begins his best-known book with this statement: "The Astonishing Hypothesis is that 'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."5 The average person would reject such nonsense. He knows that he is not just a bag of molecules but a thinking person, who carefully weighs choices, experiences joys, sorrows, hopes, fears, remorse, and regrets. Crick's atheism traps him in a net of meaninglessness.

"Attempting to describe the physical world, science provides names and categories but can't tell us what anything really is. Energy, electron, gravity, space, time, life, and death-what do they mean? What is life; what is its source? How is it imparted to lifeless matter-and why does it depart so quickly? As Nobel laureate Erwin Schrödinger said, "[Science] is ghastly silent about all...that really matters to us....It knows nothing of...good or bad, God and eternity....Whence came I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question....Science has no answer to it."6

"Atheism "explains" that the universe began with a sudden, almost infinite, burst of energy called the "Big Bang." But science can't tell us where this energy came from, why it got together and exploded at that particular moment-nor how out of a giant explosion the orderly arrangement, from molecules to galaxies, occurred.

"Furthermore, atheism faces dozens of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" conundrums that stop evolution before it can even start. For example, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is what makes protein, yet DNA is itself made of protein. So, which came first: the DNA that makes protein or the protein out of which DNA is made?

"There is no life without DNA, but DNA itself has life. What came first, the DNA that is essential for life or the life that is essential for DNA? Living cells are made up of incredibly complex nano-chemical machinery, and some of this machinery synthesizes DNA. So, which came first, the DNA without which there could be no cell or the cell without which there could be no DNA?

"The problem of "origins" is one of the major questions for which science has no answer. The most amazing thing in the universe is life, but science neither knows from whence life comes nor what it is. There is no life without enzymes, although they themselves are not living things. And there are no enzymes without life because it takes life to produce them. Which came first-the enzymes without which there can be no life or the life without which there can be no enzymes? The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine contain histidine. Which came first-the histidine or the enzymes that manufacture it, which themselves contain histidine?

"Many different enzymes are required to translate the genetic information encoded on the DNA. Yet the enzymes are themselves encoded by DNA. Thus, the genetic code cannot be translated except by products of translation. This is a vicious circle that allows for only one conclusion: the molecules that encode the information and those that decode it existed simultaneously from the beginning. That fact cannot be explained by any gradual natural process.

"It requires an act of creation by God. Yet the major motive of Darwin (who knew nothing of DNA) was to prove that God was not needed to explain life and the universe.

"As noted, the incredible nano-chemical machinery in the cell is responsible for synthesizing DNA. But it is the DNA that carries the code that constructs and operates the cellular machinery. Which came first, the DNA that carries the information for producing each cell or the machinery in the cell produced by DNA, which must first make the DNA? Obviously, both had to exist simultaneously from the very beginning or neither would exist. That fact requires a creative act of God.

"The genetic code has vital editing machinery, which is itself encoded in the DNA. What came first, the machinery that edits DNA or the DNA that produces the editing machinery?

"Again, the DNA molecule is made of protein; but it is the DNA by which alone protein is produced. DNA cannot function without at least 75 pre-existing proteins-but only DNA can produce these 75 proteins. The machinery to convert the DNA information into the protein is itself made of the protein it alone can produce. There is only one sensible answer to the classic question, "Which came first?" Obviously, God.

"The Law of Biogenesis, which Pasteur proved, states, "Life only comes from life." That ended the superstition of "spontaneous generation." The alleged Big Bang would have sterilized everything a trillion times over, making it impossible for any life to exist thereafter.

"How could life come out of death? Of Jesus Christ, one with the Father, who created everything, the Bible says, "In him was life" (Jn 1:4)."

These are not trivial matters - explaining the "why's" of science can lead to only one conclusion - the reality of God ... and more importantly, my owning up to my responsibilities before Him.

cut piece
14 December 2007 at 21:59

futile exercise in semantics

Jonathan A.
14 December 2007 at 22:08

If Mr Dawkins would concentrate a bit more on understanding the religious systems he attacks with his puerile "cleverness," he might at least earn my respect, if not my agreement. However, simply hashing out simplistic strawmen of religious belief in order to set fire to them is worthy of, at most, novice high school debaters, not a- how the mighty have fallen- Oxford professor...

mbartram
14 December 2007 at 22:08

You Dawkins bashers need to read his book, The God Delusion.

humanist
14 December 2007 at 22:28

A few questions for j1ml0ng:

1. What is your listing of scientists who believe in God meant to prove? Prior to Roger Bannister, there was a scientific consensus that it was impossible to run a sub-4 minute mile. Scientists are often wrong; isn’t the difference between scientists and theists that good scientists are expected to admit their mistakes and revise their view of the world accordingly? How often do you hear priests and pastors admitting that they got it wrong? Is this because they are infallible?

2. What is your “argument” about meaninglessness meant to prove? After much carrying on you end by saying “the average person would reject such nonsense. He knows that is not just a bag of molecules but a thinking person…” Do you think there is a scientist who disagrees with the notion that people think? Cannot thinking persons simply have no special cosmological significance while very much retaining the very great significance to themselves, their loved ones and neighbors, and everyone around them? We give ourselves meaning; why do you need more meaning?

3. How do you complain about science failing to “tell us what anything really is” while being satisfied with religion’s answer? What does religion tell us everything is? As a thinking person, are you really satisfied with whatever that answer is? Every fact cited in your note was discovered by the process of science. With only religion by your side, would you even know enough to know how much we don’t know?

4. You complain about “atheism” facing dozens of “which came first questions,” but how do you get by the even bigger questions that your religion faces? How do you reconcile a loving, omnipotent God with horrific natural disasters and the unlimited capacity of men to harm each other? The problem of ‘origins’ is one of the questions for which science has no answer? Yes, we all recognize that; so what? What is your answer? “God created it.” Who created God? “No one, he has existed forever.” If he can exist forever, or self-generate, why can’t the universe, or something else, or something within it? If it isn’t impossible for God, why is it impossible for anything else? [P.S. You may wish to check the science behind your enzyme argument. Complexity emerges from simplicity as a matter of course in nature.]

5. How do you reconcile these ideas: “Life only comes from life” and “How could life come out of death? Of Jesus Christ.” If there is one way for life to come out of something other than life, why not two? Or more?

6. You say you have responsibilities before God. Is one of them to follow the word of the Bible? And if so, which Bible is it that you follow? How did you pick that one and not the other ones? And how do you reconcile all the contradictions in it? How many of the completely clear rules and laws of Leviticus do you choose not to follow, and why? How do you like Bel and the Dragon? Do you keep it simple and just follow the Ten Commandments? Which ten do you follow – there are at least three sets – and which don’t you follow, if any? When Jesus said to abandon your whole family and just follow him, did you listen? When Jesus said to pluck out your offending eye and cut off your offending hand, did you listen? If not, why not? Dear sir or madam, most importantly, did you ask yourself these questions before writing what you wrote?

jonjermey
14 December 2007 at 22:40

Taghioff.info writes: "...people believe all sorts of irrational nonsense..."

Yes, but religious nonsense kills people. Every week dozens of people die and hundreds of babies are mutilated for religious reasons. See http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard, for instance, for a very short and recent list. Your kindly old God just can't seem to get out of the habit of killing people, and is unlikely to do so until we can get out of the habit of believeing in him.

"So why poop the party?"

People are dying -- that's why.

Norman Hanscombe
15 December 2007 at 03:45

Why do people bother worrying about Dawkin's frenetic criticisms of religion? He has good reason (in light of his belated realisation that the God Squads, be they Christian or not, had certain logical difficulties) to feel a desperate need to show he eventually understood the problem. Many of us might feel just as embarrassed as he appears to if we'd been as slow as Dawkins was to realise that, "It ain't necessarily so."

I guess late comers to beliefs of all kinds tend to become unduly excited by their "discoveries"? Then again, having been born in Australia in 1935, I may well have had an unfair advantage when it came to realising that although logically the Catholic kids where I lived, the W.A.S.Ps at my primary school, and the family's Jewish friends couldn't all be right, it was quite conceivable that they could all be wrong.

This made it much easier for me than it would have been for Dawkins, to head off for Infants school and watch religious beliefs as no more than an interested outsider. I think I enjoyed the compulsory scripture lessons we had right through to 6th Grade far more than my religious classmates; without feeling any of the peevishness I seem to detect in latter day converts.

Even if the Indifferent Agnosticism which became my "faith" were open to the accusation that it was a lazy option, it probably doesn't do too much harm; and it may even place one in a better position to warn against the obsessions of religious fanatics --- even those of the non-theistic variety?

Cybertiger
15 December 2007 at 08:26

I don’t think Richard Dawkins fully appreciates that G-d is an American, an intelligent designer and from Houston, Texas.

Cybertiger
15 December 2007 at 08:34

@jonjermey

“Yes, but religious nonsense kills people.”

I agree and I have faith that this is ultimately a good thing. There are simply too many people riding the planet and the planet will not survive unless there are fewer riders. Thus, religion and especially religious Americans, are in reality a force for good in the world.

ThomRutten
15 December 2007 at 10:02

Dear Cybertiger.

That's a fantastic attitude. Well done on that score. Bet you've got front row seats for the appocalypse eh? (I'm hoping sarcasm translates, but in case it doesn't, I'm being sarcastic...)

Could everyone (particularly the likes of j1mlOng) just calm the hell down? Who gives a rats arse what Mr. Dawkins thinks or feels about your fantasy world - if you and your cuddle-buddies are so fervent in your beliefs, you ought not to be swayed. Incidentally, you strike me as one who thinks (nay, believes!!) that the Earth is but a sprightly 3 - 6,000 years old... My heart goes out to you...

As for me, I reckon Montaigne hit the nail on the head: we all sit down to shit, and then we die. If you can't enjoy yourself in the interim (indeed, if you practically issue proscriptions against enjoyment - by which I don't mean debasing yourself to every perversion you can conjure, but simply being happy with your lot) then what's the bloody point? God or no God, you'll still rot in the ground like the rest of us. You'll just have wasted a few decades in self-imposed austerity and stiffly starched collars before this inevitability hits you like a damp, smelly sock.

moisiodax
15 December 2007 at 11:18

Dawkins' pathetic grasp of theology is almost as bad as intelligent designers' miserable grasp of science. Correspondingly, he has no understanding of theology's development and utility in the context of human evolution. For me this is worrying from a professional point of view: I almost cannot understand such a brilliant mind being dismissive of a hugely important part of human culture, instead of trying to put it in a larger anthropological context; being ultimately obsessed with the political implications of religion, rather than interpreting its deep cultural heritage and self-reflection on the condition of man and placing in a larger anthropological perspective. This won't resurrect God, but it could provide man with a better understanding of himself.

Douglas Chalmers
15 December 2007 at 13:17

"An apple fell on my head - thus, I am!" Crap - he should have tried sitting under a coconut tree, instead, uhh.....

J.
15 December 2007 at 13:19

Many of those that maintain that humans are the special creation of a supernatural entity called God, by whatever name, do not often or perhaps ever consider the cosmological context of the universe we have found ourselves in. Every concept and so-called philosophical "truth" we believe in is derived from one species living on an isolated planet situated in a larger cosmos that is nearly 14 billion years old and almost beyond our comprehension in the everyday dimensions of ordinary experience.

When viewed in this much broader context it seems ludicrous to assume that we have all "truth" wrapped up in the stories behind a 4000-year-old religious belief.

Further, in such enormous time space dimensions, it is extreme hubris and infantile narcissism to consider that just our species is the exclusive focus of attention by a God, if one exists. We are still under the chauvinistic delusion that we are the center of the universe as before Copernicus.

Even if the "why" questions remain elusive from science, I see no satisfactory answers coming from religion today any better than they did in the past. The answer that "God did it" is to me and others extremely unsatisfying. Like wise, a universal "purpose" is so subjective in this world that even religion cannot fathom it. The best we can hope for is consensual agreement about values that foster our mutual survival and well being all obtainable without religion.

The other thing that should be repugnant and illogical to the critical thinker and most scientifically literate persons is the silly idea that we are "fallen" creatures who have committed some original sin. Such thinking leads to self-fulfilling situations and demeans the remarkable intelligence and capacities of our species. The good that we are capable of is fully realizable without the necessity of any supernatural worship or the fear of punishment of a creator. I say these things as an agnostic who is willing to admit that I do not know if a creator or "first cause" exists. I find though that the traditional religious concepts that humans have come up with to explain God would to me be a gross insult and incongruous to a higher evolved being that would be capable of "designing" and creating the sophisticated, complex universe we live in.

It is past time that our species give up these immature and archaic traditional ideas of God. They are irrelevant and a hindrance to solving the urgent ecological and social problems that our species is facing with climate change and ecological destruction.

We have used these comforting stories to cope with the inevitable changes and distresses we face as humans. We have also used them to discriminate and harm our species and fellow species here. We have used them as a convenient excuse to deny responsibility for our actions.

Our childhood as a species is ending and we need to put such myths we have had about the universe and our place in it behind us if we are going to survive.

Cybertiger
15 December 2007 at 13:24

Dear Cybertiger.

"That's a fantastic attitude. Well done on that score. Bet you've got front row seats for the appocalypse eh? (I'm hoping sarcasm translates, but in case it doesn't, I'm being sarcastic...)"

Dear ThomRutten.

You may fancy yourself a master of sarcasm but I suspect you may be irony deficient.

PS. I do enjoy the religious circus ... and the performance of the 'four horseman of the apocalypse'.

alexhouse
15 December 2007 at 13:34

This has reminded me of a campaign I was considering starting. In 2012 the Olympics is coming to London and quite frankly I'm almost chewing my leg off in embarrasment about the opening ceremony already. I want to try and get the London Olympic Comittee to build it around Newton and the Enlightenment as a whole. I can see it now - astronomical projects, equations flying by, all that good stuff. Bearing in mind we can't really celebrate the one truly remarkable (in the literal sense) thing about Britain - the fact that we led the largest empire that there has ever been - I think the seeds of the relative eutopia we live in right now (I know, I know, but compare western society now with any other period in history and I think you'll have to admit I have a point) were in the Royal Society and it probably the one thing of which I can say I am proud of from a "patriotic" POV. Whether any of this is accurate is very much open for argument - but as a basis for an opening ceremony, I think it beats a bloody stupid jousting competition. We could throw in the Beatles too at a push. I'm sure there's some way we can connect the Enlightenment and them.

aaronbeach
15 December 2007 at 17:23

While infinitely interested in pondering questions along these lines, I have never found the courage to put my faith in my own theology, history, philosophy, or science - and for this I am impressed by your faith in yourself. I may be young, and maybe that's why I am not as bold in believing myself as you, but it has only been in the eyes of those I personally love that I have seen anything I can truly believe in. It is my experience, that only my love and accomplishments in helping others have conveyed an absolute truth that I could put my faith in as irrefutable. Apparently, I'm just not old enough or as smart as you to believe in my own theories over my own experience.

- Aaron Beach, a young ignorant American boy

ThomRutten
15 December 2007 at 19:40

Dear Cybertiger

Touche - I've eaten steak and a good helping of spinach, and now recognise your genius.

I've got my marshmellows ready for the final apocalyptic shitstorm too. Shall we meet at, say, 9?

elliott tepper
15 December 2007 at 19:52

Dear Sirs, again:

I never cease to be amazed by what atheists think Christians believe. Is it possible that our hearts and minds, dreams and imaginations are every wit as big as the modern secularist's.

Who knows? Perhaps there are other worlds, with other races? Perhaps there are other universes? Perhaps the Creator created the very processes of creation the secularists are just beginning to fathom? Most of the Christians I know can live with complex explanations and mystery while retaining their intellectual integrity and faith. Please do not put us in a fundamentalist box.

I think a little humility is called for on all sides. We will all find out soon just how right or wrong we are. A mortal human life span is very short. Everyone will be surprised.

For what it is worth, some of us know God through the Holy Spirit and we are doing our best to give every man the reason of the hope that is within us, without offense.

Godspeed to all my atheist friends.

Elliott Tepper

Cybertiger
15 December 2007 at 22:57

@ThomRutten

"I've got my marshmellows ready for the final apocalyptic shitstorm too."

Do ya mean the Holy Shitstorm? I'll bet ya looking forward in raptures to that circus performance ... what with rivers of blood ... the four riders of armageddon ... and nukes and all .... wow ... shock and awe ... wow ... me too ... see ya there ... apocalypse soon.

PS. I used to be agnostic but Dubya showed me the darkness of His enlightenment. Now I'm an intelligent design misunderestimator and devout atheist.

Peter Reeve
16 December 2007 at 00:43

"the sub-paedophile spectacle of young girls in virginal white First Communion dresses" is a most unfortunate phrase. What have we come to if little girls dressing up in pretty dresses becomes a "sub-paedophile spectacle"? By all means challenge the veracity and morality of Christian doctrine, but please keep it within the bounds of good taste.

nurple11
16 December 2007 at 00:59

Someone needs to make this into an unholidaycard (unholidaycards.com)

tonyobrien
16 December 2007 at 07:01

very "new Statesman"

Cybertiger
16 December 2007 at 12:28

@ThomRutten

"I've got my marshmellows ready for the final apocalyptic shitstorm ...."

I’ve always been intrigued by the extent to which the Americans have been prepared to underwrite the State of Israel.

Last weekend I bought a book in Foyles on the Charing Cross Road in London. By Gershom Gorenberg, it’s entitled ‘The End of Days – fundamentalism and the struggle for the Temple Mount’. The book shines a powerfully religious light on US financial support for Israel. However, I don’t believe all the garbage about The Rapture, Armageddon, the Second Coming, the final judgement and the ultimate fate of the Jews – but I realise that a lot of people believe in garbage – especially Americans – and they’re the dolts with nukes and a history of using them.

I don’t believe Jesus will return but I do believe there will be a lot of killing in the hope of bringing Him on. There are simply too many people riding this planet – and of course I believe that George Bush is a fine horseman (cowboy) of the apocalypse - and that the US is really a force for good in the world.

PS. Tom – you’ll need all the steak and spinach you can eat … to brave the storm … when shit happens.

humanist
16 December 2007 at 14:54

Dear Mr. Tepper,

You are right, not all Christians are fundamentalists. Yet if our characterization of Christian views tends to sound extreme, you must understand that this is how the most basic facts of the Christian worldview sound in our ears. There is no element of Christian cosmology or theology that is compatible with scientific and historical thinking. When Christians "soften" themselves as you have and begin talking about the "Holy Spirit" and spreading hope, you are, of course, abrogating everything that makes you a Christian as opposed to, say, a pagan, or simply a good and earnest person, like many of us non-religious people try to be. You give hope and decency a name and otherworldly character that they don't need. So please recognize that you either stand by the doctrines of your faith as professed by your holy books and prophetic leaders, or you do not. And if you do not, why not just abandon the cult name of "Christian" and re-join the rest of humanity? We are all trying to solve the same problems. More humility is indeed needed all around. My heroes have it; they never claimed to be gods. Have yours?

Duncan Crowe
16 December 2007 at 17:07

"Dawkins lives in a very small and dreary universe." - Come now, Oxford isn't /that/ bad.

"Actually, as an American child in a very politically-correct town, our school was visited by a giant snowman who dispensed winter gifts in lieu of Father Christmas." - Surely the weakness of that theory is the part of the story where the Giant Snowman climbs down the chimney to deliver presents: an accident is just waiting to happen.

""There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another. Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by...natural selection."4 No evolutionist could argue with this repugnant statement." - The context of this claim is Dawkins attempt to defend his position that the Great Apes should be given legal rights and not subjected to medical experimentation. If you consider this 'repugnant' it is your own problem. As far as 'evolutionists' being unable to distinguish between fungi and human beings, I believe you have confused the point. Evolutionary theory tell us that from the standpoint of the universe, there is no difference (the universe doesn't care about you). But from the standpoint of human beings, of course there is a difference: for very sound evolutionary reasons I as a human being care more about the activities of human beings than I do about fungus. (If we had predators, this might not be as simple. For example rabbits may well care more about what foxes are doing than about other rabbits, under certain circumstances.)

""Your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."5 The average person would reject such nonsense." - Ah, yes. Now the trouble is that the general view taken within the fields of both neuroscience and philosophy of mind, is that the opinions of philosophers of mind and neuroscientists as to what is an isn't absurd when it comes to the intersection of mind and brain are better worth listening to than 'the average man' who has received no specialist training and has given the matter little more than a moment's thought. Funny that.

"So why poop the party?" - The good old Leo Strauss maneuver: Religion is good for society at large if the hoi polloi believe it, so who gives a damn if it's true. Conservative bilge. The reason to 'poop the party' if you're an atheist is because you believe you are correct in what you say. If you believe something is true, you have a social duty to report it. If I believed something which was false, and which had a major effect on the way I lived my life, I would rather people told me it was false than kept schtum because their patronizing cogitations had told them that I was better for not knowing the truth. A liberal says 'sods to what you think; tell me the truth and I'll decide for myself'. Shame on you, if you don't feel the same. Sapere aude.

"Correspondingly, he has no understanding of theology's development and utility in the context of human evolution." - I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by this, principally because you didn't tell us. If you mean 'Dawkins isn't familiar with the work of the likes of Dennett and Pascal Wegner' then you're out-and-out wrong. If you're talking about anti-realist justifications of religious language based on evolution, I don't think he's particularly interested in it mainly because the 'man on the street' takes the naive view that religious language is realist - that is, people actually mean what they say. In either case, you can hardly fault him for not discussing such things in an article of around 2000 words about the 'Christmas Story' and its ill foundations in the bible.

"Most of the Christians I know can live with complex explanations and mystery while retaining their intellectual integrity and faith." - Maybe, but such people in general become either theological liberals about almost every part of doctrine except the existence of the deity (which tends to be of a non-interventionist, emaciated sort) in which case they are so close to being a theologically educated atheist as needs little argument (they are not the types to fly planes into buildings or massacre Lebanese Muslims) or else they keep their orthodoxy very carefully compartmentalized and propped up merely by 'Faith' (a wildcard, it seems). I know a chaplain of this sort: he is perfectly able to have an intelligent discussion with you on abortion or capital punishment and doesn't believe in a dualistic soul but every so often will drop a bombshell; that be believes in angels, or satan or other such nonsense. The cleverer the person the more excuses they can find for believing in things they happen to have been told in their infancy. It takes strong intellectual courage to apply skeptical thinking to notions from which one derives comfort.

"I never cease to be amazed by what atheists think Christians believe." - Dawkins thinks that Christians believe a manifestation of the creator of the universe was born 2008 years ago on Christmas Day in a stable in Bethlehem to a virgin, in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy (amongst other things), because the vast majority of casually religious people in this country DO believe it. Yet there is hardly a single element of the 'Christmas Story' which holds water being as it is a hodge-podge from the various gospel writers which glosses over their numerous contradictions and ignores the fact that they themselves were consciously writing so as to justify the claim that the man who founded their cult was apt to be considered the Jewish messiah, long after he was crucified by the Romans. Dawkins is trying to draw the attention of readers of he New Statesman to these flaws in the story, and appears to be saying (as is a theme of his) 'Take a moment this Christmas to cast away this nonsense and consider instead the majesty of the universe in which we live; a much more deserving candidate for your reverence.'

Best wishes,

Duncan.

Cybertiger
16 December 2007 at 21:21

@Mr. Tepper

"We will all find out soon just how right or wrong we are. A mortal human life span is very short. Everyone will be surprised."

I'm intrigued: how do you know that as an atheist I will be surprised? How can you be so certain of my surprise? Intriguing!

Simon K
16 December 2007 at 23:01

After having been spotted attending Mass in Oxford, it is lovely to think that Mr Dawkins is applying his mind to finding out about the Bible, albeit at a somewhat shallow level so far. God moves in mysterious ways...

giuseppe@brasilcentral.biz
16 December 2007 at 23:06

I apologize for my bad english.

I am a great admirer and supporter of dawkins ideas and approve the text of his article.

The final consideration on Newton is very witty.

But it had not to be reported in the title and subtitle.

Once again a single ironic sentence , in a serious and correct text, is chosen as title, changing the intention of the author, who was not to offend a tradition as Christmas, so dear to most Westerners.

giuseppe@brasilcentral.biz
16 December 2007 at 23:21

The final sentence on Newton was also manipulated and changed in the subtitle.

I would like to know if the subtitle autor is Dawkins, or the newspapers .

J.
16 December 2007 at 23:28

Simon,

Curiosity about a subject like religion to understand what drives many to find questionable sustenance in something that others like myself would find at most irrelevant,unproductive and illogical does not imply that any supernatural power is moving anything.

MassLawJim
17 December 2007 at 05:10

"Perception is reality;" I often hear. Too bad, as religion makes us quite miopic.

ThomRutten
17 December 2007 at 07:04

*the following has no specific direction*

Mr Cybertiger

There are far too many people in this world who have a virulent intolerance for mockery - for reasons I cannot fathom, they all tend to be religious. It doesn't matter what form the religion takes - Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Vegan - they cannot seem to abide people being comfortable simply believing in themselves and their own abilities as human beings, and having a gentle belly-laugh at their expense.

I know in my bones that these people (who demand immediate, terrestrial retribution for even the most mundane "infraction" - I'm thinking of a Sudanese teddy bear) will be responsible for the aforementioned shitstorm, and that it will happen, to a greater or lesser degree, while I am around to witness it. That doesn't make me happy. All I can say is that I will be firmly ensconsed [sic] in the verde bosom of the Coromandel peninsula, with a copper-pot distillery, a small library, a crop of 4 - 6 Sativas, and my wife and child (perhaps a goat too) to while away the days.

Let the so-called "meek" inherit the earth if they're so damned determined to do so. Let them pick over the bones and see what their God can do for first degree radiation poisoning. I just hope they dont know where the Coromandel is...

Benson
17 December 2007 at 11:04

i would like my question answered: is 'science' invariably incompatible, or even impossible, with the holding of religious beliefs? let us note the many historical instances in which science and religion have partnered on the same projects, noble and ignoble. let us also note that religions have been characterized as often by their capacity to undertake self-criticism, reinvention and re-interpretation as by their symbologization of their historical fallacies. what is more, certain metaphysical intimations bordering on superstition have served to excite the imagination of many able scientists, among them newton and einstein. and one further question: is science without its own presumptions, the ideological axioms and first principles by means of which its problematics are constructed and its conversation set rolling?

Cybertiger
17 December 2007 at 12:57

@Tom Rutten

“I know in my bones that these people (who demand immediate, terrestrial retribution for even the most mundane "infraction" - I'm thinking of a Sudanese teddy bear) will be responsible for the aforementioned shitstorm …”

Remember Abu Ghraib? Forgotten Guantanamo? I’m afraid that “revenge” and “humiliation” are the fractious American's stock in trade. Of course, it is inconceivable that the religious American will ever ‘turn the other cheek’ …

"*the following has no specific direction* "

LOL! You must think I’m a Muslim teddy bear with no sense and certainly no sense of direction. And what happened to the American moral compass? Was it lost in the apocalyptic shitstorm to come?

PS. Do you seriously consider that New Zealand will be outside the American collateral shitstorm zone?

J.
17 December 2007 at 13:06

Benson,

As long as religion insists that all phenomonem is caused by forces that are of a supernatural force, explainable as only by the power and for the unfathomable reasons of a mysterious and capricius God. then in my opinion that type of religion is obsolete and incompatiable with scientific knowledge and rational discourse, regardless if modern science and has it's obvious flaws and incomplete knowledge.

Religious knowledge is very incomplete and much more flawed in that it is just satisfied by ascribing everything that happens as an "act and will of God" and lives with that.

I find such acquiesance and complacency extremely unsatisfactory and at odds with the intelligence and capacities that humans have shown they are capable of. Moreover that type of acceptance has much fear and trembling built into it rather than courage,and love and awe of life as a whole.

If religion was just about promoting ways for humans to be better to each other and the earth than I would be all for religion. Instead it starts with the self-defeating idea that humans are corrupted, original sinners who are at the mercy of a capricious deity who despite being their creator and "loving" father has to pleaded to be spared from some future punishment. The illogical and contradictory traits that we have ascribed to this supernatural force are frankly silly and insulting to those of us that see something brighter, worthwhile and more positive for humans to be pursuing.

Where you might see religion as a light for humanity, many of us see that as it stands today and in the past as an obstruction,something pathological that leads us to complacency , destruction,darkness, fear and willful ignorance.

Humans are fully capable of being better than we are to each other and ourselves without relying on archaic religious worship and supernatural explanations to guide and "save" us..

Cybertiger
17 December 2007 at 13:38

Dear Tom Rutten

In my humble G-d fearing view, the taking of an ‘eye for an eye’ has blinded America.

“I know in my bones that these people [teddy boys in tea towels] will be responsible for the aforementioned shitstorm ….”

But good G-d ... we’re in deep shit … the blind American will be responsible for the storms of Apocalypse Now, Yesterday and Tomorrow … I can feel it in my water.

“Let them pick over the bones and see what their God can do for first degree radiation poisoning.”

I wonder what remedy ‘G-d the American’ has for first degree radiation poisoning. Is there a plan? Is ‘GWB' fast-tracking the NASA mission to occupy the planet Mars?

Benson
17 December 2007 at 17:26

J,

your intervention is very interesting. you assume i'm a religionist. well am so irreverent as to consider nothing sacrosanct. every question, whether scientific or religious is, for me, open to inquiry. what i know for sure is that not every religion characterizes their doctrines and theology in the manner you've reported. and not every religion has a bleak eschatology. people have been known to take a religion and make it reflect their own philisophical positions. i don't see religion as inherently evil, nor is science. but both are susceptible of all manner of ends. marx said religion was the heart in a heartless world in addition to its being the opium of the masses. what does dawkins say to that?

Benson
17 December 2007 at 17:31

and J,

i almost forgot, answer my commencing question if you can: is there any instance of an able scientist holding religious views? thanks for the effort.

Mr Fnortner
17 December 2007 at 17:48

To all of you who have just discovered the quote key, please get a pointy object and pry it off.

The Bible et al., and religions for that matter, are closed systems. Their beliefs and proofs are insulated from the outside world, and logic, evidence, reason, and argument from that outside world, no matter how sound and persuasive, matter not to those inside.

Furthermore, atheists have to prove nothing, have to support nothing, have to construct no theories or philosophies or cosmologies. Atheists only say, you have proved no god to me; all else is what it is.

Also, Dawkins may be a jerk, but his jerkiness has little to do with whether he is right or wrong.

writeon
17 December 2007 at 20:29

Perhaps God is a question mark? Maybe God is Science, Reason and Logic? Maybe he wants us to think for ourselves and reject 'Him' and 'superstition' in favour of logic and reason and science, which are all part of 'him'? Maybe his greatest gift to us, apart from our little planet, is conciousness and free will, and the ability to question his very existance? He's given us the gifts of thought, of curiosity, of intellectual freedom, the freedom to reject him and all he is, and all his works; and he isn't angry, he's glad and proud at how far we've come. He just smiles and nods, satisfied with his creation. He has created life out of nothing incapsulated in us. He even looks at Dawkins and feels a certain pride at how things have worked out. The tiny human brain with it's ability to question the infinite universe. The ? again.

For those who believe, I think we have to assume that 'God' is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and therefore, in essence - unknowable. What I'm attempting to say is, that God, whatever we mean by the term, is so 'not us and other than us' that the idea that we, tiny creatures that we are compared to God, can not possibly comprehend an entity so much more than we are. We can attempt to do it, but are doomed to failure. Surely God is an unsolvable and virtually incomprehensible paradox.

Clearly this is a very theoretical discussion, because if we believe in God as the creator of the universe, we are attempting to know and understand the infinite and time and space. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, I feel rather humble and rather small and insignificant when contemplating infinity and not to mention time and space. I mean it's all so complex, subtle and vast. I find time and space rather challanging concepts.

Maybe God is not so much Love, but an Idea, the idea, ideas. Perhaps the universe is poetry in motion and God is the rhyme, and perhaps the reason.

J.
17 December 2007 at 20:38

Mr.Fnortner,

Nothng is insulated from the outside world because nothing exists in isolation. We live and function in the physical world not in mental fantasy lands, no matter how persuasive and real those inner worlds may seem.

Atheists or agnostics are not trying to prove something for which we have no verifiable evidence to prove it exists.

It is true that we cannot prove God's non-existence but neither can the faithful prove God's existence by a objective and transferrable method.

But who must make the most effort, those who insist that this force exists and must come up with verifiable evidence or those who admit they have no evidence either way and just leave it at that.

I tried this time to leave off the quote keys, but words often have extra meaning that do not come through as is...hence the quotes to emphasize irony and multple meanings.

Benson,

I don't see religion or science as inherently evil,because I do not see evil as something of a invisble force operating in the world,(evil is one of the choices we make) but if I were to weigh their strengths and weaknesses, then I would say that religion, especially traditional and fundamentalist religion have the potential do more harm than good for the long term welfare of humanity and of the earth. One way is through apocalyptic fantasies that could start a world wide war. The other is more insiduous. It keep us in a state of perpetual self-absorbed adolescence, where we look for answers in supernatural places instead of using pragmatic real world practices to find answers and cooperation.

An example is public officials in the US have used prayer meetings to pray for rain rather than face the situation that it our overuse that is the problem not the whims of a capricious deity to make it rain somewhere. How logical is that coming from those who we expect to be our leaders?

Science also can be misused for great harm,but I see more hope in the possibilities it can achieve and the advantages of seeking rational discourse and pragmatic actions than I can in the continued polarization that religion causes even among believers. Science and rationality can promote what is common among us instead of seperating us as religion does.

As I have said previously, if religion just stayed with doing good works then it would be something to commend, but instead religions compete against each other in procaliming they alone have the truth. The other flaw is that they continue to believe that the universe revolves around the affairs of humans on this one small planet. I think that perspective keeps us from seeing beyond our illusions about ourselves. This does not mean we are not important and do not derserve the utmost respect, but that a real sense of humility would be to recognize we may be one of billions of other species in a universe literally populated by billions of other galaxies.

As for as your commencing question about a scientist holding religious views it is possible and Francis Collins is one example. Even he though has his black/white explanations about his beliefs and how atheists(like he once was) are just being arrogant in their disbelief. I find that even though he fully believes in evolution etc., he still feels that his brand of religious belief superceeds all others. If a scientist is to be truly open to revison of ideas when new information comes forth, than I feel that should apply equally to overriding philosophical/religious beliefs because as I have said above the greater cosmos we live in is too large and unknown by personal experience to claim we know the "absolute truth" and it is only in one religion or philosophy.

I would imagine there are other scientists who have religious views and function daily with contradictions to belief that come up from science but manage to do ok because they do not let religious belief stand in the way of reason and the facts that they discover.

Sorry, about perceiving you as a religious questioner.

J.
17 December 2007 at 21:02

Mr Fnortner,

I may have misinterpreted your comments as being from a religious defender. If I did my apologies.

writeon
17 December 2007 at 21:20

Well, as it's Juletide, when the pagans celibrated the beginning of the return of the Sun and Light, now worshipping the Sun as the creator of all things on Earth, that sounds like an idea that might just catch on!

Well, where was I, yes, it's Juletide and the Juletide logs are burning in my fireplace and it's cold and dark outside, and I'm really glad and grateful for the warmth and light from the logs. One can't help thinking there might be more to the symbolism than meets the eye?

I must admit that I wrote my other post before I actually read Dawkin's piece. Having read it I must say, it's not really all that good is it? From reading the comments I imagined it must be reall clever and almost profound, golly was I wrong about that! Anyway my curiosity was aroused, so I decided to read it through. If there's such a thing as vulgar atheism then Dawkins is guilty of it in my opinion. Isn't Dawkins confusing 'God' with religion here? Are they one and the same thing? I think not.

Religion is the creation of man, not God. Religion is our human attempt to understand and imagine the fundamentally non-understandable. Christianity is what's contained in the words in the Bible. God, however, is the Universe, not the same thing at all.

Whilst it's easy to ridicule Christmas and most religions, at least there's an attempt to understand and even rationalize the infinite. I'm not sure Dawkins is up to the task, though I'm sure he'd disagree.

But whilst Christmas is an easy target and by extention most religions are too, personally I'd be slightly wary about taking on the concept of God. Dawkins seems to think of God as an old man with a long white beard sitting on a cloud. I believe this might be a little too simplistic an image to encompass the concept of God, which is a good deal more subtle and complex than Dawkins lets on.

Whilst religion has it's problems, it's not as if science and our systems of knowledge are problem free. Seen over a longer historical perspective it's extraordinary the ridiculous things and ideas people have believed to be true. But they were doing their best given the state of their knowledge at the time. Brillian and highly intelligent people, the intellectual elite, have believed in witchcraft, astrology, alchemy... and on and on. Orthodoxy and dogma, certainty and truth, would appear to be relative and historically determined rather than universal. Given this perspective it isn't beyond the realms of the possible that much if not most of what we believe or perceive or think we understand about 'reality' will be proven to be just plain wrong and probably amusing conceits in two or three hundred years time. It's perfectly possible that we may eventually 'prove' that God does in fact exist, and that God has been patiently waiting for us to catch up with him and smiling wryly at our stumbling efforts.

GideonPolya
18 December 2007 at 06:51

Excellent article by one of my scientific and humnaitarian heroes, Richard Dawkins.

Simply consult UNICEF on the Web and you will discover that on Christmas Day 2007 an estimated 608,000/365 = 1,670 under-5 year old infants will die in countries currently violently occupied by "Christian" Bush-ite US or its surrogates - about 90% avoidably and due to egregious Occupier war crimes in gross violation of the Geneva Convention (for details and documentation see '"US Terror & Occupation. War crimes & huge infant deaths" on the ethical Canadian MWC News).

From UNICEF 2005 data one can calculate that “Year 2005 under-5 infant deaths” / “year 2005 population” is 370,000 / 29.9 million (Occupied Afghanistan); 122,000 / 28.8 million (Occupied Iraq); 82,000 / 8.2 million (Occupied Somalia); 31,000 / 8.5 million (Occupied Haiti); and 3,000 / 3.7 million (Occupied Palestinian Territory) – as compared to 1,500 / 20.2 million (Occupi-er Australia) and 800 / 6.4 million (Occupi-er Israel).

“Year 2005 annual under-5 infant death rate” (i.e. as a percentage: deaths for every 100 under-5 year old infants in 2005 in a particular country) was 6.7% (Occupied Afghanistan); 2.8% (Occupied Iraq); 5.5% (Occupied Somalia); 2.7% (Occupied Haiti); and 0.47% (Occupied Palestinian Territory) – as compared to 0.12% (Occupi-er Australia) and 0.12% (Occupi-er Israel).

"Christian" UK, US, Canada and Australia have forgotten not just the Holy Biblical "thou shalt not kill" but also the UNIVERSAL "thou shalt not kill CHILDREN".

I certainly do not wish a "Happy Christmas" to the lying, racist, holocaust-committing, holocaust-ignoring, holocaust-denying, child-kiling war criminals of the Anglo-Celtic Murdochracies.

And faced with this daily, UN-REPORTED carnage, with no let up on Christmas Day, as an anti-racist, humanitarian Humanist I must heartily endorse Professor Richard Dawkins' "Happy Newton Day!" for all decent humanity.

elliott tepper
18 December 2007 at 08:19

Dear Humanist and Cybertiger and all:

When rightly interpreted, I know of none of the central Christian tenets and themes in its cosmological overview which are incompatible with 'science'. Of course, I am assuming that the idea of 'spirit' and the possibility of a God are not rejected outright before the debate begins. Because if they are immediately left out of the theater of discussion, the whole exercise it is a bit unfair and weighted in favor of the materialist point of view.

I must smile at the suggestion that I drop my 'Christian' identification and 'rejoin' the rest of the human race. According to the Oxford University's 'World Christian Encyclopedia', the 'Economist' and other reliable sources more than one out three members of the human race call themselves Christians. When one adds Muslims, Hindus and other deists we find only 2% of the human race considering themselves atheists and 12% 'non-religious', which is a rapidly declining minority. The secular-humanist in Europe can be forgiven a certain sense of triumphalism because of his recent gains in Europe. Without a doubt, Europe has departed from its Christian past and faith. However, Europe is a very small part of the world and getting smaller. In rounded terms: Christianity as a whole is constant. Islam is growing at the rate of world population growth. Though the Catholic Church and the liberal Protestant Church are in decline, the 700 million 'Evangelicals' in the world are growing at 7% per year, or two and one half times the population growth. In the last 50 years more than 100 million Chinese have become Christians and the growth of the Chinese church is off the charts. We hear of many Chinese intellectuals and scientists coming to faith. Very shortly China will have the largest active Christian Church in the world. Amazing. The secular humanist camp is a bit more beleaguered in fortress Europe and its enclaves in American academia than it realizes.

The Judeo-Christianity spirit has almost always fostered inquiry and been the friend of natural knowledge and science, save in a few unfortunate historic relapses. One cannot say that of recent atheistic systems or most other world religions.

I must point out that demographics has not been kind to Europe. Islam in two generations will dominate Europe, and its domination will carry with it a spirit that will not encourage the kind of debate we are enjoying at this present moment. My secular humanists friends may well rue the day they wished good riddance to Christian Europe. They may miss their Christian 'foes' when they confront their new Sharia masters.

To answer Cybertiger's personal question: 'How do you know that as an atheist I will be surprised? And why am I so certain?' In 1971 as a student at Harvard, I, as a non-religious Jew who believed practically nothing, had a near death experience which changed my life. In a moment I had an encounter with death, a vision of heaven and hell (which I did not believe in), and then to my great surprise, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the person of Jesus Christ. Though intellectual discussions are interesting and fascinating, the real presence of God and the mystic foretaste of Eternity I know today lend an undeniable actuality that mere debate cannot provide. Can you imagine a universe that is both natural and supernatural at the same time? That is not beyond your powers.

If Cybertiger is right, he will just cease to exist and this discussion is meaningless. If I am right, then we will both have a long time to continue meditating on the theme in different states of being.

With good will, Elliott

J.
18 December 2007 at 12:00

Elliot,

The growing religious fundamentalist mindset in the US is not something to be looking forward as a favorable situation. This retreat from reality and science will not bring us into a bright new world, but is inculcating new generations of people who rather than take responsibility for our actions, would rather believe in comforting supenatural fairy tales. A convenient excuse to not grow up, figuaratively speaking.

A wave of mediocrity and stifling ignorance is becoming almost the norm in the US thanks to our prevalent mindless consumerism,entertainment choices and the non-critcial thinking that envelopes religion, especially the evangelical type that relies mostly on overly emotional,temporal experiences to substitute for reasonable thinking and empirical knowledge.

While I will not deny the so-called conversion experience you say you had which seemed be real to you, it is only a subjective non-transferrable, non-verifiable and non-repeatable experience that cannot be utilized by all of humanity to make wise choices and rational decisions in how to live on this planet. We cannot use these subjective experiences to exist and function in a physical world that demands physical actions.

The fundamentalist religions unfortuanately growing in the US and other places will do nothing to foster the quest for real knowledge through science. Already in this country and elsewhere religious zealots are trying to suffocate and censor anything of science that these religious believers object to.

Your good will closing seems insincere to me when you smuggly imply that those of us who do not believe as you do will end up in some different states of being (i.e. hell)for eternity.

Your type of delusional certitude is vey dangerous to the long welfare of life on this planet. It may take a different form than the fanaticism of the Islamic world, but evangelical Christianity is part of a the same self made delusions and willful ignorance that will do very little to solve the urgent physical ecological and social problems we have caused and must try to resolve if we are to survive.

A smug, complacent self-absorbed,narcissistic emotional indulgence in merely supernatural, wishful thinking nonsense will not save us.

Cybertiger
18 December 2007 at 12:56

“In 1971 as a student at Harvard, I, as a non-religious Jew who believed practically nothing, had a near death experience which changed my life.”

Could I ask Elliott what it was that brought him close to death … and what it was that brought him back from the edge … with remembered visions of heaven, hell and Jesus?

Mr Fnortner
18 December 2007 at 15:43

My dear J:

No defender of religion here; just one who observers that religionists live in their own world. We on the outside waste our breath in any effort to infuse reason into it.

Second, atheists, as some of us are, say nothing more than, "You have proven no god." (Note the rare and judicious use of quotes.) We take up no crusade (forgive me) to prove else.

Carry on. And thanks for doubling back and asking.

J.
18 December 2007 at 16:36

Mr Fnortner,

Thanks for your reply and with Elliot's comment above concerning religious statistics, it appears that reason in our era is in serious danger of being overwhelmed by magical thinking. We once again are choosing to live with comforting illlusions instead of discovering and appreciating reality.

I hope I am not around for their cherished self-created, apocalyse that they so anticipate and pray for. The deluded bring upon themselves their own reward and the rest of us will suffer with them.

elliott tepper
19 December 2007 at 00:25

Dear J and Cybertiger and all,

Please forgive me if there was any sense of 'smugness' inferred. It was not intended. I am sure you are every bit as good a man as I am and sincere in your beliefs. We just differ and are talking about our differences. Our talking is a sign of civility and one of the gifts of high civilization. Of course, the final sorting out of reality will be of great consequence for both of us. We cannot pretend otherwise.

This Christian mindset you belittle and see descending on the US is actually descending more upon the nations than America. While the Christian revelation is flowing to the nations, parts of America and most of Europe are drifting from true Christianity. Would to God that America and Europe might become a truly Christian civilizations. We are just as sadden as you are by the carnality and hypocrisy of some of what passes for orthodox Christianity. What we want is to see a Church that reflects the life of Christ, not some religious parody, whether corrupted by consumerism, or superstition, or narcissism. Leaving the blemishes of modern Christianity aside, is there any thing in the life of Christ you find offensive or in the lives of those who would truly emulate him?

Thank you for recognizing that my conversion experience might be real for me. But I think you are wrong when you say that it is 'non-transferrable, non-verifiable, and non-repeatable'. The very existence of the Church refutes those claims. The Church Universal began with one God-man imparting faith and revelation and his 'Life' to twelve men and then to 120 and then to thousands, and then to millions and millions across languages, cultures, centuries and Ages, in the face of severe persecution and natural death--and there is one common thread running through it all: Something universal was transferred, verified, and repeated in each individual life and in each generation. They shared the same essential experience of the Spirit of the Resurrection in their hearts. Their degrees of experience and their abilities of articulation differed greatly, but the seed was the same and is still the same. I have enjoyed sharing and receiving the mystery of Christ all over the world. Psychology has studied mass delusions. They do occur. But there is no explanation for the existence of the Church. Delusion on such a scale in such a diverse body of humanity is simply not possible. Read the 'City of God' by Augustine of Hippo, or CS Lewis' apologetic works. They were both brilliant thinking skeptics who worked through the possibilities of mass deception and the self-delusion of wish fulfillment. My conversion was dramatic, but it has been repeated a thousand million times over the centuries by others.

How can you say that Christianity cannot be used to 'make wise choices and rational decisions' in a world that 'demands physical action'? Christians know that 'true religion' is to feed the hungry, care for the sick and weak, and to share your goods and your coat with those who have none. Anything less is vain and not Christianity. Christians know that they are stewards of the planet and must give account. We must care for it and those who live on it. Are you suggesting that Christians do not care about the ecology of the planet? We may not worship nature, but we respect nature and want to pass on an earth to our children that is a balanced and well tended garden.

Are you suggesting that Christians have shirked from the 'demands of physical actions' and retreated into a 'super-spiritual' existence? I must point out that Christians gave the world the modern hospital and orphanages. Christianity was driving force behind the abolition of slavery in Britain and America. It was the Church was began universal education. It was the Church which first exalted and honored women and children in society, etc. It is a modern verifiable fact that Christians and Jews are much more generous than secular humanists. Not only do they out give by multiples their secular humanist counterparts, but Christian giving even exceeds humanist giving towards exclusively secular charities. Did you know that the Christian Church provides more medical care on the continent of Africa than all the African governments combined--and for free. If you need a well dug in Africa today, you have a better chance of getting it dug by a Christian agency than by a secular government or a secular NGO. True Christians are required to act boldly and unselfishly in this present life, if I read the life of Christ correctly. Millions of missionaries and lay Christians have laid down their lives as proof that they were men and women of 'physical action' .

Words are very cheap. And I know that our lives are small change in the light of such abundant generosity and heroism in the Church universal. But about thirty years ago my wife and I left our secular professions and at no small sacrifice tried to live out Christ's example as Christian missionaries. Check out It is the ministry we founded to help the most needy people in the world. Over 100,000 have come to live in our homes--for free, over the years. There was a time when half our community was HIV positive. The first two generations of the people we helped have all died of AIDS. Less die now thanks to science. We have clinics and use science for the glory of God to save lives. We also believe in the mystery of Agape love. We see no conflict between God and faith and reason and science--between a Kingdom without end and a well tended garden on this present earth.

Come and visit us in Madrid or wherever a Betel community is in the world. Come and see.

Sincerely yours, Elliott

PS In answer to Cybertiger's question: 'What was it that brought me close to death and what brought me back with remembered visions..?'

I was living in a Hippie commune in Cambridge as a graduate student at Harvard, along with other Harvard, Radcliff, MIT and Boston University students. We were quite sincere in our search for reality and a new way. We were a mixture of new-agers and secular free thinkers. There were drugs in our community and lots of deep thought. We had a number of scientists and philosophers in our commune. One day I was alone and took a walk along the Charles River. I had not taken any drugs. It was a very cold winter day. The river was frozen over. As I walked along the river bank thinking, I suddenly heard the audible voice of God say, 'give me your heart'. I was caught up in a vision and lifted out of my body and saw the foothills and the beginning of Heaven and the pathway towards the New Jerusalem. The voice again asked me for my life. I knew in an instant that everything I had been searching for was in the God of Love, but then I said, unexplainably, 'Yes, Lord. But not today, tomorrow. There are still things I want to do'. I was brought down from that height of revelation to the edge of the Charles River and the earth was opened to me. I saw a great inclined plane descending into an abyss. It was a vision of Hell and I did not believe in Hell. The slope was filled with tormented souls, and demons and devils. It was a place of parasitic terror and selfishness where every creature was devouring the other--the exact opposite of what I had seen in heaven. It was a place of utter separation from God. The inclined plane descended into a great lake of fire and I was slipping down the plane. I turned around and tried to walk up and out. But I could only get to the edge of the vision, just on the edge of life. I began to cry out for mercy as I walked down the streets of Boston. In desperation, not knowing how to surrender my life to God and thinking that I had lost light and life and joy and that celestial love and reality I had just experienced forever I threw myself through a plate glass window of an abandoned storefront and was cut very severely on my shoulder, back and arm. I was losing blood. Two young men jumped through the window and saved me from the broken glass. The police came and took me to the Alston hospital. On the emergency room table in those few moments before the doctor entered I thought I was dying. I was weak from loss of blood. I cried out again for mercy and then Jesus entered the emergency room and filled it with light. I was brought up a nominal Jew. I did not believe in Jesus. I had no sympathy towards Jesus, but he was there in front of me. And I knew he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He asked me what I was dying for. Then he told me he wanted me to live and to have many children. He touched me and I was born again right there on that stainless steel table. The doctor entered and sewed me up and I have never looked back since.

I have been asked how much of that was drug hallucination. I was not taking drugs. I have had hallucinations. That was a prophetic revelation. There are many examples in the Bible and many testimonies of like visions throughout the ages in the Church. General Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, had a similar vision. The proof that it was not drug induced or fanatical or ocultish is that my life radically changed. I never took drugs again. Now, after 36 years I find myself in the mainstream of Christianity. I am a Presbyterian (Charismatic) and I serve in one of the largest and oldest Christian missions. I have a wife and three sons. They are all Christians. They all hold multiple degrees from a number of universities in math, the sciences, economics, and theology. One graduated with highest honors and distinction in mathematics and taught university mathematics. One was a West Point Captain and is presently the University student pastor at St. Aldates at Oxford. One a Rhodes Scholar and a businessman and writer. All three have Oxford University degrees.

We believe that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all of life. We look forward to exploring and serving in this present universe in all its beauty and wonder. We also look forward to a new world without end.

With all my heart I ask God's richest blessing on you all. Elliott

elliott tepper
19 December 2007 at 00:42

Dear all,

Our web page for Betel International is betel.org

Yours, Elliott

J.
19 December 2007 at 11:40

Elliot,

Thank you for your passionate and I do believe sincerely held explanations of your faith.

I highly commend your physical actions of mercy and compassion toward others. Those are noble and necessary actions that are something which should be pursued by all of us.

What I and others object to is the assertion that you and other Christians (or Muslims) continue to proclaim that your particular belief system has the one an only truth and it is the only way any of us can be "saved" (Forgive me for the quotations)

My reservations come from the knowledge I have derived from cosmology, science and reasoning based on what I can see through empirical methods and reaonable theory based on mathematic possibilities. I am not a scientist but deeply appreciate the methods and advances it has brought us when used ethically and appropiately.

I was once a born-again believer also as a young man in the 1970's. But over time I realzed that saying that "God did it" expalins absolutely zero. I felt those years I was in sort of a exclusionary inner world of denial. I felt if I and my fellow believers were in possession of the truth and everybody else was doomed unless they believed as I did in my particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity. That is why I say religious belief seperates us.

We exist in an almost incomprehensibly large universe which we hardly have any personal experience of. Everything we have discovered, learned and assumed is fact is derived from the minds of the human species which for the present is basically isolated to one small planet. From our limited perspective we have presumed that we know absolutely what the the truth is and it is wrapped up in this religion or another or philosophy. Our real perspective of a greater universe is only beginning to be revealed by our extra-planetary excursions.

One of the things I appreciate about science is the admission that all knowledge is approximate and provisional and is subject to change as new information comes forward.

Religion though will not allow that uncertainity and possibility of revison. That is why many of us who are secular find it dangerous and myopic and self-absorbed.

Just because millions have come to believe in a certain religious orthodoxy, does not validate that ontology as real. All those conversions are independent subjective experiences that cannot be verified through objective methods as with most of science. They are elusively non-transferrable because they frrever remain as personal visions in your mind, not as something in common that can be repeated by me or anyone else as a precise duplication through experimentation.

You can not take words in the Bible and set up an experiment that will prove the exact beliefs you have everytime and therefore they are not tranferrable to others in a verifiable way.

AsI said I do not condemn your efforts to be humane, decent, civil, loving and perform good works. That is obviously not a act of self-absorption. It is your adamant claim of certitude which can and has lead to much harm in the past. This is the blinders I feel many of the faith have on.

This great harm can also come from the secular world.

In both cases it is the unwillingnes to consider what we know could be wrong or needs to be revised.

Humility and spirituality to me is realizing and deeply appreciating that we are part of amazingly interconnected continum of life regardless of how it origianted. The richness and diveristy of life as it is, is enough for me. I no longer need to embelish it with a supernatural underpinning. Maybe one day we will know how it came about. Maybe we will find that there is a first power who is behind it all. Just don't limit it to the idea that it is as we envision it today by our traditional religious concepts and deceits.

We all fall short of perfection but persisting to believe that we at one time were created perfect and then sinned, incurring a deity's eternal wrath does not make any sense in the physical universe, explainable through evolution, phyics and chemistry. To me the whole premise insults our capabilities and the creator if one exists. It's a non-productive way, non-rational, non-scientific and highly disrepectful way to see our species and it's integral part of life.

Benson
19 December 2007 at 15:03

J,

i have never been a believer in doctrines as such. i try to understand them and to raise sceptical queries about them. i often ask myself: what does the balance sheet of past and contemporary history say about such and such a credo? my training is in anthropology, and maybe that explains how i view these matters. if there is a research strategy i am ready to endorse, it is what i call generative cultural materialism. and it simply means that given a set of finite conditions in the techno-environmental system, any human society S has the potential to evolve an infinite variety of culture-ways in response to the material conditions environing its existence. simply put, a scientific order can be perfectly juxtaposed to a religious order, and indeed both are often mixed together in every society in the world. iran has islam and nuclear science. the united states has bushism, clintonism, christian fundamentalism and nuclear science. nigeria, my own country, has a plethora of religions and (at least at the moment) little or no science. but in substantive terms, these three countries are, as far as i'm concerned, very dangerous places to live in. i can't choose among them. i am happy to notice a soupcon of moderation in your partisanship of the scientific ideology. but please realize that religion can be a thing of value too if infused with an appropriate ethical preoccupation. history's gallery is rich with exemplars who have not only tinkered with their faiths, reinvented and reinterpreted them, but have indeed taken religion into that realm of objective practice, i mean the political sphere, where one's positions and the effects of one's beliefs are accorded demonstration as open as a scientific experiment. do you know the story of gandhi? do you know of the dalai lama? what about martin luther king jnr? and then please reflect awhile on the role of the nazi scientists in accomplishing hitler's dream of the thousand-year reich. the question, for me, is not whether a person is a religionist or a scientist. the question is what kind of religion or science are you championing?

J.
19 December 2007 at 21:19

Benson,

I agree that it is in the details of what is being offered and utilized. My experience in the US is that lately much of the ascendent religion is tending toward fundamentalism and evangelism which in my opinion, does not engender moderation but either stifling conformism to orthodoxy, denial of reality and science or extremism.

As I have repeated too often perhaps, it is not religion's emphasis on good works and an individuals search for inner values that disturbs me but it's insistence that a certain religion alone is the arbiter and revealer of absolute truth.

There may be an objection then.Does that mean science is the sole arbiter of truth? No, but science and reason, to me at least offer an empirical objective way to approach truths (plural), not the truth (singular) from a pragmatic,...in common to all of us..., standpoint. Philosophy and the consensual search for values that promote the general welfare are part of the mix also.

If something that scientists have labored and researched for centuries and have established very credible evidence for is censored because of the religious sensibilities of a certain faith, then I and many others are right to be alarmed and defensive because personal matters of faith, outside of ethics perhaps,should not be a part of the decision processes of empirical science since personal faith is not something normally used as part of the scientific method. I am sorry if that seems bigoted or exclusionary, but the scientific method has worked because it asks for duplicatible objective evidence as proof. Religious faith and creationist/ID views cannot deliver that.

I would not promote a type of science that did not take into consideration our humanity, the health of the earth or be willing to close a eye to ethical considerations in the name of advancing science just for it's own sake.

I know there are issues concerning stem cells etc., cloning etc. that are controversial in this regard,but not completely unbridgeable by opposing parties. My main concerns with science being censored is with the teaching of evolution, and the concepts of deep time.

It also concerns me that this resurgence of religious fervor in the world can be another way that we avoid paying attention to the reality and real threat to the ecological health of this planet. For the next few centuries perhaps, most humans will call this place our only home. Instead of spending time and energy pursuing religious worship in something that cannot be verified, to me it is more incumbent upon humans to understand and appreciate the real world of biology and ecology that has made this planet habitable for us.

I think in many ways it is our supposed superiority, our willfull ignorance, our callousness and because of religious myths that we try to seperate and reject or ignore our inextricable connections to the ecology of the earth. Because of this self-created seperation we often do such a poor job of protecting it and instead are still in an undeclared war with nature rather than accepting that we have to be wise stewards of it for our own long term prospects.

There is very little untouched wild nature left in the world. that which is left will have to be conserved,managed,nurtured and restored. Humans cannot exist comfortably as we have become used to or perhaps at all, unless the natural processes of the earth continue to be robust,diverse and self-renewing.... It is that simple.

Sharif
20 December 2007 at 09:08

It is interesting to read so many comments, whenever somebody talks of religion. Obviously there are many having doubts on Jesus and God. Lucky you can express yourselves openly. Where I grew up, not toeing the line on God and the prophet could get me big trouble, to start with that i am an infidel and ending in for blasphemy. Even today, even a letter to the editor can not only harm you but the offices of the paper printing it, get burned and the editors liable to get death sentence. O you think i am talking of middle age? No, I am referring to 21st century. Which country, you might ask. The answer is not one I can from, but many others where Muslims are a majority. I agree with Dawkins, religion is madness; it encourages people to hate each other and eventually kill those who think differently. That is until you follow blindly like Taliban did. Anybody not praying being beaten up, any woman walking alone without Hijab, brought to justice. I am glad that I am here in the west. But I have to be careful also. Somebody might make a short process. Remember Van Gogh in Amsterdam?

writeon
20 December 2007 at 16:04

Sharlone,

My father had much the same set of problems when he was growing up. If one got on the wrong side of the local priest life could get rather difficult.

I know a surprising number of priest, both male and female, and a nicer, politically and socially aware group of people would be hard to find. But then they sort of support the idea of a 'rebel Jesus' and liberation theology.

What appears to be happening in many Muslim countries is tha religion and nationalist/liberation/anti-colonialist politics and seemingly joining forces in a powerful and potentially explosive coctail.

writeon
20 December 2007 at 16:12

Sharlone,

I don't agree that all religion is madness. That's a bit extreme I think. I know loads of seriously religious people and their not mad, they just think differently, they have a different way of describing the world, and most of them are followers of Jesus, who it'll be remembered didn't exactly get on all that well with the religious establishment!

The Taliban didn't just appear out of nowhere. They were a creature of the Pakistani intelligence service who supported them with money and weapons and used them to turn Afghanistan into a potential ally and protectorate.

angrywelshman
20 December 2007 at 16:12

At best religion provides us with a moral framework, at worst it absolves us of moral responsibility.

Cybertiger
20 December 2007 at 16:54

Kenny Richey has spent 20 years on death row Ohio. He has had 13 execution dates set and on one occasion came within an hour of execution. He flies back to Scotland today. The American justice system behaves with casual, vengeful brutality. Kenny Richey’s case is a metaphor for what Christian America has become – and it’s truly, madly, deeply frightening.

writeon
21 December 2007 at 08:37

Rowan Williams - the archbishop of Canterbury - leader of the Anglican church - he seems to be one of the most thoughtful and decent national figures in the UK. He's a Christian, and one could hardly call him mad, or deluded. I think Dawkins grossly oversimplifies the role of religion in society. For thousands of years religion hasn't only been an expression of 'religious' beliefs, but has also functioned as the main platform for the expressing ones political attitudes about the nature of the society one wished to live in.

Sharif
21 December 2007 at 09:22

Wrieon: you say taliban were a product of Pakistani intelligence. This statement is only partly true; USA wanted some zealots to fight the Soviet Union and needed fanatics. They supplied the money and infrastructure. You should see the film 'Charlie Wilson's war', only recently released. I read that today in Pakistan killed people praying in a mosque. Supports my argument. Keep away from religion, it makes you mad and unreasonable

J.
21 December 2007 at 11:49

writeon.

The problem with religion is not that it could not be a part of the platform for the expressing reasonable poilitical attitudes about the nature of the society one wishes to live in; it often asserts that it is the ONLY platform and if one is to be part of the legitimate culture, one has be a believer in a certain religious othodoxy. Advocating good intentions and good works are one thing; proclaiming the presumptous idea of inerrant truth is another.

Our deliberations for the society we wish to live in does not mean it automatically has to be predicated on non-verifiable supernatural beliefs.

Civilized human culture has been around long enough and has enough common experience to know what we need to function in society that respects sound values and our basic human rights. Various unreconciable religions that proclaim that only they have the truth do not give us a practical way to find common ground.

Cybertiger
21 December 2007 at 12:14

“The American justice system behaves with casual, vengeful brutality.”

Kenny Richey will not now be home for Christmas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/71536...

But then what does Christmas mean in the land of the free? I can only look on in shock and awe at the utter meaninglessness.

Benson
21 December 2007 at 15:32

J,

do you realize that once you begin to advocate science as the only legitimate framework whereby we may discuss our human and social problems, as well as those problems that arise from our consciousness of the universe, you make yourself as guilty as the religionists you accuse of tunnel vision? and do you realize that what you've been saying so far is that anybody who seeks to be part of legitimate society must join your bandwagon and look at the world thru the prism of science? the world today is as threatened by the applications of science as it is by the misapplications of religion. and when you talk of ethics, where do you expect people to fetch it from? does the ethical discussion include arguments drawn from religious beliefs or not? if i invent a sharp implement that slices bread finely, should i, in a scientific turn of the imagination, decide to practically find out whether it would work well slicing the head from off a living human? what makes me know that it is better to slaughter a dog to Ogun, god of war among the yoruba of nigeria, than to offer him a human hecatomb? what stops me from trying out a secret weapon on the people of neighbouring cameroun in order to ride my scientific hobby horse to the last post? as i said, i don't subscribe to religions as such. let me add that i know the folly and evil that often results from it. but we must not reify religion and see it as something that stands apart from human motivation. it is not religions that are stupid per se. it is human beings who construct worthless creeds, whether sacred or scientific.

writeon
21 December 2007 at 20:05

Dear J and Sharlone,

First, thank you for your comments, and have a nice Christmas! I agree with you both. The Ameican relationship to the Pakistani intelligence service is worthy of a book, as is the role of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I don't believe Western governments give a damn about the ordinary people of Afghanistan, but regard the country as having enormous military significance, but that is another story!

I'm not even sure what 'religion' really is. I've always thought that Hitler was a kind of 'prophet' and his Nazi movement was a sort of alternative religion, with its own symbols, mythology and saints. Communism could also be seen in a quasi-religious perspective. Perhaps science itself, though seemingly rational and objective, is a substitute for religion? Maybe Dawkins worships at the alter of science?

J.
21 December 2007 at 23:16

Benson,

I am not saying that science is the only legitimate way to frame human society. It is though with reason,cooperation,justice and compassion and integral part of of a functional society. All those qualities are completely obtainable in my view without appeals to supernatural agencies.

I am saying that a framework based based on supernaturalism is not practical in this physical world because the supernatural framework itself is so subjective and amorphous. One persons god is another's devil. Religious belief in history has been the focus of so much divison. It is time to find another way which can engender commonality not seperation. Humans have not really tried to use science,reason and logic,cooperation and compassion as the framework for a truly just and workable society. We are intelligent enough to do it but still stuck in an archaic self-defeating paradigm and illusions about the universe and our part of it.

Why is that morals have to come from a supernatural directive or fear of punishment? They don't and humans are innovative enough to formulate sound values and moral behavior from reason and mutual dialogue.

I believe I made clear previously that I do not condone or promote science that is not used ethically. The last thing I would desire is a culture of nihilists

Here is an example of the what the fundamentalist Christian mindest is doing in the US lately. It is painfully sad indeed to see what is happening in my country these days especially in light of the national train wreck caused by the last 7 years with a religious fundamentalist as our President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/education/19texas.html?_r=...

Mr Fnortner
22 December 2007 at 03:41

It's rather frightful to think that so many believers need fear of a god to keep them in check. Atheists who lead good lives do not need such a god in order to do so. Isn't that ironic.

Furthermore, an actual god would truly be a marvelous thing, were one to exist. A real god would put to shame the jackass gods today's religions have come up with: secretive, mysterious, furtive figures lurking in ancient texts, scaring crap out of children, inciting followers to holy wars, condemning to eternal damnation those who stray, turning brother against brother and father against son, speaking through tired old men or raving lunatics.

A real god would show up once in a while, ride in a parade, issue a proclamation, fix a dictator, correct a volcano, save some lives. We wouldn't need religions. We wouldn't need to believe in anything. We would just know. Just like we know about the earth and the moon and oceans and dogs and moms and life. We would know about God. But there is no god. There ought to be, but there isn't. Get over it.

Benson
22 December 2007 at 14:39

J,

once again the west thinks only in terms of itself. please educate yourself beyond the conditions of your immediate existence. there is a maxim in the ifa corpus which serves as liturgy for traditional yoruba religion. this maxim says: not even god is wise enough. lest you call it a nonce statement that does not represent the iterated core of ifa philosophy, i cite another principle in the selfsame liturgy which imposes on devotees the task of constant inquiry because 'the divination you do today may not be sufficient for the morrow'. how does that strike you for a religious point of view? i don't endorse ifa beliefs. but i know that an imaginative adherent - and there are many of them - can see these two maxims and a host of others partaking of the same sensibility as metaphors that undergird a useful approach to the questions of life, society and the universe. 'not even god is wise enough' means that the issues we contend over are open to free discussion, that no religion has achieved the final answer. whereas there are many religions that operate via a manichean juxtaposition of forces, eg god vs satan, there are others that see the nuances; others that say, for instance, that god can be ignorant; others that do not see evil and good as emanations from diametrical poles but rather hold that the same individual, whether divine or human, has the potentiality for both. religion can be a lot of things: opium, social inquiry, science, philosophy, social control, pathology, literature, historical charter, etc. i think angrywelshman has said it all in his posting of the 20th. and writeon's admonition about altars deserves plenty of thought. for me, nothing is beyond debate. i deplore the science of the the IQ racists, and i execrate the religious tenets that say ' the other is doomed' or 'kill the infidel and attain paradise'. so it is not religion vs science. it is what religion vs what science.

J.
22 December 2007 at 17:16

Benson,

I agree with you summation. Thank you.

Benson
23 December 2007 at 06:59

J,

i am not a christian, nor an atheist nor a believer in ifa or whatever. i won't take a position on religion. but i have my own views on social debates. john paul the 1st was a pope whom we have been made to believe cultivated a position on contraception quite different from that of the mainstream catholic clergy. anglican priests are divided over the issue of homosexuality. there are variant forms of islam the world over. in nigeria you will find muslims who celebrate islamic holidays with ribald music and lager beer; and i join them in their jollification. i travelled back home from ibadan to lagos yesterday because of christmas. i love the carols and the generous air of goodwill that surround the nativity commemoration. but fundamentalist terrors of all sorts are a cause of deep anxiety for me. if you ask me for a characterization of these events and their informing principles, i will give a social-scientific take. a sense of social history is indispensable in my outlook. get a copy of karen armstrong's A History of God. not that i think she has done a perfect job in that book, but she achieves an incomparable feat there. i also believe our insistence on a humanistic science is the last hope of humankind. in the final analysis, i see human beings as a species defined by their monopoly of mythopoesis. that department is where, for good or bad, we give full expression to our faculties of consciousness and language. it is the hallmark of our will to explain. and science is part of it with its own axioms, idiom and methodology.

J.
23 December 2007 at 12:22

Benson,

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will look it up.

If we insisted that our world be only based on cold reason and logic without emotion and imagination, it would be incomplete and undesirable. Our abilities to create art,ritual,celebration and beauty and simply to be aware of aesthetics is a wonderful capacity. Our need for social interaction and love is a necessary part of us regardless where such qualities came from. I happen to think they are byproducts of cultural and biological evolution. That does not make them less worthy or unimportant.

No scientist today will say with confidence we understand what it really means to be conscious. On the other hand, I think we do ourselves a disservice when we are just content to say that all of what we call higher consciousness is simply the gift of a mysterious creator. Reductionism with the intent to explain does not in my opinion destroy the awe and wonder of the system.

It enriches it.

May I recommend a book by the son of Carl Sagan and Lynn Margulis; Notes from the Holocene by Dorian Sagan. In it he explores the ideas that the whole of life, the whole universe actually, may be much more than just our traditional and wishful human conceits and biases. I feel like he does, that all of organic and non-organic matter in the universe must be seen in context as a larger whole, not seperate but functioning and cycling endlessly together. Whether this whole system has purpose is debatable,but when viewed through deep time and evolutionary process it is so interconnected that the parts cannot exist seperately. To me that is much more breathtaking and awesome than the old creation stories we have lived with till this time. Science has brought us these mind expanding concepts by endeavoring to see beyond what we thought was true about us and the universe.

Maybe it seems naive to some to say this, but the scientific revealing of a reality much deeper and richer than our old myths could be the beginnings of a new story that would help us see our connections and commonality rather than our differences.

Mr Fnortner
23 December 2007 at 12:53

And all this prattle over mysticism and the universe: will you guys take a graduate-level physics course or two, for petesake!

Benson
23 December 2007 at 15:38

dawkins and people like mr fnortner still find they cannot do without allusions and swearwords drawn from religion even as they try to argue for its abolition. i see they've been unable to undo the lessons they took at sunday school.

Mr Fnortner
23 December 2007 at 16:48

Well, Benson, if you have just elevated Pete to the level of a god, you may have just violated any number of commandments of your own deity. Perhaps "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," or "Thou shalt not take the name of the lord, thy god, in vain."

I certainly did not place the incognito Pete in the role of a god as you did. Perhaps this Pete is my auto mechanic, and he would appreciate the knowledge you could share with him about the universe once you have gone to school.

Do not suggest for a moment that I am arguing for the abolition of religion. Though religion is pointless, its ultimate collapse will not come about from argument but from a recognition by the people of its vacuous absurdity. In the meantime, I'll just poke people like you for fun from time to time.

Now a god, a real god, now that would be terrific! But I repeat myself.

Cybertiger
23 December 2007 at 22:45

By his words and deeds, the beloved leader of the free world and spiritual governor of the greatest democracy shekels can buy, sets a very poor example of the Judeo-Christian faiths – in my humble secular opinion. Damn the Americans for their absurd democratic belief.

Benson
24 December 2007 at 08:07

point of correction mr fnortner: where i come from the commandment is thou shalt have any number of gods. the orisas abhor discrimination and monopoly; they thrive on acceptance of the other. moreover, among the igbo of nigeria, a votary can discard a failed deity and carve another instead. that is akin to discarding a failed scientific theory; and it is much much better than expending thousands of years on writing footnotes to plato. do a bit of etymology or linguistic archaeology and you'll understand that you are a closet devotee of saint peter, one of the chief gods of roman catholicism to which you may just find yourself converting one of these days as blair did recently. in the meantime, you may spend your night hours thinking up formulas and rituals for the apotheosis of your auto mechanic by whose name you already sanction your utterances. i welcome you to paganism. merry paganmas!

Ray
24 December 2007 at 12:54

Says Richard Dawkins "We never wondered why God, if he wanted to forgive our sins, didn't just forgive them. Why did he have to scapegoat himself first?"

The answer is one word: LOVE. Why does a man go to all the aggro of braving the rain and a howling gale (to say nothing of fighting his way past other shoppers) to buy his wife a punch of roses and sweetly-versed card when he could have just stayed at home at whispered in her ear "Happy Bithday, honey, I love you"?

God doesn't just want man to know that He loves us. He wants us to understand that loving us (and, in particular, wiping away the stain of our many sinful misdeeds) actually cost Him a great deal. Indeed, true love if it is ever to be proved to be love at all, must inevitably involve some cost to the giver of it.

That's why when Christians behold Jesus upon a cross our response is a not just a shrug of the shoulder and a mumbled "gee, thanks, God". It is rather a bended knee, tear-filled eyes and a heartfelt "Alleluia, What A Saviour!".

Cybertiger
24 December 2007 at 13:27

@Ray

Cobblers ...

Mr Fnortner
24 December 2007 at 18:50

To Benson: Thanks for the invite. Paganism sounds fun; aimless but fun. To Ray: Hogwash.

Religion as a concept is an absurdity. It's like forming teams to champion various answers to a mathematics problem. Once the answer is known, the truth is available for all. Only a moron would argue, for example, for two plus two to be three. "Yay Team! Go, Three, go!"

So, if there were a god, there would be no need for religion (teams). The answer would be known; the truth would be available. God himself would set us all straight by his mere presence: "Holy shit! Here comes god now. Look sharp."

But, sad to say, there is no god. Again, you have been deceived by the professional superstitionists peddling the story of a secret god (or gods) only they know about, lurking in the shadows. You people are so gullible.

JBUK
24 December 2007 at 23:18

Thank you to (most of) the protagonists above - the discussion is very interesting and entertaining.

The problem with all of this is the world is full of human beings - some deists, some atheists and some agnostics. Sadly, as with the rest of the animal world, we humans are preoccupied with the problem of evolution and the spreading of our genes. A good way of gaining an advantage in the gene-spreading game is of course obtaining and holding on to POWER. And lo and behold all three groups have Head Honchos and lots of wannabe Head Honchos. All three have different strategies to hold on to power and that is where the arguments above come into play.

This is the only area where I disagree with Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion - he insists we must challenge deists whenever and wherever. 99% of humans can get on with each other no matter what our beliefs - the other 1% have or want power so badly they will cause problems whether they are religious or not.

We can argue till "kingdom come" as to who is right - but it doesn't matter UNLESS one group tries to force the others to conform. And if they do - they're only being human and the others may or may not have the will to resist.

At that point "some of us may be surprised" to quote the above - indeed we may be surprised as to who is surprised.

JB

Benson
25 December 2007 at 01:05

mr fnortner, i have a feeling your devilish sense of humour just might stand you in good stead before the great throne. i can imagine you telling jah (that is, jehovah of the jews for some or emperor haile selassie of the rastas for others): "we insist on our fees. we kept your eyes on the screen all this time. pay for the entertainment or go to hell.' but, sincerely, you want a god, don't you? and you are sad there isn't one, altho you are ready now to live with your sadness and invert it as cynicism in your converse with people of faith. i don't want a god because i know one can easily be invented with the right mindset, features, age, capacities and weaknesses, class, attitudes and gender. and am only bothered by the other person's mythology once i find in it precepts that say 'our god(s) like to drink the blood bled fresh from an infidel, and make sure the vessel is a cleaned-out skull.' i wish this were only me metaphorizing in a morbid vein. i wish that such bloodthirst among gods, or rather in our ideologies which are our gods, were only a historical topic. now mr fnortner, my drift is this: hasn't religion and science collaborated on many an exercise in fetching gods or ideologies their precious brew? why do you think of science as tho it represents a value that cannot be turned into a nightmare? or religion as tho it has not inspired people to surpass themselves in advancing a civilized vision of society? do you really think many anglican priests today are christian in the way saul the jew later paul of the gentiles defined the faith in his epistles? or that nigerian muslims will not find ways of getting prophet mohammed (the peace of allah be on his soul) drunk were he to suddenly appear to them, mary-like, in ibadan? religion and science can be fine or wrong-headed, like the human beings who do them. and just as there are teams in religion so we find sects in science. and the answers they formulate for the same questions are contradictory. eg, quantum mechanics vs the general theory of relativity. that perplexed even einstein, one of the biggest gods in the scientific pantheon. and einstein had a deep regard for mahatma gandhi, a hindu to the last day of his life, who has a deep regard for christ, tolstoy and thoreau.

Mr Fnortner
25 December 2007 at 03:56

Benson, Thank you for your kind words.

I have no doubt that sometimes religions inspire, and that some scientists are mad. It matters little to me. Nor do I believe that science has answers that religion does not.

I believe that religions exist only because, and exactly because, of the absence of a god.

Were there a god, religions would become irrelevant inasmuch as the god would present himself, and there would no longer be a need for mystics, shamans, or sorcerers to reveal some vague god behind the curtain to us.

Yes, I think a god of the universe would be a very interesting being, and having one would be quite a phenomenal situation.

But I'm not sure I would want a being who would tinker with the physics of the universe based on whim, or the prayers of the pitiful; someone who could do you serious harm if your neighbor could offer enough sacrifice to appease him; or someone whose own arbitrary actions are defined as 'good' while our own would always be uncertain--to be judged later (according to some religions, this is how gods work).

On this planet are billions of people who suffer under less than free governments to a greater or lesser extent. Imagine adding a whimsical, arbitrary, meddlesome, oppressive god to that. If I could invent a god, he would be more like Santa Claus.

Benson
25 December 2007 at 07:19

J, Mr Fnortner, angrywelshman, writeon, and, yes, Dawkins (does he have the time for the game he somewhat started and withdrew from?),

merry or happy christmas according to the parlance in your village. i ahd a riotous bout of boozing last night. my father asked me why too much? and i told him we were'nt sure there'd be drink and drinking where we might find ourselves on the morrow. his reply? better a place where there's no drink than a place where there's drink but no drinking allowed. we celebrate xmas after our fashion. after all, the xtians seized the day from the pagans of europe.

Mr Fnortner
25 December 2007 at 23:17

Thank you, Benson.

To all and sundry: "[Your deity goes here] rest ye merry, gentlemen; let nothing you dismay." I mean it.

mapou
27 December 2007 at 03:55

Richard Dawkins wrote, "We never wondered why God, if he wanted to forgive our sins, didn't just forgive them."

Well, I have and so have others. The simple answer is karma. Karma is a sort of energy conservation principle of the spiritual realm. All debts (sins) must be paid so as to conserve karma and it does not matter how they are paid. God cannot change the principle of karma by fiat any more than he can change the principle of energy conservation. It's that simple. But then again, being an atheist, you forgot to mention that Newton was a firm believer in a Christian God and that he used Biblical texts to predict that the world would end around the year 2040. This, and his obsession with alchemy did not prevent him from being, as you say, one of the greatest scientists that ever lived. I guess science does not belong to atheists after all, in spite of what you would like the rest of us to believe.

Mr Fnortner
27 December 2007 at 16:40

Please leave the character attacks out.

A real god can do what he flippin' wants. No laws of the universe are beyond him...he created them; he can dismiss them, honor them, breach them, or change them. We will never know, or care. Don't limit a real god with the chains your imagination needs and wants.

Now, I want to believe. Show me a god who is master of the universe. No bafflegab, please. Just introduce me to the being who spins the planets, holds the stars in his hands, and gives a hoot whether we live or die.

Surely you can do that. Surely someone that real can't go undetected. Surely you can say, there he is!

writeon
27 December 2007 at 17:35

Mr. Fnorthner and many others!

I think many of the comments here have been far more interesting than Dawkin's article, more subtle and provocative. Thanks.

Fnortner. I believe I understand what you're refering too. When I use the word 'him' and 'he' when describing 'God' this is for convinience. I don't believe in a personalized God. The traditional Christian version of an old man, with a long white beard, sitting on a cloud, sort of thing.

Clearly this is a gross over-simplification of a raher tricky and difficult concept - God. Even in traditional Christian theology God is somewhat of a paradox and a riddle. For me, our attempts to explain the world around us through the medium of religion are both understandable and necessary. Before the advent of science and physics the world was a mysterious place, there was so much we didn't know, so much that was unexplained. Without a 'story', existance, us and the world, would appear totally chaotic and without meaning, perhaps even insane. Religion was an attempt to create a 'story' that gave sense and meaning to the unknown and unexplainable.

In essence isn't 'religion' and 'God' an attempt to answer the question, what is it that 'controls' the universe? Perhaps 'God' refers to 'conciousness'? Where does conciousness come from? Is conciousness the ultimate expression of the 'power' that created and controls the universe?

Cybertiger
27 December 2007 at 20:28

@writeon

"When I use the word 'him' and 'he' when describing 'God' this is for convinience."

You should capitalise when you refer to G-d - to do otherwise is disrespectful of The Deity.

mapou
27 December 2007 at 20:32

Mr. Fnorthner,

There are fundamental immutable laws of existence that not even God can create or change. The Christian God never claimed the idiotic and illogical powers that you want to ascribe to him. He only created the material universe ex nihilo using the irreducible laws of existence. And he did not create the spiritual realm either. Your spirit is yours and eternal. Only the matter that makes up your body was created. Same with Satan.

As an aside, I think that it is perfectly legitimate for atheists and others to demand falsifiable predictions from the intelligent design movement. You asked for it. Now you got it:

Falsifiable Prediction About Human Cerebellum From the Bible:

http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2007/12/falsifiable-predict...

More falsifiable scientific predictions about the brain to come soon from the same source.

JL
28 December 2007 at 13:37

Dawkins, in an act of magnanimous yuletide goodwill, clearly wishes to force his very special understanding of a tolerant and pluralistic society on every one else. How tiresome.

Isaac Newton was no friend of atheism, in fact, one of his major obsessions was determining the exact dimensions of Solomon's temple. We might also wish to recall the religious faith of Robert Hooke, Newton's rival. Even Leibniz, whose ideas were predicated upon an advanced understanding of natural theology, attempted to unify the opposing denominations, not destroy them.

Dawkins is incapable of engaging with the core of Christian theology since his knowledge of textual issues is amateur - does he, for example, have any understanding of Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Syriac, Hebrew etc? I doubt it. He shows himself similarly incapable of engaging with the scholastic brilliance of Suarez, De Soto, Molina, Bellarmine, Calvin, Gomarus, Beza, Turretin, Voetius, Wollebius, Carleton, Fenner, Ward. I doubt if he has even heard of these thinkers, and it is even less likely that he would be able to deal with the complex philosophical arguments that they produce even if he could be bothered to learn enough latin to enable him to do so.

One of the cardinal rules of academia, especially at the highest levels of operation, is to produce evidence and to keep to those domains over which you have a mastery. Dawkins singularly fails to do this, straying foolishly into the realms of Ancient History, Biblical Studies, Ontology, Cosmology, Theology etc etc. His dogmatism over issues that are outside of his own competence is surely at odds with the Scientific Method that he purports to uphold.

In any case, the idea that mankind could understand all reality completely through experiment and observation is a logical absurdity of megalomaniacal proportions. Humility is an essential part of any inquiry, whether one is an atheist or a believer. To insist that modern science will eventually understand and conquer all is merely to restate the naive and wild prognostications of the nineteenth-century Postivists. In fact, such a position is not really 'scientific' at all, saying much more about the ego of the author than about the future epistemological range acquired by the Scientific Method.

Unfortunately, I really go with Occam's Razor, ie. the idea that the simplest explanation is the best. It really is easier to believe that all reality has a single, unified, indivisible cause; after all, Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that you cannot have an infinite regression of secondary causes. Evolution, by contrast, remains a contorted mass of scarcely verifiable hypotheses that would have us believe that men evolved from apes for no apparent reason. It has become, by virtue of its increasingly extravagant claims to encompass all of reality, a sort of religion or sect in which no dissent is tolerated. Better to be a freethinker and maintain one's critical independence.

J.
29 December 2007 at 14:18

JL,

How can the selective and subjective views of various writers, theologians and religious apologists ascribe with certainty to all and in common, what is truly reality?

While I agree it is extraordinary hubris to believe we can unlock all mysteries of the universe from our limited vantage point, we must have some yardstick to measure reality from where we sit and the scientific method is so far our best tool.

It is not a religion but a tool to find out the physical things we have in common, not what separates us from each other and nature.

Another hubris is to continue to ascribe this exclusionary importance to just ourselves and not consider the realistic possibility that there are other life forms existing in this enormous universe which we currently have no cognition of. Even on our planet, in terms of numbers we are enormously overwhelmed by organisms that we can only view through microscopes.

This is not in any way an attempt to devalue human life, but is in my view a life-affirming quest to find a larger humility that soberly realizes we are part of a greater cosmos that we are only really beginning to understand. I find it no insult that I have evolved from so-called lower organisms. It just reinforces the reality that life is a complex interwoven continuum and is much more awesome to contemplate than to persist in believing old creation stories that are no longer relevant to what we do know about the universe.

We can have philosophical debates about the meaning and ethics of existence by a multitude of philosophers, but how do we find what is the absolute truth? This universe is just too large and inaccessible by us to state that we know the absolute truth. However, through the reasonable use of science and the open-ended pursuit of common knowledge we can continue a fact-finding journey even though we may never arrive at a final destination.

We have the power to seek a consensus of what works best for our survival and harmony, but this combative quest to narrow down the universal purpose behind reality will be perhaps forever frustrated because we have no physical way to experience personally the whole universe.

Instead of fruitlessly laboring over an elusive ontological and transcendent unverifiable purpose, we could better use our cooperative energies to find a consensual method that ensures our mutual survival and the health of this planet.

Mr Fnortner
29 December 2007 at 17:13

mapou, you are so cute. You really must hem your god in in order to have him, mustn't you? He must be your subject, mustn't he? Your god cannot change the universe because then he wouldn't fit into your cosmology. How juvenile and unimaginative.

Free your god to do anything. He should be, after all, OMNIPOTENT! Not mapou-potent--just what mapou can understand and accept--malleable, controllable, convenient, useful, safe.

And furthermore, don't put words in my mouth to open up off-topic avenues. I demanded no "falsifiable predictions from the intelligent design movement." Evolution and creation science are not at all what is being debated here and are best left out of this discussion.

rafael
30 December 2007 at 14:22

THE ATHEIST MENTAL DISORDER

http://scientistcanotcalculateearth.blogspot.com/

We will look at the theories of evolution in their two main foundations: the expansion of the universe, and the quantum or microorganism. To understand it with reason, thee first subject we are confronted with is God. Let us read a few verses from the Bible. Psalm 14:1 of the Old Testament says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." This sentence may also be translated as "The fool does not want God in his heart." The result of saying this can be found in the second sentence of the same verse: "They are corrupt; they do abominable deeds."Let us also take a passage from the New Testament. Hebrews 11:6 says, "For he who comes forward to God must believe that He is.

"THREE KINDS OF PEOPLE “

Whether you claim too be a Christian, a non-believer, or a seeker after truth, we will start by examining the subject of God. In this respect the world is divided into three camps. The first is that of the atheists who do not believe in a God. The second consists of the agnostics. They have no sure knowledge about the deity. On the one hand, they dare not say there is no God, but on the other hand, they are not clear if God does exist. We belong to the third category of those who believe in God.

PROSECUTION

Is there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather. Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say "no." I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.

QUALIFICATIONS

Many people assert that there is no God. As a prosecutor I ask you first to check the qualification of these people. Are they qualified to make such claims? Are those who assert that there is no God moral or immoral? Do not just listen to their arguments. Even robbers and swindlers have their arguments. Of course, the arguments support them as robbers and swindlers. The subject of their arguments may be very noble; they may talk about the state of the nations and the welfare of society, but their opinions cannot be seriously considered. They are not worthy of passing such judgments. If a man is upright in his conduct and moral judgment, we can give credibility to his words, but if not, his words lose their credibility. This is especially true when it relates to the question of deity. It is interesting to note that the moral standards of men are directly related to their concept about God. Those who admit their own ignorance have a passable standard, while insistent atheists invariably have a low level of moral responsibility. I do not claim to know all atheists, but of the several thousand that I know, none of them possess a notably commendable morality. You may tell me that there was once a moral atheist, but if there was one, he is dead. Or you may tell me that there will be a moral atheist, but whoever he may be, he is not here yet. At least we can say that for now, we do not know a moral atheist.

NO ATHEIST IS MORAL

Recently in a College at Uk, the geologist, who is a defender of evolution therefore an atheist confess he is arrogant, the atheist said “there is nothing wrong in being arrogant, I’m right, so there is nothing wrong”. He was debating with a Christian professor who never change his good attitude even though he was being ridicule and mocked. Regarding the behavior of the Atheist it was sad to see a defender of science behaving as a child, he do not have moral standards, man who do not have a sense for Gods law, he will not respect anyone , regarding respecting other he is immoral. There were many students on the campus who did not believe in God. They were greatly offended by these words. This atheist offended the Christian professor again and again; the atheist said to him I like to interrupt you. He kept offending the Christian professor saying “you want to believe in God because you are insecure; the proof is that you have the psychological need of God, your God and you are false and have a mental disorder”. This is completely unethical using the right words immoral. Even the body language of this old man of Uk tells, something wrong with him, he cross his arms in a defensive way , he did look the audience , look to the floor and even when he smile was sad. He looks nervous and evasive; his body language showed that something was wrong with him. He made funny gestures and faces at the Christian professor. How can anyone with moral decency shuffle his speaking to do gestures and call to the other professor false in his believes and say that he has a mental disorder.

No atheist has helped you become better? Has he made your thoughts cleaner or your heart purer? Or did it make you just the opposite?"

"Regarding to what they speak”

This atheist use scientific methods of questioning, and this are endless, their speaking for sure is has not good intention. How come they will ask: Why Jews and Muslims who believe in God, hate each other and kill each other because their religion.

Muslims attacked Americans in 9/11 because they hate Americans and do not tolerated Americans way of living.

What are the intentions of these questions? Most of people know that Jews and Muslims have been fighting over their land for thousands of years; it is not for the God in which they believe it has been always the land. And that is their problem is up to then how they deal with it. The atheist confuse them as well others and said they kill each other because their God. Mr. Atheist can you put into your head that is because the land. Or what is what you are really after. Sure you have a bad tongue.

And why do you ask them about 9/11 actually you Atheist went to the Middle East and told them. You hate Americans because they allow prostitutes on the street. Of course they will say they do not like their respectfull woman to be in the street as prostitutes. But you Godless

Man understand, that their government is theocratic, meaning their believe in God is their Law and constitution, they live in a Theocratic society and as humans that is their right.

Why did you bring 9/11 up? USA is democracy. Do you want me to believe that my country USA attacks the Middle East because they want to establish Democracy in the theocratic Middle East? Even if that is truth, if I’m ask I will obey to my president and go to Middle East

And kill or get kill, soldiers obey orders and thousands of young people have died in this war, that is the way that my country is, do you know how many Middle East civilians have died there? Hundred of thousands, those who are dead are better off of those who are among the living ones, their suffering is not a joke and for USA soldiers is a pain in our soul, so who are you to bring up an issue that USA soldiers will never question.

China which is the domicile of more than half the world’s population is communist. Atheist should go there to recruit people. You atheist are in your line of question totally immoral.

I do whish that my president George W. Bush wont let you come to America and I will tell him about your videos The God of delusion and the atheist debate, because in those videos you make fun of my president. Do not think that because our presidents did not claim the rights to the back bone of the net years ago, they will never claim it back.

Now you ask: why believers hate, homosexuals? Isn’t good to see two male’s holdings hands on the streets, and to girls kissing on the train? Maybe, because evolution is not only about natural selection, but about sexual selection. Are evolutionists teaching the children of America about sexual selection, “Sexual selection is a special case of natural selection Sexual selection acts in an organisms’ ability to obtain by any means necessary to successfully copulate with their mate or in groups” Sexual selection simple means I can chose anyone male female is ok. Can you see that your teaching has contaminated humanity?

Do you Atheist hold at what you believe?

Of course not Richard Dawkins has called himself, a cultural Christian. If he is against Christians how he dares to call himself a Christian of any kind, I do believe in God I will always say that I do love God as my Father. But your stamen’s shows that you are not firm in your believe rather, you are liar therefore immoral.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm

Their line of question is groundless or they are carrying out and agenda. I think for old man as they are, it is normal to question everything as well senile to think they know everything. They think of themselves as modern scientist question everything even if they don’t know the subject. Because they live in the twenty first century they know better than those who live thousands of years ago. And why they are confused using the word religion as if it means the same as believer. According to the lexicon Webster dictionary “religion is a way to trying to reach or seek God” “a believer in God have already found Him and knows Him”. Why atheists don’t know the dictionary? Do they know Greek or at the least Hebrew languages what about Aramaic or Latin. In the bible there are tree different words in Greek to designated the word “life”

1. Bios referring to the biological life our body

2. Psycho referring to the soul logical means study. The word Psychology means the study of the soul, emotions, mind and will.

3. There is another word for life that is Zoe the highest life. Whenever the bible speaks of eternal life speak of Zoe. In a Greek dictionary you will find the distinction. I wonder what an atheist that only knows the bible superficially how will they explain that in the bible there is a word Zoe that was transliterated from Hebrew to Greek as Zoe.

They should not speak about the bible, because their knowledge is superficial, have they read the bible fifty times? have they read 4000 others books? What about the evolution of species how many times they read it.

For this reason, their whole argument is not worthy of consideration. The question is, "Are you qualified to claim that there is no God?" If your hope is merely hear something that isn’t knew, you have lost your ground already.

IS MAN THE GREATEST?

One day a young man came to me and said, "I do not believe in a so-called God. Man is the greatest. He is the noblest among all creatures. There is no God in this universe; man is everything." We were sitting opposite each other. After hearing what he said, I stood up, went to one side of the room, stooped down, and gazed at him intently. I said, "Do you know that in the past many Americans missionaries went abroad USA specially to China, they came with not support from their churches, during the boxer rebellion many of them died, but sow a seed of life “Zoe” that made of the idolaters Chinese genuine believers, when the communist took over China many were put on jail because of their believe in God, thousands of them died, the bible was taken away, a communist reform took place, everyone have to listen to Mao because communist in China as well Stalinism are base in the cult or worship of the personality of their leader. So believers were whipped out. Because they wont exult Mao over God , but today in china there are 200 millions of genuine believers, how this happen, God did it, can atheist recruit in America or in the world 200 million like them, of course not , so why you say that there is not God and you are greater than Him.

HOW VAST IS THE UNIVERSE?

I then said to the young man, "And here you are! You have not even walked through the whole earth, and yet you consider yourself greater than the whole universe. Let me ask you, do you know how vast the universe is? Take light for example. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Try to calculate how far light travels in one minute, or one hour, or a day, or a year. There are some stars whose light takes three thousand years to reach us. Go and work out how far they are from us! And you think you are so great! I would therefore advise all atheists and young men alike to admit the incompetency of man not only morally, but intellectually and academically as well.

"CAN MAN EXTEND BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF TIME AND SPACE?

Another time when I was in Kaifeng, I met another one of those young, stout atheists. I walked up to him and patted him on the shoulder, saying, "I saw God today!" He stared at me in curiosity and demanded a further word. I replied, "You are God! If you know that there is no God, then you have to be God." He asked for an explanation. I said, "Since you are convinced that there is no God, you must have traveled over the whole earth. If God is not in Shanghai, He may still be in Nanking. You must have been to both places. That is not all. If God is not in Nanking, He may be in Tientsin. You must also have been to Tientsin. But you cannot draw this conclusion simply by being in China; God may be in another country. So you must have been to every country on this earth. If God is not in one place, He may be in another. Therefore, you must have traveled throughout the world. One never knows if God is hiding at the North Pole or the South Pole or in the woods or wilderness somewhere. So you must have combed through all those regions as well. If God is not found on earth, He may be found on the moon. You therefore must have been to the moon. God may also be on other planets or in outer space. This means that you have traveled through space and all the other galaxies as well. If you can say that there is no God, it must mean that you have traveled throughout the whole universe. If this is the case, you must be God yourself."This is not all. Even though you know that God does not exist in Shanghai today, how about yesterday? Perhaps God will come tomorrow. You say that you know there is no God today, but what about last year? And how do you know that God will not come next year? You say that there is no God this year, but what about a thousand years ago? Very well, you must be an everlasting one who knows everything about the past and future. You have to be a being beyond time and space. You must be in Tientsin and in another country at the same time; you must be omnipresent from the east to the west, from the North Pole to the South Pole. Who else but you can be the very God? If you are not God, you can never be qualified to say that there is no God.

"THE EVIDENCE”

Some will immediately step back and say, "I have never said that I know there is no God. One can never tell whether there is a God or not." Well, if you cannot give a conclusion, I will ask witnesses whom I consider trustworthy to present arguments to you and prove the existence of God. Again let me say this, you are the judge, and I am the prosecutor. I am presenting only the evidence before you. Decide for yourself if there is a God.

THE UNIVERSE

First, looks at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.

ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONS

The universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them. What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one. Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God? You have to think and then make a decision about it. Everything that is by chance has certain characteristics. I would suggest you list all of these in a detailed way, the more the better, and then compare all the phenomena of the universe with your list. Alongside of this make another list of the characteristics which, in your opinion, would be prominent if the universe was created by an intelligent Being. Now by a simple comparison of nature with your two lists, it will be easy to draw a reasonable conclusion.

CHANCE EVENTS

What are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance. We will write down these four characteristics on our list.

CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATION

Now let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother's womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year's calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.

MICROORGANISMS

Let us turn to the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro and micro aspects, is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.

IS IT OCCUPIED?

Once I was preaching the gospel with a co-worker of mine in a village. On the way back we were extremely thirsty. There was neither a teahouse nor stream for us to get water. In fact the whole area was uninhabited. After walking for a while we came across a thatched hut. We went to the door quickly and knocked. For a long time there was no answer. We thought that no one lived there. When we opened the door and went in, we found that the floor was swept clean. In one of the rooms was a bed with nicely folded sheets. There was a teapot on the table, and the tea in it was still warm. I said, "Surely someone must be living here. All the arrangements indicate beyond doubt that this place is occupied by someone. We should not drink this tea. We must get out quickly or else people will think we are thieves." We walked out and waited for the owner to return. By observing the arrangements of the house, we concluded that someone was living there, without having seen the occupant. In the same way, we know that God is there by the arrangement of everything in the universe, although we cannot see Him. Every single phenomenon of nature is so balanced, organized, meaningful, and functional. You may say that they come by chance, but it is impossible for me to believe that chance is its sole originator. The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Only foolish people can say in their hearts that there is no God.

CHANCE OR DESIGN

The universe has to be created by someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.

A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECT

One witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man's heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world. As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as "man." At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.

THERE IS GOD IN THE HEART

Do we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving --God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear. By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.

NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?

Once an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: "You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it." I said, "Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.

"THE WORDS AND THE HEART”

A young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, "Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already." He said, "What do you mean?" I went on to explain: "Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side." He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, "You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?"Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning you will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God

CONSIDER THIS

I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God's existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God. As those who desire to know the truth, we must go one step further to find out what kind of God He is. God is the greatest Unknown. We must spend some time to find out about this unknown One. The next step now is to know what kind of a God He is.

THE BIBLE

In the past few thousand years’ man has been inquiring about the nature of God. Is He kind or is He righteous? Is He indifferent towards us, or is He extremely interested in human affairs? These types of questions are the direct cause of all human religions. What is religion? Religion is man's inquiry about God and his explanation of Him. Through these explanations, different men have arrived at different concepts about God. What kind of God is He? This is a big question. It is also a very serious question. We have all given our thought to this subject at one time or another. The question might even have occurred to our little mind when we were five years old. All men, educated or ignorant, have been intrigued by this question. It comes naturally after some contemplation and observation.

But a person trying to speculate about God is like an ant attempting to understand a human being. It is extremely difficult for the little creature to try to realize our life, nature, and mind. In the same way it is impossible for us to try to comprehend God. For this reason, in the past few thousand years, all kinds of people, theologians and philosophers alike, have done much thinking about Him. What has God been doing all this time? Has He been indifferent to us or has He tried to reveal Himself to us? What is God's attitude? Do you think He would say, "I am God and have nothing to do with human beings. I do not care what you think about me. I shall stay in heaven as God. Let the mortals be ignorant!" Or do you think He has a desire to reveal Himself to man and visit him?

When I was in India, I saw some people lying naked on beds studded with nails. Some walked with bare feet on burning coals. These people devoted a great deal of energy to seeking after God. What has God done to them? Did He hide Himself and take no notice of them at all? Has He not kept Himself as a perpetual mystery? This is a great question. We have to consider it scientifically and objectively in order to find out what God is like.

A few years ago I spoke on a similar subject to some medical students in an auditorium in Cheloo University. I said that man is an organism with a life. God also is a life. Man's life is higher than that of the lower animals, and God's life is even higher than that of man. I asked the students, "Since we realize that all living organisms have some common laws and express some common traits, can you name them?" Different ones then started to bring up different points. At the end we summed up the discussion in this way: all living organisms contain two common characteristics. You can call these characteristics their common expressions or their common laws. First, every life wants to preserve itself. It tends to reproduce itself. There is the ability to produce posterity, to continue its own life. Second, every life wants to have fellowship with other lives. It cannot stand being by itself. When a man cannot find fellowship with another human being, he goes to dogs, cats, fish, or birds and makes friends with animals. All living creatures desire fellowship.

Based on these two characteristics of life, namely, the preservation of itself and fellowship with others, laws of human government are instituted. For example, the death penalty reflects a convict's desire to preserve his own life; punishment comes in the form of taking away and terminating such a life. This is the way to inflict suffering on a life. Imprisonment, as a less serious punishment, cuts him off from having fellowship with others. This reversal of the life principle becomes then a suffering for him. From this we see that punishment is applied according to the principles of life.

With these two chief characteristics in mind, let us turn to the life of God. God is an organism of a higher order than human beings. He is naturally governed by this law of life. We can know God by the characteristics and distinctive features of His life. From this we can deduce whether or not God wants to have fellowship with man.

There are two kinds of religion: religion based on natural concepts and religion based on revelation. Natural religion starts with man as the center. He is the one that is seeking after God and studying about Him. What then is revelation religion? Revelation religion comes directly from God. He is the One who comes to reveal things to us. Man's thoughts are often useless fancies. God's revelation alone is trustworthy. Christianity is different from all other natural religions in that it is a religion that comes from revelation. Christianity begins from God. It is God who comes to seek out man, rather than man who seeks after God.

I will not try to persuade you to believe in Christianity or to read the Bible. I will only make a few suppositions. We will treat the subject in the same way as if we were solving a problem in geometry. We will start from the suppositions and then deduce our arguments step by step. We will examine our reasoning’s to see if they are sound and if our conclusions are logical. As in mathematics, with some problems we work forwards, while with others we work backwards. At any rate, in the end we should be able to tell whether or not a supposition is justified.

We have to make a few suppositions. The first one is that God exists. This in fact has been covered by us already. We have agreed that there is a God. He is a Being who has a purpose.

Second, we assume that God has a desire to reveal Himself to man. If God wants to reveal Himself to man and if He wants us to know Him, how does He do it? In what manner can He be made known to us? If He speaks to us through thunder or writes to us through lightning, we will not be able to comprehend His message. How then does God make Himself known to us?

If He is to reveal Himself and if He wants us to know Him, He necessarily must do it through human means. What then are the common ways that men communicate with one another? First, they do it through speaking and second through writing. All means of communication, whether telegraph, telephone, sign, or symbols, are all included in these two categories. If God is to manifest Himself, these are the only two means for Him to do so. For the present we set aside the aspect of speaking; we will see how God communicates with us through writing.

If God reveals Himself through writing, of all the volumes written by different people throughout the centuries, there must be one book which is divinely inspired. This is a very crucial test. If such a book exists, it proves not only the existence of God, but it contains His written revelation to us as well. Is there then such a divinely written book?

In the search for such a book, let us first mention a few basic principles. Suppose I want to order a book from a publisher. If I can tell him the name and author of the book, there will be no trouble getting it. If, however, I forget the name and author of the book, I can describe the characteristics of it to the publisher, such as the contents, size, color, binding, etc. The publisher will then search through all his books and locates the volume I want. God has one book in this universe. How do we find it? We have to know its characteristics first. If there is any book that has been written by God, it must meet certain conditions or have certain qualifications before one can say that it is from God.

Let me put forth a few propositions. If there is a book written by God, it must first of all mention God. It must tell you that it is from God and that its author is God. This is the first qualification. Second, it must carry a moral tone that is higher than what we commonly know. If it is a fabrication, it can at the most be on the same level as man. Third, if there is such a divine book, it must tell us about the past and the future of this world. Only God knows clearly what occurred in the past and what will happen in the future. Only by telling us these matters will we know Him as God. Fourth, this book must be simple and available so that all may be able to secure and understand it. If there were only one such book in the world, then only a very few people would be able to see it. It would not pass the test unless it is a book accessible to everyone. In the United States there is a group of people who claim to have a book from God. It is engraved in gold and contains only twelve pages. Such a book then would not be accessible to the Chinese. God would never write to us a book at which we could not look.

Now the matter is simplified. Let us repeat these four conditions once more. (1) If such a book exists, it must tell us explicitly that its author is God. (2) It must carry a high tone of morality. (3) It must give a detailed description of the past and the future of the universe. (4) It must be available. Let us pick out some of the more important writings throughout human civilization and check them against these qualifications to see if any meets our requirements.

We will start from books that are generally considered to be good. Let us take the Chinese classics of Confucius. They are immediately disqualified under the first requirement, for none of them claims to be written by God. They do have a high tone of morality, but they fail to give the origin and destiny of the world, the universe, and man. This does not mean that they are worthless books; it means that they do not contain the qualifications we want. They are not what we are looking for.

Let us go to the classics of other cultures. There are numerous volumes of famous writings, but none of them passes the first test. They are all clearly written by man. They may be masterpieces in philosophy or morality, but they are not written by God, nor are they divinely inspired. We have to set them aside.

There is a book in India called the Rig-Veda. It once dominated Hinduism. However, it does not claim to be written by God.

Another book called the Avesta, written by a Persian named Zoroaster, is also extremely influential in the Middle East. It does not claim to be from God either. Moreover, its moral tone is not especially commendable.

Let us come to the Koran of Mohammedanism. This is the closest one we can find. It tells us that it comes from God; it meets the first requirement. However, it does not fulfill the second requirement, for its moral tone is too low. The heaven it describes is full of lusts and flesh. God could never write a book with such licentiousness and immorality. Hence, this book does not pass the test of morality.

After searching through all the books, you have to come finally to the Bible. If God desires to communicate with man, and if He does so through writing, then this is the only book that can pass the four tests. Hence, this must be the book God has for man.

What does this book say? In the books of the law in the Old Testament, it says, "Thus said the Lord," at least five hundred times. Other books in the Old Testament repeat the phrase about seven hundred times. In addition to the references in the New Testament to the speaking of God, the Bible has more than two thousand claims of divine origin. If God has no intention of communicating with man, we can forget about this book. But if He does communicate with man through writing, then this book has to be of immense value. Can you find another book where God is claimed as its author that many times?

We have to see if the Bible meets the second qualification. Let us take a look at its moral tone. Everyone who has studied this book confesses that it carries the highest moral standard. Even the sins of the noblest persons are recorded and condemned without mercy. Once a strong opposer of the Bible was asked by his son, "Why are you so strong against the Bible?" He answered, "If I do not condemn it, it will condemn me." This book does not let us get by easily. The human concept is that all sexual acts outside marriage are considered as fornication. The Bible, however, says that even an evil thought is fornication. Human morality condemns an act of killing as murder, but the Bible condemns a slight hatred in the heart as murder.

We consider a man who lets his enemy get by without paying vengeance as forgiving. But the Bible charges man to love his enemy. How high is its moral tone and how low we are before its standards! You cannot help but admit that it presents the best ethical code for humanity.

Furthermore, this book describes in detail the past and future of the universe. Once a friend told me that he could believe in everything the Bible says except the parts in Genesis and Revelation where it talks about the origin and destiny of the heavens and earth. I told him that if this is indeed a book from God, it must, of necessity, contain these matters. If the Bible did not contain Genesis and Revelation, it would be the same as any other book, and we would have to look for another book; it would not be the one we want. But the past condition of the world and its future destiny are recorded here. Hence, the third qualification is also met.

What is the circulation of such a book? Last year (1935), more than two hundred million copies were sold. Can you name another book that has such a high circulation rate? This statistic, moreover, is not limited to just last year; every year the number has remained approximately the same. In one sense this book is very popular. In another sense it is like a thorn in your hand; it pierces you. This book gives you a headache. It creates an unspeakable uneasiness within man. It even causes man to oppose it. In spite of this, its annual sales are still over two hundred million.

Furthermore, this book is translated into more than seven hundred twenty languages. In every country and among every race, there is a translation of this unique book. It is extremely easy for anyone to obtain a Bible anywhere in the world. If the Rig-Veda were God's book, then more than half of the world would perish due to a failure in obtaining it. Even if you put the Rig-Veda in my hand, I would still be unable to understand it. If only the educated ones can contact God, then I am destined to go to hell. If only the Indians have the opportunity, we Chinese, as well as other races, are out of hope. If God speaks through the Rig-Veda, then where can we find that book? Maybe we can only find the original copy in the London Museum. And even that may not contain the original meaning of God's revelation to man.

This is not all. The Bible contains sixty-six books and it is divided into the Old and New Testaments. It was written by no less than thirty people. The span from the time the first book was written to the time when the last book was finished is more than sixteen hundred years. The places where they were written are also different. Some were written in Babylon, some in Italy, some at one end of Asia Minor, others at the other end of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the writers themselves differed in their backgrounds. Some were lawyers; some were fishermen. There were princes, and there were shepherds. All these writings by men of different backgrounds, languages, environments, and periods are put together. The amazing thing is that it is still a complete book.

All those who have had some experience of editing know that in order to put together a few articles written by different authors, it is necessary for the authors to be of comparable level of academic achievements and viewpoints. Even when the academic standard and viewpoints are similar, there will still be conflicts and contradictions when you put five or six articles together. But the Bible, though complex in contents, contains history, poetry, laws, prophecies, biographies, and doctrines and was written by so many different ones at different times and under different circumstances, yet when you put them together, they surprisingly run as one continuous volume. There is no conflict or contradiction. They are written in one breath.

If you read this book carefully, you have to admit that God's hand is behind all the writings. More than thirty people of varied backgrounds and ideas in different times and places wrote these sixty-six books. When you group them up, they link together as if they were written by one individual. Genesis was written about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and Revelation was written ninety-five years after Christ. There is a time span of sixteen hundred years. One talks about the beginning while the other projects the end of the world. Yet whatever begins in Genesis is concluded in Revelation. This amazing feature cannot be explained in human terms. Every word of it has to be written by God through man. God is the motivating One behind the whole composition.

There is another remarkable thing about this book. In itself it is a book that gives life. Yet countless numbers of people have lost their lives for its sake. There was a time when anyone who held this book in his hand would immediately be put to death. The most powerful empire in history was the Roman Empire. There was a time when this empire summoned all its forces to destroy this book. Everyone who possessed it would be inhumanly persecuted and later killed or burned. They wiped out thousands of people and burned countless copies of the Bible. They even set up a monument at a place where they killed Christians. On it was the inscription: "Christianity is buried here." They thought that when they had burned all the Bibles and removed all the Christians, they would see Christianity lying there beneath their feet. But it was not long after that when the Bible came back again. Even in a country like England, which has already accepted Christianity as its state religion, you can still find tombs of martyrs for Christ if you visit different places there. Here and there you can find places where the Bible was once burned. Or you may come across a tombstone that tells you that such and such a person tried so hard and wrote so many books in his life to oppose the Bible. One place may tell you that the Bible was once burned there, and another place may tell you that Christians were once killed there. One signpost may point you to a statue of martyrdom, and another may point to a site of Bible burning.

Why is it that so many people have tried so hard to oppose this book? Why is it that men would pass by other books, but would either oppose this book with every fiber of their being or would put their whole life to the stake for it? There must be something extraordinary here. Even if you do not believe that this is God's word, you have to admit that there is something unusual about this book.

This book seems to be very simple and easy. If you consider it from the historical point of view, it tells the origin of the universe, the earth, the plants, human beings, how they established their kingdoms, and how they will eventually end. This is all. There is nothing special about it. Yet it has been handed from generation to generation for centuries. Today it is still with us. Moreover, if you do not confess that it is truth, you have to conclude that it is false. You can disregard many books, but you cannot ignore this book. Nor will it ignore you. It will not let you go. It demands a verdict from you. It will not pass you by.

Another remarkable thing about this book is that almost half of it is prophecy. Among the prophecies, almost half of them are fulfilled. The other half is for the future and await fulfillment. For example, it predicted the fate of the nations of Moab and Ammon and of the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Today when people talk about big cities, they mention London and Shanghai. Then it was Tyre and Sidon. They were two chief cities of the ancient world. The prophecies concerning these two cities were all fulfilled. Once I was in the Middle East. For some reason I did not visit those two places. However, I bought two pictures of those cities. It amazed me when I looked at those pictures. I could not help but believe in the Bible. It was prophesied that if these two metropolitan cities did not repent, they would be destroyed and devastated. Their land would become hills of rocks and pebbles where fishermen would come to dry their nets. In the pictures that I bought, there was nothing but fishing boats and open nets on the shore. This is only one small fact that proves the reliability of biblical prophecy.

If you compare past events with the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that they all correspond one with another. For another example, take the birth of Christ. Isaiah prophesied concerning a virgin with child a few hundred years before Christ actually came. Later, He was born indeed of the Virgin Mary. The prophecy was accurately fulfilled. As the prophecies concerning the past have been fulfilled, so the prophecies concerning the future must also be fulfilled.

If God desires to communicate with man, He must do so through common human channels of communication. He must use the human language or human writings. In other words, there must be a book in the world that is a direct revelation from God. If such a book does exist, it must contain the four criteria we mentioned. Now we can say that such a book is found. This book tells us that God desires to have fellowship with us. He speaks to us through this book. Through it God is no longer an unknown Being. We can now know Him. This book is the Bible. I hope all of you will read it .

THIS IS A SERIOUS MATER, IS HE CRAZY? A LUNATIC? A LIAR? PLEASE YOU’RE VERIDICT

God desires to reveal Himself to us. He does so through means that are comprehensible to man. These are namely written and spoken language. We have seen how God reveals Himself through writing. Now we want to take a look at His revelation through speaking.

Suppose that you have had correspondence with a person for many years; however, you have never seen him. Naturally, you would want to know him more by having some direct acquaintance with him. Full understanding of someone cannot be achieved merely through writing. Direct contact gives a better chance. It seems as if communication through speech is of a more intimate and thorough nature than writing. When spoken language is added to written language, communication becomes enhanced. If you take away either of the two, you have a gap. Of course, if you take away both, communication is completely voided. Effective communication is always carried out by these two means.

If God's intention is to reveal Him to us, He must of necessity do so through speaking. But how does God speak? Does He trumpet from the heavens? If so, we would all be frightened to death. We would all run away. No one would dare to listen. There is a chasm between Him and us. He, being so high and great, would drive us away from His holiness. How then does He speak?

THE WINTER ON THE MOUNTAIN

let me relate to you a story. One winter I was staying on the mountain Lu-shan, recovering from an illness. It was immediately after the war, and there was practically no one living on the mountain. In the vicinity of my dwelling, one could hardly see anyone all day long. I am a quiet person by nature. This kind of environment was very appealing to me. Not only was it quiet there, but the weather was cold as well. From morning till dusk, all I saw was a boy who came three times to deliver my meals. At the beginning I was quite at ease. But after a while, even a person like me began to feel lonely.

One day after lunch I went to take a nap. There was a balcony outside my bedroom window. When I woke up I saw some little creatures gathering around the balcony. Bits of my meal had been dropped there, and the birds were busily chirping around them. As they hopped around, they chirped and made many cheerful noises. I said to myself, "All right. Since I cannot find any human beings, I will try to make friends with these little birds."

I rose up and went out to greet them. But in an instant they all flew away. An idea came to me. I took some of the leftover rice and began to arrange it in rows, with only a few grains in the first row and gradually increased them towards the entrance of the doorway. I hid behind the door and watched them coming. Soon they gathered around again. I said to me, "This is my chance." I walked out and began to make friends with them. But the minute they saw me, they all scattered. Some perched on the branches of the tree across the balcony and stared at me, as if trying to determine what my intention was. Every time I approached them, they flew away, and every time I walked away, they came back. This went on a number of times.

I wanted to preach to the birds. I wanted to tell them, "Little birds, I have no special intention in doing this. This is winter on the mountain, and food is scarce. I have enough food with me, and I just want to share it with you. Please be at peace and come down. I only ask that as you eat, I can sit among you. I want to listen to your songs and watch you playing. Come. Let us be friends..." But the birds would not come. They did not understand me. I had to give up.

Later I had a certain realization within. I began to preach to myself. I said, "This body of mine is too big. If I could shrink from five feet eleven inches to the size of a bird, and even change myself into a bird, they would not be alarmed by my presence. I could then tell them my heart's intention, and we could spend the winter on the mountain Lu-shan together."

We have a similar problem today. If God remained God, we could never understand Him. If He talked to us in His language, we would be altogether lost. If God wants to reveal Himself through speaking and have fellowship with man, He must shrink Himself to such a degree that He and we are the same. Only then would He be able to speak to us and tell us of Himself and of the mysteries of the universe. Only then would we be able to understand Him.

Has God become a man to reveal Himself through His speaking? Let us again use the method of supposition. What if God revealed Himself through the human language? What if He became a man and fellowshipped with man? The implication is tremendous here! It would mean that in this world, among all the human beings throughout history, one person was not merely a man, but God as well! If it is granted that God became a man, there must be a mortal who was also divine. We need to find out about this One.

This is a thorny task. But we will employ the effective method we have adopted—namely, setting down a few principles. Then we will search according to these qualifications and directions. We want to base our evaluation on what manner of life a person should possess and what qualifications he must have if he is God.

The first condition that this person must fulfill is that he must claim to be God while he is on earth. He cannot be apologetic about it. He must declare boldly that he is God. Only then can we know who he is. Without this declaration, we have no way to guess his identity. Hence, a declaration is our first qualification.

Second, the way this person came into the world must be different from ours. If I said that I am God and yet was born in the same manner as every other mortal, my words would carry no force. If on the other hand, I dropped down from heaven; my assertion would be taken seriously. The way this person comes into being must be extraordinary. He must come in an absolutely different fashion; otherwise, his words will not carry the necessary weight.

Third, this man must bear a moral standard that is far above that of all other human beings. He must have God's holiness, and his life must bear the mark of God's righteousness. For example, if I became a bird and lived in exactly the same way as other birds, without showing them anything extraordinary, I could not convince them that I was actually a man. If God is to become a man, His moral behavior must be of the highest quality. This is the only way that we could identify Him as God.

Furthermore, if a person is God, he must necessarily be able to perform things which no mortal can do. If he can achieve what we cannot achieve and know what we do not know, we can say that he is truly God.

Lastly, this person must be able to tell us the divine purpose concerning man. What was God's purpose in creating the universe and man? How does He take care of human pains and sorrows? What is the origin and ultimate solution of everything in the universe? What should our attitude towards God be? All these he must reveal to us. Unless this one shows us what we do not see, we cannot say that he has shown us any revelation.

We will set down these five conditions and put the whole of humanity to the test. Let us find out if someone meets the five requirements. Such a person would surely be qualified to be God.

The first person to put to the test should be you. Of course, you are not God, because you have never claimed to be God. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So that rules out you and me. Very well, now we will introduce Confucius. If you read his books, you will find that he did conduct a very moral and proper life. But he never claimed to be God either. Hence, he fails in the first step.

What about Sakya Muni, the founder of Buddhism? Not only was there an absence of the claim of divinity, but his philosophy itself is void of deity. He did not believe in the existence of God. Since he had no God, he cannot be God either.

Next, go to Mohammed. He believed in God. But he never claimed to be God. He called God Allah and himself the prophet of Allah. If you go through every person in history, you will discover that no one ever claimed to be God except One. That One was Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed to be the living God. No other person put forward such a claim.

How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth.

What did Jesus of Nazareth say about Himself? In John 10:30 He said, "I and the Father are one." We need some explanation here. In the Bible the invisible God is called the Father. The Son manifests and expresses the Father. What is hidden is the Father, and what is expressed is the Son. The Son is the One who can be seen and touched. Behind, you have the Father. In front, you have the Son. The two are actually one. They are the two sides of the same reality. When we talk about two, we refer to the fact that one is hidden while the other is revealed. When we talk about one, we say that the revealed One is just the hidden One in manifestation. This is the biblical interpretation of the Father and the Son.

Therefore, when Jesus of Nazareth one day said, "I and the Father are one," it was a statement that no one else could make. This man was saying in reality that He and the invisible God are one entity. He is God and God is He. God is the invisible Father, and He is the manifested Son. The Father and the Son are one! Who can this One be that made such a claim? Is He a madman? Is He out to deceive us?

After Jesus spoke such a word, what reaction do we see? "The Jews again took up stones that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these works are you stoning me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, are making Yourself God" (vv. 31-33). The Jews understood very well that Jesus' words meant that He claimed to be God. After hearing these words they wanted to stone Him to death. A claim was made by Jesus, and an accusation was charged by the Jews, both of which concerned His divinity. Was Jesus insane? Did He speak pure nonsense just to cause people to kill Him? Or was He a swindler setting up some kind of a scheme? If so, what was He trying to gain? Was He trying to gain death?

Perhaps we will go back a little bit to the earlier parts in the Gospel of John and see what it says there. John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." Why has no one seen God? It is because God is invisible. Jesus said that He was the only Begotten of the Father; He expressed the invisible Father. When you see the only Begotten, you see the Father.

Again He spoke concerning Himself, "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (3:13). Have you ever heard anyone say such words? I cannot say, "No one has been to Shanghai, but he who comes from Shanghai to Tientsin, even I, Watchman Nee, who is in Shanghai." If I say so, I would be gibbering nonsense. But Jesus was speaking a heavenly language. He said that He came out of heaven and is still in heaven. What can a person be if he can be in two places simultaneously? Either he is God or he is a lunatic or he is a liar. If you have not yet believed in Christ, please give a verdict to this issue. Who is this man?

Let us read John 3:31-32: "He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is of the earth and speaks out of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of this He testifies, and no one receives His testimony." He said that He came out of heaven and was above all. After a while He said the same thing again. Let us see what the purpose behind these words is. He came to preach the things of heaven, but no one received His words. He mentioned words like "heaven," "above all," "out of heaven," etc. What kind of man was He? Confucius never said this. Neither did Sakya Muni or Mohammed. Was Jesus of Nazareth a madman, a liar, or the Son of God?

John 5:17 says, "But Jesus answered them, My Father is working until now, and I also am working." He always put Himself in the same place as the Father. Verse 18 says, "Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." When we read His words now, we may consider them to be ordinary remarks. But the Jews knew what He was saying. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God. The words in fact meant that God is His Father and He came to express God. The invisible One is God, and the visible One is He. Therefore, the Jews sought to kill Him. What should we do about such an unusual person?

John 6:46 says, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God, He has seen the Father." Here the word is clearer. He said that no one other than Himself has ever seen God. Only He knew what the Father is like. I can only say with soberness and reverence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. Read John 8:18. What did He say? "I am one who testifies concerning me, and the Father who sent me testifies concerning me." The question in verse 19 is most interesting: "They said then to Him, Where is Your Father? Jesus answered, you know neither me nor My Father; if you knew me, and you would know My Father also." Have you seen what He was saying? They had seen Him, yet did not know Him. Of course they would not know the Father either, whom they had not seen. If men knew Him, they knew God. Who is He then? If knowing Him equals knowing God, is that not the same as saying that He is God and God is He?

Read John 8:23: "And He said to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." The preposition "from" in this verse is ek in Greek. It means "out of." That is how it should be translated. He said, "You are out of this world, but I am not out of this world." This man claimed to be from above; He did not come out of this world. Who can He be?

The Jews were confused. They were totally bewildered. Who was this man? The ancestor of the Jews is Abraham. They boasted of being the descendants of Abraham in the same way the Chinese boast of being the offspring of Hwang-it. The name Abraham was highly venerated among the Jews. Now they brought out Abraham. Please read John 8:53: "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too. Who are you making yourself?" How did Jesus answer them? Was He greater or smaller than Abraham? In verse 56 Jesus said, "Your father Abraham exulted that he would see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced." What is this? Even Abraham had to look forward to Jesus! Hence, verse 57: "The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Now please pay your attention to Jesus' answer in verse 58: "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am." Tell me who this man is. If I told you that before Hwang-it was, I, Watchman Nee am there, you would immediately write me off as a lunatic. Some of you would say that I am a liar. The words Jesus spoke made Him a madman, a liar, or God. There can be no fourth alternative.

We have to read on. In John 10:37-38 Jesus said, "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know..." Know what? The clause following is very crucial. It is a big statement: "...that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Who then is this man? He said that He was in God and God was in Him.

Passages like the above are numerous in the Bible. I shall mention one more. Read carefully John 14:6-7: "Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known My Father also; an

J.
30 December 2007 at 16:07

When a spamer like the above posts comments the size of a small book then it seems this person is more interested in telling us all what a large ego he has. All that space wasted to arrogantly proclaim nothing but the subjective ramblings of just one individual and not showing any of us one shread of physical evidence for his assertions, only preferential inferences of a universe he wishes for but has no tangiable proof whatsover to present to his listeners.

Mr Fnortner
30 December 2007 at 16:24

Amen.

Mr Fnortner
30 December 2007 at 22:32

Furthermore, back to my first post two weeks ago (has it been that long?), "The Bible et al., and religions for that matter, are closed systems. Their beliefs and proofs are insulated from the outside world...."

Try as rafael and mapou before him might, using the Bible to prove that a god exists is like using the novel Gone with the Wind to prove that Scarlett O'Hara exists, or War and Peace to prove that Pierre Bezukhov is real.

While real people and places adorn great literature throughout time, the existance of Atlanta and Napoleon and their presence in these novels do no more to make fictional characters real than does a real Abraham or Bethlehem make the god of Abraham real.

Prove your god from outside the Bible; prove him not from ignorance and wonder, but from knowledge; and prove him from facts, not the specious and faulty logic of the zealot.

Harry
31 December 2007 at 00:11

""The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." This sentence may also be translated as "The fool does not want God in his heart." "

What kind of a foolish god would give fools that he loves the free choice to disbelieve in him, and then send them to hell for exercising that choice? And for that matter, what kind of a fool would spend three hours writing a post so long that only a couple of people will bother to read to the end?

Cybertiger
31 December 2007 at 08:03

@Harry

"What kind of a foolish god would give fools that he loves the free choice to disbelieve in him, and then send them to hell for exercising that choice? "

Heaven or hell? What choice will G-d exercise for you?

Cybertiger
31 December 2007 at 11:59

@Harry

“What kind of a foolish god would give fools that he loves the free choice to disbelieve in him, and then send them to hell for exercising that choice?”

Although I don’t believe in Him, I rather suspect that G-d is a communist and that heaven is a gigantic commune. This would suggest that Harry and a huge democratic majority of Amerikans will not get to commune with their heavenly Father at the end of times. Thus Harry and the Great Democracy will have to use their freedoms to make a choice: to recant their capitalist ideals and convert to communism, become Muslims, or go to hell.

Harry
31 December 2007 at 12:33

Another wonderfully intellectual post, Cybertiger. Every time I read what you type, I play "spot the contradiction". Its amazing that you can fit at least one contradiction into every post. How do you do it?

"Although I don’t believe in Him, I rather suspect that G-d is a communist"

See the contradiction? Time to develop some opinions, I think- you wouldnt get into so many intellectual knots. Or better yet, give up debating and try yahoo chat. Youre clearly not bright enough to debate.

Cybertiger
31 December 2007 at 13:17

@Harry

“Every time I read what you type, I play "spot the contradiction". Its amazing that you can fit at least one contradiction into every post. How do you do it?”

Sorry Harry! You, like our beloved Amerikan brethren, tend to bring out all that is sinful in me – and the very worst in paradoxical contradictionariness.

Harry
31 December 2007 at 13:35

You know Cybertiger, using long words wont make you sound intelligent. "Contradictionariness" is not a word- "contradictions" is the word youre looking for. Adding the word "paradoxical" is not necessary because you are not specifying a type of contradiction- you are adding words that you dont use in conversation because you think it makes you sound intelligent. I suppose that at least when you type complete gibberish like above youre less likely to contradict yourself. An exception, of course, would be throwing in a word that you no doubt rarely use in conversation, "beloved" (a direct contradiction of previous posts), again to bulk out the sentence in order to make yourself sound intelligent.

Yahoo chat- give it a shot.

Cybertiger
31 December 2007 at 14:00

@Harry

"Time to develop some opinions, I think- you wouldnt get into so many intellectual knots."

And what is your opinion on G-d? And please try to avoid any contradictionariness, paradoxical thoughts or intellectual nots.

Harry
31 December 2007 at 14:12

Again, Cybertiger, its not "contradictionariness", its "contradictions" (and there's no need to bulk it out with "paradoxical thoughts", as it more or less means the same thing). "Contradictionariness" is not a word-youre just trying to make words longer in order to make yourself sound more intelligent than you are. Its not "G-d", its "God". I don't have a problem with "paradoxical thoughts"- that's your problem. Go ahead- try and find a contradiction in what Ive said, here or elsewhere?

As was rather implied earlier, I dont believe in God. Are you going to try and debate me Cybertiger? Or just poetically ramble your way to a reply, using longer words than youre comfortable with, and the usual gibberish?

Cybertiger
31 December 2007 at 14:24

@Harry

"Are you going to try and debate me Cybertiger?"

I don't try to debate with non believers or blathering, rambling, opinionless folk.

PS. I'm going out to buy some champagne now - to celebate the end of another bloody year.

Mr Fnortner
31 December 2007 at 14:27

It looks (from your posts at least) that Harry and Cybertiger neither believe in someone named God. Agree on that, guys.

Now, Cybertiger, for someone who doesn't believe in this being named God, you certainly are afraid of his wrath. You can stop deleting characters from his name now--he won't hurt you.

And if are doing this from some misplaced sense of respect (for a nonexistent being??) do you delete letters from the names of other important fantastic beings, like S-nta Claus, The L-ch Ness Monster, Z-us, B-ddha, M-ckey Mouse?

Help us out here. We don't understand you.

JL
31 December 2007 at 14:33

Rafael's post is overly long and should be removed from the discussion.

J, you make a lot of valid points but I think it IS important what one's metaphysical position is (including whether one rejects the idea of metaphysics altogether) since what you believe in general about the universe can have very specific practical consequences in daily living, treatment of oneself and others etc. I would argue that even the most ardent and vociferous atheists live their lives in unconscious or semi-conscious acknowledgement of the existence of a higher being or purpose ie. teleologically. I also think it highly unlikely that anything exists in and of itself (although Aristotle said that a thing's nature is defined by an 'inner principle of change'). I find it difficult to see why a piece of primitive protoplasm would want to 'evolve' into a 'higher form' of life - what evolutionary advantage would there be, given that it can survive perfectly adequately as protoplasm? To me a radical transformation could only come from an external source, ie. there would be need to be some kind of external programming or informational input.

As for Dawkins, although no one can doubt his superior intelligence, he overstates his case by straying into fields about which he knows relatively little and is sometimes unnecessarily discourteous to his opponents.

None of the theologians I cited earlier can be described as 'infallible' (incidentally, I am Protestant and reject any claims to Papal 'infallibility'); I merely name them to indicate the existence of philosophical and theological traditions that are unknown to Dawkins and even to many theists. The Protestant and Catholic Scholastics had many useful things to say about causality and the arguments for the existence of God. I would, however, agree that many unreasoning forms of Christian fundamentalism have emerged that do nothing to further the Christian cause.

I continue to admire Dawkins as one of our greatest living geneticists but I dissent from him over the issue of ultimate causation. It's important that we maintain an atmosphere where these things can be freely discussed - openness and freedom of speech should always be cherished and defended.

Harry
31 December 2007 at 14:40

I see. So, Ill assume that you couldnt find a contradiction in any of my posts then, like I asked for?

And then, theres the classic Cybertiger! I do enjoy it... Youre now saying that you dont speak to people who are "opinionless" (again, this isnt actually a word, but that's alright- you were looking for an adjective and couldn't think of one. I understand). Unfortunately, youre simply stealing the criticism I have of you in the hope that itll have the same effect when you throw it back! Its like your opinions of politics- you simply take them from people like Pilger and try to convince everyone that theyre your own. Then when you debate, you get into terrible intellectual knots because youre trying to combine all the opinions youve stolen from other people from across the political spectrum! Fantastic!!! Thanks Cybertiger, you made me laugh, as always. Yahoo Chat- try it.

Mr Fnortner
31 December 2007 at 16:08

JL, While discussions of evolution often muddy discussions of the existence of a god, I have to seize on your inquiry: why a piece of primitive protoplasm would want to 'evolve' into a 'higher form' of life - what evolutionary advantage would there be, given that it can survive perfectly adequately as protoplasm.

One of the classic misunderstandings (I feel that word is offensive--forgive me) of evolution is that the thing evolving does so consciously or with a purpose. In fact, evolution is outcome-neutral, and the thing evolving is in no way involved. All evolution is accidental.

An organism produces offspring and dies indifferent to the genetic hand dealt to its offspring. The next generation lives or dies based on the hand dealt to it. Nature is cold and indifferent. If the genetic cards dealt are good, an organism will produce offspring of its own. Otherwise, doom.

If a genetic mistake, an accident, produces a freak that has an advantage over its brothers and sisters, it may win that round. Most genetic accidents are fatal, however. Nature doesn't side with the freak. Accidents in the genetic code rarely work to the advantage of the offspring produced.

The intellectual challenge we face arises only from the vantage point of the winners. We stand here today as the product of 4 billion years of evolution looking back on the trail, asking ourselves how it could be possible to have arrived here by chance. Surely, we protest, someone must have directed this outcome.

(The dead do not ask such questions, but the dead know exactly where evolution went wrong for them. Only the living have the opportunity to claim that their own life is the result of a plan. Only the winners have the privilege to claim that their victory is the result of a blessing.)

An evolutionary victor who can claim to be the anointed is a forced result! If there had been no top dog (so to speak) on this planet, there would be no one to ask the questions. The world had only to wait for the first evolutionary branch to produce a sentient being, and voila! We had a winner. Had it not been for that asteroid, perhaps a dinosaur would have claimed the award.

If no sentient being occurred on planet Earth, then no one would be here to notice. How many other planets have experienced life, I wonder, without producing a being that claimed it was all done for him? And do you realize how close Earth came to having two species of human in our time? Neanderthal died only 30.000 years ago. Can you appreciate the enormous ethical and moral issues that accident has spared us?

In summary, evolution is not purposeful, nor conscious, and completely dispassionate. Our presence is not by chance but by accident, and was not at all guaranteed. We can question our origins and claim superiority only because we are here--we are so lucky.

J.
31 December 2007 at 16:59

JL,

I agree that there should be more openess on all sides. It is very easy to become reactionary in these things.

How we conduct our lives and promote the health of civilization is important. I believe our species has enough cultural experience derived from numerous sources including the parts of religion that encourages our better qualities to find a suitable common purpose that promotes our common welfare.

If we could get away from the notion that this purpose can only come from a supernatural source, I feel we could find more in common to work with. The constant battle over whose view of God is the correct one to me seems highly unproductive and dangerous to our survivial.

Cybertiger
31 December 2007 at 19:36

@Mr. Fnortner

"Now, Cybertiger, for someone who doesn't believe in this being named God, you certainly are afraid of his wrath."

I fear the wrath of powerfully stupid white men ... who appear to speak to Him ... and are simply following orders ... e.g Dubya.

"You can stop deleting characters from his name now--he won't hurt you."

G-d is a silly affectation that I've noticed Jewish people use in respect of their Revered One. Perhaps a Jewish passer-by could explain the silliness?

PS.In my view, the Jewish G-d appears a more superior, primitive, brutal creature, whose vengeful wrath is more fearful even than the Amerikan 3-in-One.

Harry
31 December 2007 at 20:03

One second Cybertiger, let me just make sure I understand. You abbreviate the word "God" because you think its silly? I suppose you spell America wrong because its silly too, do you? And I suppose you make up words because you think that that's silly aswell? What about the endless contradictions?

Come on Cybertiger, I dont buy it. I think you just do these things because you want us to think that you have something intelligent to say. Unfortunately, you dont. Its a shame.

Nice try changing the subject onto American politics, as though its relevant. I suppose that with Pilger here, its easier to steal an opinion about that, isnt it?

Mr Fnortner
31 December 2007 at 22:05

On the money, Harry. If the Jews are silly* then Cybertiger's affectation of their affectation leaves him, oh, vacuous at best. Let's go on to more substantive folk.

______

* No Jews I know are silly solely by virtue of being a Jew.

Cybertiger
02 January 2008 at 10:52

"* No Jews I know are silly solely by virtue of being a Jew."

Why did you feel the need to state the obvious, Mr. Fnortner?

Cybertiger
02 January 2008 at 12:06

@Harry

“Come on Cybertiger, I dont buy it. I think you just do these things because you want us to think that you have something intelligent to say.”

Are you saying that while George Bush is an intelligent designer, I am an unintelligent one? Are you playing the contradictionary paradoxicality game again?

“Nice try changing the subject onto American politics, as though its relevant.”

Pull yourself together Harry – the link between the power of G-d and Amerikan politics is sadly all too bloody relevant.

Harry
02 January 2008 at 12:51

"Are you saying that while George Bush is an intelligent designer, I am an unintelligent one? Are you playing the contradictionary paradoxicality game again?"

Haha again, a classic idiot Cybertiger post!!! Youre not even very good at reading, are you Cybertiger?! Where did I mention George Bush above?! I dont like him at all!!! My word, you are an embarrassingly lousy thinker! Youre almost too easy to make fun of!!! "Well, you disagree with me, so you must be a bush supporter!" Nice one Cybertiger, good logic all the way!!!

Now, to get back on to the subject of your lack of opinions. How (if I had said it, which I hadnt), would the above be a contradiction? Calling a contradiction a "contradictionary paradoxicality game" does not make it sound any more intelligent than it actually is- and it doesn't make it what intelligent people would call a "contradiction" either. Maybe you should look up "contradiction" in a dictionary?

And here's a question that you failed to answer before. Try again: Where, in this or past posts, have I contradicted myself?

Or cant you find an example?

You know Cybertiger, youre again hearing my insults, and because youre not intelligent enough to come up with your own, your simply using the same ones on me, in the hope that theyll have the same stinging effect! I say you dont have any opinions, you say I dont. I say you contradict yourself, you say I do so. Pilger says he doesnt like America, you say you dont. You read someone spelling America with a K instead of a C, you think its clever so you start doing it. Time to learn how to think properly, isnt it? Or, better yet, time to give up and go to Yahoo chat, where people have lower intellectual standards! They will tolerate people of lesser intelligence like yourself much more than here. Try it!

Cybertiger
02 January 2008 at 12:59

Oh, my G-d, my savi-ur, save me from the design intelligence quotients of Yahoo chat artists like Harry.

Harry
02 January 2008 at 13:39

Well, I guess you couldnt answer any of my above questions! Obviously I havent contradicted myself yet, eh?

And what, exactly, is "design intelligence quotients" supposed to mean? Does it actually have a meaning? Or is it just the usual gibberish designed to make you sound intelligent?! Because it doesn't actually make any sense- if we were to try and force it to, it would usually mean, "the quota of intelligence one has in the field of design". We dont have quotas when it comes to intelligence, nor to we usually talk about intelligence when we talk about the field of design (we talk about skill). And what the devil has design got to do with anything?!

Cmon, an explanation please! This should be good...

Mr Fnortner
02 January 2008 at 14:46

Harry, Mark Twain cautioned against wrestling pigs. He said you both get muddy, but the pig loves it. A word to the wise....

Harry
02 January 2008 at 15:01

^ Thanks very much! Its good advice... But Im always amused by Cybertiger! He keeps me entertained...

Cybertiger
02 January 2008 at 15:09

"A word to the wise...."

I believe Harry is wrestling in Holy Sh-t ... and loving it. And Mr. Fnortner makes do with a bath in devil's dung ... and I believe he hates it.

Cybertiger
02 January 2008 at 15:13

@Harry

“And what the devil has design got to do with anything?!”

I have heard it said that George Bush believes in intelligent design … and follows orders from the great crusading designer in the sky.

Harry
02 January 2008 at 16:12

What a terrible mess youve got yourself into, Cybertiger! So, what youre saying, is that your previous sentence didnt actually make any sense at all?!

Look at it again, Cybertiger:

"Oh, my G-d, my savi-ur, save me from the design intelligence quotients of Yahoo chat artists like Harry"

...And by "design intelligence quotients", you mean something related to the idea of intelligent design?! Sorry to disappoint you Cybertiger, but it just doesnt make sense, nomatter what you do with it! Its just a humiliating mess!!! Can't you type anything without embarrassing yourself?! Never mind that as someone who doesnt believe in God, I clearly dont believe in intelligent design anyway! Hahaha

Ok, forgive me Cybertiger, but I have to make fun of you some more with this, as youre such a fool its just entertaining to humiliate you like this.

Please rephrase the following sentence:

"save me from the design intelligence quotients of Harry", with a similar sentence, using the words "intelligent design","save me from", and "Harry". Go ahead- see if you can make it make sense, but I also want it to roughly be the same as your original bizarre sentence, hence justifying it.

Or maybe you should just admit the fact that your original sentence was just typed in order to make yourself sound less of a moron than you actually are?

Cybertiger
02 January 2008 at 17:22

Oh, L-rd, you’re blathering again Harry … squealing like a blessed hog in muck.

Harry
02 January 2008 at 17:41

Gotcha! I knew you wouldnt be able to rephrase your gibberish!!! So, there it is; a clear admittance that your previous sentence didnt make any sense! I knew it!!!

What did I tell you, Cybertiger- youre not smart enough to debate here! Youve proved it time and again in your posts here. Youve been humiliated repeatedly, and youve shown that you dont have any opinions whatsoever. Go on, give Yahoo chat a try. There's no shame in being unable to articulate intelligent sentences, or, indeed, in not having any opinions. Go ahead. Here, try this link- www.yahoo.com , and go to "chat". You can discuss music, movies, and girls. Itll be less taxing, and less humiliating. Maybe youll even make some equally moronic friends.

Mr Fnortner
02 January 2008 at 21:09

The thing with incompetents is that they do not realize that they are incompetent. It's sort of a self-defining, self curse. The more they wrongly believe in their own failed competence, and try to act on it, the more they unwittingly reveal their ineptitude. My statement here should bring a preposterous retort from Cybertiger along the lines of "it takes one to know one," or some other bafflegab nonesense you would expect from a 14-year old. Enjoy.

Harry
02 January 2008 at 21:29

Im sure he has some wonderful gibberish for you Mr Fnortner. Brace yourself- he may use words that dont exist!

Mr Fnortner
02 January 2008 at 23:34

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

(My gratitude to Lewis Carroll)

Cybertiger
03 January 2008 at 07:45

"...or some other bafflegab nonesense you would expect from a 14-year old ..."

Such a shame that Mr. Fnortner's G-d or Deity did not endow him with any sense, any little sense of humor, or any real sense of the funny side of death. As Mark Twain said, "cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education."

Cybertiger
03 January 2008 at 21:07

This thread appears to have taken on an Alice in Wonderland reality. And Mr Fnortner, G-d and Harry would appear to have constituted an unHoly Trinity, representing the unimaginable, the incredible, the utter meaninglessness ... of pond life.

Harry
04 January 2008 at 18:06

Cybertiger, youre the moron who just keeps coming back for more!!! Hahaha. Give up debating- youre clearly not intelligent enough. Ive humiliated you, shown that youre a complete idiot, and now Im actually bored!!! Until I make fun of you next time, bye bye! I wont check back for your next moronic response!!!

Cybertiger
04 January 2008 at 20:14

"Until I make fun of you next time, bye bye! I wont check back for your next moronic response!!!"

Harry ... see you in Pilgerland ... with Alice.

Andy B
06 January 2008 at 02:50

I seem to remember a Channel4 programme, aired in 2007, in which Mr Dawkins told Rod Liddell that he (Dawkins) had determed to embrace science and reject religion (I'm afraid I don't have his exact words) when he (Dawkins) was 16 years old.

To go more than 50 years without ever fully examining the ideas you rejected as a callow youth, but which you insist on misrepresenting at every available opportunity, seems, to me, to be the absolute antithesis of the rationality that Dawkins claims to value so highly.

Could it be the gentleman doth protest too much?

Quanti
06 January 2008 at 17:10

At the end of the day, what seems to be the problem is not that religious people believe in a god, but that the idea of god stops any intellectual thinking outside of the realm of theology. Theology gets it's premises from a story, just as anyone reading Strar Trek, Lord of The Rings or plays Dungeons & Dragons, gets their logic and rationale from books.

It is perfectly possible to create a belief system that is every bit as consistent as any other logical closed system. The problem of course is that the premises are wrong.

Sure atheist people believe often wrongly, but the difference is that what they believe in most of the times is based on some sort of tried out postulate, that there is a reason to believe.

In other words what most atheist believe in is something that can be corrected if wrong, because it is possible to "run the experiment" and report on it, quite in contradiction to religion.

There is a level of intellectual integrity and honesty absent in religious systems because they claim to be holders of a truth that should dictate not only how they themselves should live but also on how others should live.

If religious people would stop mixing their personal belief systems with what they think others should believe and act by then there would be no need for a Dawkins. But sadly religion have taken hostage society instead of only the believer and his/her god.

Jim
11 January 2008 at 04:01

I have read all of Dawkins books, some more than once, and I have read all of Daniel Dennett's books,essays and articles, as well as all of Hitchens and Harris's books. But it was Carl Sagin's writings on witch burnings that really outraged me. I didn't know that young girls of four and five were burned alive as well as their mothers by people acting in the name of God. We're talking tens of thousands of mutilations, and ofcourse their property became immediately owned by the Church. I am an atheist, but many of my friends are not, but they are kind, generous and sensitive individuals; basically good, decent people. I never tire of telling them that their nature is independent of their beliefs, not determined by them. Human impulses to be sensitive to the needs of others and to be respectful of others doesn't need an extra outer worldly motive or explanation. It is an evolutionary adaption that long before Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad proved beneficial for civilizing human behavior.

me2strauss
13 January 2008 at 23:46

I'm going to throw a monkey-wrench into this long series of dialogues. Of course, it is my personal opinion ("belief"- such a dangerour word).

1. Suffering exists-- never mind death, hunger, poverty, disease, birth defects, mutilation, wars, crusades, the Inquisition, environmental disasters that kill, animals killed for no reason, etc.-- but right here in this forum-- angst, envy, strident proclamations, unease over who believes me, anger, worry, subtle or overt claims of superiority. All types of suffering that disturb the heart/spirit/soul (take your pick), that cause all of you/us to lack a calmness, a stability of forces, an equanimity.

2. Suffering is caused by cravings-- broadly defined the strong desire or urge for or against something. the feeling that says-- you MUST/SHOULD believe/act, you CANNOT believe/act, the wish to HAVE something (agreement, kinship, common views, salvation, etc) or to loath or AVOID something (disagreement, diverging views, opposition, falsehoods, lies, etc).

3. Eliminate cravings to remove such suffering. Learn to exist without the emotions, thoughts, etc of this moment causing you to be swayed into such hates, arguments, passionate defenses, declarations, wishes for others to believe as you do, etc.

In fact, none of what you argue matters (I know all Christians will confirm that my soul will go to hell, but since I don't believe it, it's not relevant). All of you suffer, as do I (for my own whatever reasons), and none of this discussion alleviates any of it. The Christians don't go to bed any happier in having saved some souls (a strange concept to me), and the athiests can still sit on their smug views and fret (suffer) over the fact that they are "right" but not believed.

Of course you will recognize a Buddhist world view here.

Just a different drop into this maelstrom.

I promise not to add further to the debate.

May you all find a road that leads to peace, equanimity, and removal of suffering.

zouran
22 September 2008 at 16:26

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that

one has not been proven formally and cannot prove

formally its "Dogma", means don't use ur brain just

beleive in, so when you became inside Religion Cage, you can use ur mind because you're already inside the cage.

the absurdity is (I want to ask you do U think that God

has low level of thinking to make many religions! or he

wants mankind to kill each others, or he cannot keep one religion for all mankind or or he wants to test semi-humans!!!, even they don't understand themselves today, just imagine Mankind in the past!!! do U think they're more intelligent!!!, Good and Evil R just human being concept, yeah there r good and evil (mankind concept) for reasons one of it (mankind is an intelligent being) no way to live with each others without good and evil, each one will kill the others without good,,,,,or,,,, and without Evil there is no meaning to Good,,,,, no meaning to white if we didn't know black, to make "kind of conservation of species, else every one will kill the others for his interest,,,,"

somekind intelligence, used low level of Mankind thinking to get their goals, I've plain proofs, every thing in this universe is govern by science.

the absurdity is (I want to ask you do U think that God has low level of thinking to make many religions! or he wants mankind to kill each others, or he cannot keep one religion for all mankind or or he wants to test semi-humans!!!, even they don't understand themselves nowaday, just imagine Mankind in the past!!! so U think they're more intelligent!!!, somekind of intelligence, used Mankind low level of thinking to get their goals, I've plain proofs, every thing in this universe is govern by science.

but Mr. Bonehead always weak, that's why he looking for God to feel safer "his mind not up to face this bizarre world, to find reasonable explaination", do you think that God will test semi-human like that, this is nonsense the concept of good and evil is just mankind concept, every body should know, we did nothing in science, even we didn't open the gate of science yet, to make a real Artificial Intelligence we've to know what's perception unit, cognition, even our concept about perception, cognition,,, whats exist now a days is not Intelligence at all, newton, Einsein had special way of thinking, not because they had special Brain but becuase their way of thinking, some scientists should learn from their way, instead of their absurdity, yeah they could had some mistakes but who has perfection (inerrancy), we should be more reasonable. I think its useless, not all mankind have the ability to reasonable thinking, it looks like scientists not all of them has the ability to produce a real scientific work, "its kind of pseudo-science"

Joe Corrighan
26 December 2008 at 21:47

you've got to have something better to do with your time.

switch off the computer and get out the bloody house.

you haven't done anything so how can you say

anything.

x3073wg8zox
27 December 2008 at 15:28

1

x3073wg8zox
05 January 2009 at 02:20

- Ian Parker

Isaac Newton

25 December 2008

4.56

After the victory of the raving tongue,

The spirit tempered in tranquillity and repose:

Throughout the conflict the bloody victor makes orations,

Roasting the tongue and the flesh and the bones.

2.46

After great trouble for humanity, a greater one is prepared,

The Great Mover renews the ages.

Rain, blood, milk, famine, steel and plague,

Is the heavens fire seen, a long spark running.

10.42

The humane realm of Angelican offspring,

It will cause its realm to hold to peace and union.

War half-captive in its enclosure,

For long will it cause them to maintain peace.

5.32

Where all is good, the Sun all beneficial and the Moon

Is abundant, its ruin approaches:

From the sky it advances to change your fortune.

In the same state as the seventh rock.

3.92

The world near the last period,

Saturn will come back again late.

Empire transferred towards the Dusky nation,

The eye plucked out by the Goshawk at Narbonne.

1.16

A scythe joined with a pond in Sagittarius,

at its highest ascendant.

Plague, famine, death from military hands,

the century approaches its renewal.

10.74

The great seventh number’s revolution,

It will appear a time of the year for hecatomb.

Not far from the great millennial age,

When those can enter will leave the tomb.

5.84

He will be born of the gulf and unmeasured city,

Born of obscure and dark family.

He who the revered power of the great King,

Will want to destroy through Rouen and Evreux.

10.72

The year 1999, seventh month,

From the sky will come a great King of Terror.

To bring back to life the great King of Angolmois,

Before and after Mars to reign by good luck.

4.31

The Moon in the full of night over the high mountain,

The new sage with a lone brain sees it.

By his disciples invited to be immortal,

Eyes to the south. Hands in bosoms, bodies in the fire.

10.70

Long awaited he will never return,

x3073wg8zox
05 January 2009 at 02:20

In Europe, he will appear in Asia.

One of the league issued from the great Hermes,

And he will grow over all the Kings of the East.

3.94

For five hundred years more one will keep count of him,

Who was the ornament of his time.

Then suddenly great light will he give,

He who for this century will take them back very satisfied.

8.27

The auxiliary way, one arch upon the other,

Many deserted except for the brave one and his genet.

The writing of the Phoenix Emperor,

seen by him which is (shown) to no other.

2.29

The Easterner will leave his seat,

To pass the Apennine mountains to see Gaul.

He will transpire the sky, the waters and the snow,

And everyone will be struck with his rod.

5.79

The sacred pomp will come to lower its aisles,

Through the coming of the great legislator.

He will raise the humble, he will vex the rebels,

There is no emulator on the earth.

7.17

The prince who has rare pity and clemency,

After peace his great water barrels.

Will come to change by great jurisdiction of dead,

By great recreating, reign exquisitely.

10.73

The present time together with the past,

Will be judged by the great Jovialist.

The world too late will be tired of him,

And through the clergy oath-taker disloyal.

2.13

The body without soul no longer to be sacrificed,

Day of death put for birthday.

The divine spirit will make the soul happy,

Seeing the word in its eternity.

10.71

The earth and air will freeze a very great sea,

When they will come to venerate Thursday.

That which will be never stuffed and filled so much,

From the four parts they will come to honor it.

7.14

He will come to topography to expose the falseness,

The (water)urns of historic significant will be opened

Sect and holy philosophy to thrive,

black for white and the new for the old.

8.11

A multitude of people will appear at Vicenza

without force, fire to burn the Basilica.

Near Luna age, the great one of Valenza defeated:

at a time when Venice takes up the quarrel through custom.

2.41

The great star will burn for seven days,

The cloud will cause two suns to appear:

The big mastiff will howl all night

When the great pontiff will change country.

3.4

When they will be close the lunar ones will fail,

From one another not greatly distant,

Cold, dryness, danger towards the frontiers,

Even where the oracle has had its beginning.

Isaac Newton

2 January 2009