Faith

[dyrl]

Karla wrote:
are you ever going to give your view on life? I'm sure it would be very, very long!

Me:
It probably would be, so I'd rather quote the Almighty: "Live Long and Prosper!"

dyrl

[Hero]

Faith RULES.

===KEN

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Once again, Richard Dawkins gives science a bad name by hijacking a series supposedly on "The Genius of Darwin" to give free reign to his personal views for an hour. Darwin was indeed a genius, but Dawkins comes across again to me (a fellow scientist) as an extremely poor and unobjective one: reading out examples of incoherent and ungrammatical flame e-mails he has received by people who claim to believe in God, while not acknowledging that equally incoherent and ungrammatical attacks fly in the opposite direction as well, though of course as an atheist he is not on the receiving end of them; showing extracts of a debate he has with the Archbishop of Canterbury (who like me believes in evolution and God), but narrates over the Archbishop's arguments and then cuts to another sequence as the Archbishop opens his mouth to reply again to Dawkins' points (that next sequence being Dawkins looking out of a train window and musing on the deluded fool); and worst of all, even discussing the existence of God and life of Christ _at all_ in a programme supposed to be about the work of Darwin, whose science never covered those areas.

Evolutionary biology (and science as a whole) describes the universe, but says nothing at all about whether there is a God behind the universe and the laws of nature, nor can it prove that miracles (departures from the usual laws of nature) have never taken place. So why does Dawkins keep harping on as if it does or can?

The man really annoys me.

Martin

[Philip Ayres]

You aren't the only one.

[legios]

Aug 18, 2008 19:58:46 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

Evolutionary biology (and science as a whole) describes the universe, but says nothing at all about whether there is a God behind the universe and the laws of nature, nor can it prove that miracles (departures from the usual laws of nature) have never taken place. So why does Dawkins keep harping on as if it does or can?

Because Dawkins is a fundamentalist, every bit as much as the extreme US Christian Right, extremists amongst Sunni and Shia communities or for that matter extremists amongst the Jewish Right. The fact that he is a Fundamentalist Atheist is to my mind simply a difference in dogma, not in kind. He has the same blinkered trenches mindset of all groups who feel "Right-thinking is under attack, we must fight back against the forces of error that threaten to swamp us." He is prone to much of the same irrationality that he complains of in others and seems to tout his unwillingness to engage in proper debate as a virtue.

I was going to watch that series on Darwin, but once I saw Dawkins was involved I decided that my time would be better spent doing other things. And you are right a series on Darwin is no place for Dawkin's pet hobby horses, and the existence or non-existence of a god, god's, Kami or Loa have no real bearing on a theory of speciation, nor does the theory have any relevance to establishing whether either an Abrahmic deity or Amaratsu existed. It is about mechanisms of change, not first causes.

The man really annoys me.

Me too. As someone who would self-identify as athiestic I get very annoyed with Dawkin's attitude. His presumption that he speaks from a point of invoilable rectitude doesn't sit well with me, and his approach to debating with those of different views (which boils down to "shout at them until they agree with me or go away") isn't too far removed from the rhetoric of the playground.

Karl

[Andy Turnbull]

I was much the same I was looking forward to seeing the program saw it was Dawkins and within less than a minute of him talking I was enraged and so promptly switched it off.

He's an arse, plain and simple as blinkered as any other fundamentalist.

Andy

[dyrl]

I actually like Richard Dawkins - mainly for the same reason that I like seeing Ali G or Borat talking with a Christian fundamentalist or a femminist or any other "type" of person who isn't very elastic...

Dawkins amuses even without someone like Borat interviewing him

Also - I sometimes find it comforting that there are a few hardcore atheists out there - it must be a pretty sad an melancholy view of life....

I dunno - I rarely get annoyed at people's opinions any more... and I try to stay away from strangers

I'm getting older and more isolated and provincial as time goes by

Pete

[The Doctor]

Excert from an interview with Dawkins in Doctor Who Magazine #398, p66, July 2008:

Interviewer: Increasingly, the programme uses Christ-like imagery in its portrayal of the Doctor -
Dawkins: [interrupting]: Is the character supposed to be sympathetic to religion?
Interviewer: It's more that the portrayal of the character employs religious iconography.
Dawkins: Okay. Well, is it annoying religious people, in the way that Philip Pullman annoys them?
Interviewer: I'm sure it annoys some of them.
Dawkins: Well, I'm all for that. I am sufficiently hostile to religion. I hope Doctor Who doesn't give any aid or comfort to them.

----

His book, The God Delusion, is very much in the same tone. Several hundred pages of unfocused rants. I'm still bitter about the £3.49 I spent to read it!

-Ralph

[kayevcee]

Why was Dr Who Magazine interviewing Richard Dawkins? Also, why was he in the finale as the scientific consultant when the Earth was nicked while Patrick Moore is still alive?

-Nick

[The Doctor]

He was interviewed as he was in Who for about 10 seconds. And is married to a former Who companion.

-Ralph

[dyrl]

I would venture the controversial theory that Dawkins is justifiably mad at God for allowing for his phsysical disability.

This is why I have no problems with Dawkins ranting about religion. He sees thousands of healthy individuals babble on about a God a Justice and Love and probably has to wonder what HE ever did to deserve his terrible fate?

To the extent that each of us sees religion somewhat through a personal lense - is it hard to understand Dawkin's view?

Of course - you can probably point to hundreds of ills, disabled and suffering people who nevertheless believe in God -

But the point isn't to...err...point fingers...

Maybe another way to say it is - the passion with which Dawkins attacks religions - in my mind - bespeaks that he is in a way a very religious person himself.

In any event - he is the one radical atheist (other than Ayn Rand) that I never seemed to get steamed about when listening to them rant against religion.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Are you getting Richard Dawkins mixed up with Stephen Hawking, Pete? I wasn't aware Dawkins had a physical disability.

Martin

[dyrl]

Oops. You're right Heh heh

I'm getting old

Pete

[Fortmax2020]

I think that although they can be useful metaphors that doesn't exclude them being based on true events to one degree or another dependent on the individual story in question at the time. It's a very hard balance to find given all the different cultural understandings and styles of writing to be found in the Bible but there is usually some element of literal truth to most myths/stories/etc.

[championofjustice]

Sept 5, 2008 17:51:40 GMT @transforce said:

This may or may not be relevant, but my views on the afterlife have perhaps changed since my wife went to see a medium who gave her a message from her father. Usually I would totally dismiss this as a hoax, however there were so many details that the psychic told her that were too specific and that only my wife and I could have known. I am still not sure what I think about this.

Paul, however much hope that may have given your wife, it was a hoax. These "psychics" are experts at manipulating customers into revealing information without them realising and by using techniques such as cold reading to give the impression of having "psychic" knowledge, when really it is clever guesswork.

[Gav]

When thinking of these matters, i always reflect on a song written by a talented young fellow many years ago. He stated how important faith was.

In fact, i believe he stated that you Gotta have faith...

[Philip Ayres]

Sept 5, 2008 17:51:40 GMT @transforce said:

Ahem, on the question of religion, well I'm an athiest. I won't even entertain the idea that their is a God of any description. My wife goes to church every Sunday which is her choice, she takes my son which is fine too, however when he starts believing Chrisitian stories are fact I will have to intervene and explain that they are good moral stories, and that many of the events in the stories did not really happen, at least not exactly as described. I think the bible (or other religious book) as source of moral guidance is fine. The stories should be seen as metaphors. I realise that obviously this is an issue for great debate and that my views may not be popular.

You might be surprised quite how much in the bible *is* historically verifiable.

[Hero]

I love my bible!!!

===HERO

[chrisl]

I'm an agnostic personally, but in my mid-teens I owned a copy of The Holy Bible:

[Hero]

You might remember this bible dude. It was one I was going to send you 10 years ago that the american preacher gave to me.

It's been through a lot having me as an owner and has had a few markings here and there and still has the Surf Ninjas video sleeve as a bookmark.

===KEN

[Philip Ayres]

Sept 15, 2008 13:42:48 GMT Philip Ayres said:

Sept 5, 2008 17:51:40 GMT @transforce said:

Ahem, on the question of religion, well I'm an athiest. I won't even entertain the idea that their is a God of any description. My wife goes to church every Sunday which is her choice, she takes my son which is fine too, however when he starts believing Chrisitian stories are fact I will have to intervene and explain that they are good moral stories, and that many of the events in the stories did not really happen, at least not exactly as described. I think the bible (or other religious book) as source of moral guidance is fine. The stories should be seen as metaphors. I realise that obviously this is an issue for great debate and that my views may not be popular.

You might be surprised quite how much in the bible *is* historically verifiable.

Top illustration from my reading this morning - Jeremiah 51 v59 (part)

This is the message Jeremiah gave to the staff officer Seraiah son of Neriah

The text note for this verse in my NIV study bible reads

"An ancient seal has been found that bears the inscription "Belonging to Seraiah son of Neriah"

[dyrl]

When thinking of these matters, i always reflect on a song written by a talented young fellow many years ago. He stated how important faith was.

In fact, i believe he stated that you Gotta have faith...

Are you talking about Bon Jovi?

Pete

[kayevcee]

I believe it was George Michael who said that you Gotta Have Faith. Bon Jovi, on the other hand, instructs us to Keep The Faith.

-Nick

[Gav]

Through the teachings of these artists, we can all find inner peace. Some of us have been living on a prayer for years.

[dyrl]

others of us are half way there....

Peter

[Cullen]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread but I thought the following comment from Martin was quite interesting:

Feb 5, 2008 20:55:34 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

I think it's both arrogant and insulting to try to explain it away without recourse to any intelligence greater than our own.

Where you being a bit flippant or is this honestly what you believe? If so prepated to be insulted by an arrogant person
I find it fairly easy to explain the wonderous nature of stars or the cuteness of kittens without thinking that they were created by some kind of intelligence. We (humans) describe things in our own terms based on our own limited experience and knowledge. Just because things fall outside of our (current) understanding doesn't imply to me there is a creator behind it all. Kittens are cute and the stars wonderous because we view them as being so not because, IMO, they inherrently are.

I found your statement quite interesting as I've found you to be quite balanced on others religious views but you imply I should feel bad or you think worse of me because I don't believe in a higher force.

Personally I've never been able to logically justify the existance of a god or gods, certainly not based on Earths religions. Most are mutually exclusive of one another to some degree, so if only one is right then which one am I supposed to believe in? People who do believe don't seem to gravitate toward the best or most right religion but tend to follow the one close at hand, perhaps they one they grew up with. It doesn't surprise me that the white, British-born men of this forum who believe in a higher power are primarily Christian.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

February 5th? Good grief, that's going back a bit. Still, glad to see we've got away from pop music...

I said I considered it both arrogant and insulting to try to explain away me and music and literature and kittens and consciousness and hope and fear and happiness and despair without recourse to any intelligence greater than our own.

I didn't say it was arrogant and insulting to not believe in a greater intelligence. I said it was arrogant and insulting to explain all that stuff without using one. You haven't attempted to explain all that stuff, so I don't consider you arrogant and insulting. The arrogant and insulting people are those who think they are knowledgeable enough now as human beings to put forward all the requisite explanations. They are not just saying they don't believe in a greater intelligence, they are further saying that the universe is simple enough to now be within human comprehension. It isn't. We are nowhere near a Theory of Everything. It's a million years off in my opinion.

They are arrogant because they think they are cleverer than they really are. They are insulting, if not to God, at least to the universe, which is much grander and more awesome than can be captured by our current limited theories, however correct they may be as far as they go.

I like scientists who express their enthusiasm for science with awe and humility, grateful for what we have learnt so far but acknowledging that truly, meaningfully understanding the universe in all its richness through science is still far, far beyond current theories. I also like theologians who are humble before whatever God they worship, and have a strong sense of awe and mystery - in short, acknowledging that while we have glimpses of Him and should follow His teachings as well as we can, we are still children when it comes to the big picture, and the true face of God, and will be wrong about a lot of the details, especially when we limit Him for our convenience to concepts we can comprehend.

I dislike scientists who think they are close to knowing everything, and theologians likewise. I dislike people who think they know the truth, whether scientists or theologians, because in both cases they are insulting the universe by implying that it is no greater in complexity than the current state of their human intelligence. If there is a God they are insulting Him by presuming to be clever enough to fathom His mysteries.

I think any human who thinks they really know what's what about the universe is just deluded, because everyone in history who has thought that way has turned out to be wrong. Or even if they are right, it's only a tiny aspect of the big picture. Maybe there is no God, but if not there is certainly a vast great something else we haven't begun to understand, because physics, chemistry and biology as currently comprehensible to the puny human mind are nowhere near explaining me and music and literature and kittens and consciousness and hope and fear and happiness and despair. Not to the satisfaction of this conscious, feeling individual, anyway (who has read Darwin, Einstein, etc. and fully subscribes to natural selection, the Big Bang, etc., as far as they go - which is nowhere near to explaining consciousness, felt-as-opposed-to-simulated emotions, why the universe obeys any laws of physics at all, etc.).

I call the vast great depth of the universe, undiscovered and undiscoverable to the limited mind of the human scientist, God. And I choose to stick with the Christian faith I was brought up with, because everything Jesus teaches about right and wrong rings true for me, my particular denomination has accepted evolution or the Big Bang, and going to Mass for an hour a week to take me out of the materialistic human world, listen to deep philosophy and great literature/music and be humble before something beyond my comprehension, is damned refreshing to my soul.

Edit: Let me put it another way. Life has been evolving on this planet for half a billion years, as far as we can reckon. Through all that time, up until a few decades ago, that life was completely incapable of seeing views of nebulae like the one on page 1 of this thread. Life didn't know anything about the universe out there. Suddenly we figure out how to build good telescopes, and KAPOW! Galaxies and nebulae of size beyond getting one's head round! The universe is THIS big and amazing, and we had no idea before! What I find arrogant and insulting is that how quickly we got over it. Nebula, shmebula. Never been there, but we've figured them out. We know how they work. Totally within our comprehension. Ticked the box. GHHHAAA! Have some humility, people! Do we really know what's worth knowing? All this was beyond our sight for so long, and suddenly we have it before us... and we've explained it away. I'm not saying the physicists and cosmologists are wrong about the science, I'm just questioning whether they've covered the stuff that's really worth knowing about galaxies and nebulae - which is probably not down the path of physics and chemistry.

At least when humans worshipped the sun as a god they acknowledged that it was something much greater than the inventions of the human mind. In many ways they were wiser than those who just see it as a big nuclear reactor, because they knew it was beyond them. And so it is. Nature is cleverer than man. The planet works better when nature is in charge than when man is - if we understood as much as some scientists claim we do, and enough to replace God entirely with science, that wouldn't be the case.

We haven't cured disease, war, crime and poverty. We've invented a whole new bunch of problems as far as the environment is concerned. We watch footie and Big Brother. And yet despite these credentials some of us think we've learnt enough to explain the universe without God, or leaving gaps where there might as well be a God. I think those people overrate their species' level of intelligence, and by implication insult the vast unknown.

Martin

[Cullen]

Thanks for clarifying Martin. I think I just misunderstood what you meant by 'greater intelligence'. I agree with what you have said; we don't know everything about the universe and its arrogant to assume that we do when there has to be so much that we don't know (including the possibility that God might exist).

[Shockprowl]

I had this thought a while back, and thought I'd share it with my wise cyber chumbs.

The Devil isn't Evil.

(I'm not saying this is what I believe, I'm just putting it forward as a concept).

Why isn't the Devil evil? Well. When people are bad in life, they go to Hell. Hell is ruled by The Devil. In Hell, bad people are punished, for all eternity etc. So, The Devil runs Hell, evil people go to Hell and are punished. If The Devil was evil, why would he punish evil-doers? Surely he'd be like "come in folkes, join the party! Gunna amass myself an army and try and conquer Heaven!". Evil-doers would be his kinda people. So, assuming ofcourse that evil people are indeed punished in Hell, then The Devil is on our side (our side being the side of good people). He punishes evil doers! God has put him in charge of this operation, or something. God needed a tough guy to get tough with evil doers, and Satan got the job. The Devil is Ok! He's a square guy! THE DEVIL ISN'T EVIL!

The flip side of this is that, in fact, The Devil IS evil, and it's just a case of Evil Doers don't get punished in Hell at all.

I think the point of this, I think you'll agree, very eloquent post, is that the whole thing about the Devil being Evil and Evil Doers go to the Hell to be punished for all eternity, doesn't add up.

Or does it?



This the kind of thing I think about when it's quiet at work.



This and Marvel Superheroes fighting Transformers.


Ian

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Ooh, nice change of direction to the thread.

I don't know if anyone here actually believes in the existence of the Devil as a person with horns and a forked tail. It is common in churches when stating the articles of faith to declare one's belief in God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost), and to reject Satan and all his works. I don't think there's any point where everyone says they believe in Satan, only that they reject him.

In the Christian tradition, Satan isn't considered evil for torturing people in Hell. He's considered evil because he causes people to end up there by leading them astray (which is a Bad Thing, I'm sure you'll agree). In Greek mythology, Hades, God of the Underworld, wasn't considered evil, because he didn't go around making a point of corrupting people's souls like Satan and seeking their eternal torment. Satan on the other hand tries to get as many people as possible to go bad and end up in Hell.

My favourite Satan is the literary one in John Milton's epic poem Paradise Lost, because he's actually a pretty deep character. Not a sympathetic one ultimately, because once he has been banished from Heaven for his rebellion, he takes it out on mankind who never did anything to him, tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and gets us kicked out of the garden of Eden. (A great story, which I think applies as much today as it ever did, as we continue to seek power and technology beyond our ability to use it wisely.)

Personally, I just view the Devil as a metaphor for human failings. I don't like using him as an excuse for our wrongdoings, because I think we have free will and have no-one to blame but ourselves for our screw-ups. But he's a handy way to visualise our dark sides - the little cartoon Devil on our shoulder whispering in our ear, "Vote for Longtooth!"

Martin