beigemaster

Which is a very good point, without scientific progress, we literally couldn’t be here having this online discussion. But unfortunately, what science giveth with one hand it taketh with the other. Because of scientific progress, we now have very sufficient and ingenious ways of killing a lot more people (say roasting them with an atomic bomb) and destroying our natural environment. I am not saying that science is in anyway evil, but that it is simply amoral. As Tony Benn put it, it doesn’t matter if you kill your enemy with an arrow or a shotgun, the technology moves on but the ethical questions stay the same. 1. I agree, but where we disagree is whether the evidence is sufficient. 2. Without wanting to sound too much like the child, but by claiming to "follow a moral code because you believe it to be the best for the advancement of the human race. because that would be entirely NATURAL" is simply begging the question. WHY SHOULD we want to benefit the human race exactly, once again that is a moral claim that needs justification. I'm not sure appealing to natural selection will be sufficient. Because, at best, it describes how we ONCE behaved but fails to justify how or why we should behave now.

No doubt, 100% agree with you there. But, it justifies the first step in the supposition that there could be a creator God as opposed to a “first cause” god which is one step in a complicated justification in defending a theistic God. On a side note, Peter Williams (the big bloke with the glasses) did his MA at Sheffield (where I am currently studying) and co wrote a book called The Matrix Revelations which I highly recommend to anyone who either loves the Matrix films or wants an introduction to philosophy.(note there are copies going for 1p) Although Ben has already picked up on this, what I find fascinating with that statement is that although you obviously find the rationale of science very appealing (with good reason) you have actually then produced a moral and (dare I say it) ‘spiritual’ declaration. So (as Ben asked) what is this based on exactly out of interest, it’s not a scientific statement nor has science any grounds to comment on morality (Dawkins’ words not mine). I suppose a big issue on all this is the question of whether morality can be independent from God, since a lot of people of here seem to have a problem with the concept of people following God just because he commands it. This question goes back a long way, even Plato was asking it, “Is something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral”. Personally, I think morality can (like the laws of logic) exist outside of God because, one can always beg the question of ‘why is it moral to follow God’s laws?’. In short, morality is a positive trait to follow even without God’s instructions. Hence, I would try and follow a moral code regardless of whether a God (or anyone else) told me to. Monkey, on that point I really do 100% agree with you. But I wouldn’t just restrict that statement for people who follow Christianity, I would wish that people of all positions followed that rule.

I see your scientist cherry picking ancient Jewish texts out of context and raise you: 1X Prof of Mathematical Physics (Cambridge) 1X Dr of theoretical astrophysics (Durham) 1X Dr of Astrophysics (Oxford) 1X Dr of Philosophy and 1X Reader in Astronautics, all discussing objective empirical concepts. ECT

With all due respect, it is a straw man argument because the summary of the opposition was woefully inaccurate and simplistic, which doesn't account for the very intelligent people (who I have already cited) who believe in theism. Using the same logic, I could say "Ah yes, it's all down to a choice really between people who adhere to a moral code and those (atheists) who don't suppose there is no point, meaning or morality and like Hitler, Pot and Stalin, don't believe in the innate sanctity of human beings" In some ways I am sympathetic to this view, there are a lot of delusional people who probably depend on a belief system just because they were flooded with that ideology as children, but that doesn't affect the ideas/principles that I have tried to address. Yes, people misuse the concepts of religion and faith. However, this isn't all one way. A lot of the principles of the Nazi regime were based on Nietzsche’s ideas of the superman (from "God is dead" ect) which I would hope people would see as a "misuse" of atheistic ideology. Monkeysee, I will try and somehow overcome your disappointment in me. I guess with time, will power and a lot of drinking, I will get there. One thing you have demonstrated though, the presumption that a lot of people carry which is relative to our modern culture. The general consensus from the mass of philosophically ill-equipped people, is that atheism is true (same way the masses have believed theism and pantheism before then) and therefore, anyone who disagrees with the general consensus must be a fool and therefore what he/she says is obsolete (regardless of the arguments they use). Obviously this is circular reasoning, because you are carrying this presumption to the table and hence why I'm not particularly surprised that you find me a bit of a let down.

and sir, your post can be summoned up with one link

I'll try and reply to several people's points in one go so sorry if this is gets a bit mixed up. Once again, you seem to be lumbering everything together in one package in an atempt to dismiss it all. If we take the character of Jesus for example, you could say "Well he could never have turned water into wine because that is impossible" and this is true if you hold the idea that there is no God and therefore nothing outside of nature is possible. But then, you have already brought this world view to the table and therefore even if a man did turn water into wine several thousand years ago, you would never believe it. The debate is too vast to investigate all the supposed supernatural events that Jesus supposedly performed, but before you even begin to investigate their probability, you need to ask the preliminary questions whether naturalism is innately true and whether the concept of miracle (an alteration in the laws of nature) is possible. The only very quick thing I would say is that do you not find it odd that a bunch of fishermen (not intellectuals or political leaders) gave birth to a faith that would sweep the globe after the very leader of executed? In short, if Jesus was a man and was indeed executed, how/why did the Christian faith ever grow/spread so quickly? One point that I would say in terms of believing Jesus (the historical character) "stood up against the powers of his time" is pretty inaccurate. The teachings of Jesus state "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s" doesn’t sound terribly revolutionary to me. For me, I am persuaded by some of the more complicated "first cause" arguments put forward by genuinely free thinking scientists (not those seeking an atheistic agenda) In no sense could the "first cause" justify any type of God that we imagine, but I think it's a first step to suppose (at least) the universe is finite. This then leads me to other concepts such as the argument from reason (see link I put in other posts) to suggest that the first cause must have a foundational basis of rationality. People don't pick and choose what is literal/analogy ect, the books of the bible are written in different styles. I know this will be the fourth or fifth time I have said this so I best go for bold so people don't forget, The Bible consists of multiple books by multiple authors in multiple styles and contexts Psalms for example is just a collection of Poems. "The Lord is my Shepherd" does this mean every Christian must believe that God is a man who tends sheep? That is very true, obviously the majority of the OT is in ancient Hebrew and the NT in Greek. The bible may have been written with divine inspiration, but it is still written by humans and therefore still fallible. The question is, if you were God, what would be a more superior method of passing on a message that does no infringe on humanities free will? Again, I think that's perfectly true (well it must be if Fry said it). But then (sorry to go question begging) what other sources would you expecting? The Jewish leaders detested his message (therefore would be unlikely to want to record his message) and the Romans would want to keep the peace and therefore would also want his message/legacy to be swiftly forgotten. It's not the first time such a case has happened in the ancient world, the only evidence for the existence of Socrates is found in Plato's text (Plato being his student) because the Athenians didn't want Socrates' philosophy to spread (hence why they executed him in the first place). Sorry if that’s all a bit unclear, just trying to address lots of different ideas in one post.

OK I'm slightly confused now. What question am I trying to answer and what methods am I not allowed to use? Am I right that you want me to answer the question "Why does man need a creator" without using any form of philosophical ideas? I don't see how this is possible as the question "why does man have to have a creator" is a normative question, outside the realm of description and therefore outside the line of scientific understanding. If you could just clarify for me that would be helpful. Ok I think I see what you're saying, But isn't the choice of the bible being all literally true or all completely made up a false disjunction? Isn't there the case of a middle ground that some parts will have be true, some historically altered/inaccurate, some analogy ect. Reason should be the tool used when analysing the bible and it's different themes on an individual basis rather than just assuming the whole thing is false (unless you have read the entire bible and the entire collective of academic debate of the past 100 years on its historical validity)

I think that all makes perfect sense, but I’ll just break it up a bit so it’s easier to answer. 1. I could see why it may seem like that especially if you have a black and white view of religion/bible versus science. However, I don’t see why they can’t be entirely compatible, especially when you read the history or the philosophy of science. Originally, the art of science was driven by the assumption that a rational being had created a universe with various degrees of contingent rational/predictable laws that the human mind can discover. Science is a descriptive tool and useful tool, it can tell us all about the material world, but for normative questions such as “is there anything outside the physical world?” then there is no point addressing science, you need to look at philosophy or religion. Therefore, if it looks like I agree with bits of science and bits of religions, that is because they are looking at different questions, I wouldn’t read the Bible on the bases of expecting a descriptive history of the origins of the earth or of man. But then, I wouldn’t read a science journal on the questions of morality, I would read the likes of Kant and Aristotle or Jesus. I think Robert Winston summons this up perfectly in his “five minute interview” here (It's about 2:30 minutes in) 2.By definition, God does not need a creator (hence a necessary being) if you replace the term “God” with “A being that has no creator” then you see the argument doesn’t really make sense. Basically you say “If a being who has no creator exists then what created that being” and you argue in a circle. I don’t think the analogy of comparing God to man really works because no one claims that man is a necessary being as we are all too aware that humans have a beginning and an end. 3.You’re right, it is a hard question to answer, but mainly because of the length it would take to summon up what I have thought, contemplated and read over the past 23 years. So to spare you that horror I will try and summarise. Some of my beliefs are based on experience, I can’t say I have had the honour of seeing a miracle healing (and if I did I would probably be just as sceptical about it as the next person) but I have witnessed the positive effect of people who claim to have found God. I have witnessed the testimonies of people who have completely transformed their lives (for the better) based on their faith. Obviously this is in no way proof, as I’m sure you could just say that it was a case of mind over matter or a psychological delusion that happens to bring about a positive effect. However, I would couple this with my love of philosophical study with arguments that point out that massive the contradiction which materialism must declare (on its own terms) that objective reason and logic can not be possible (which, if you think about it is a nonsensical statement) and therefore, something must come from outside the purely physical. (If you want to read about this argument there is an online summary here) This is coupled with other philosophical principles I beleive to be true such as objective morality ect. I will discuss your arguments a bit later, but unfortunately I have to go to work, but I thought I would at least address the questions you put forward to me. To be completely honest, I'm really not sure I'm following you on this one. Are you suggesting that logic and reason can not be applied to the groundwork of faith? In my mind, the existence of a God would enforce my belief in logical thought and reason (something that's harder to do if you believe in absolute materialism, see link above) and therefore you can use reason to examine ideas found within the Bible. Is that what you meant or have I missed something?

Ha, love the irony though of the "causes a lack of objective reasoning" from a secular/post modern understanding of a world view that has doesn't believe in objective reasoning/objective morality.

1. Very good question. For the sake of argument, let's imagine a God exists and evolution is fact. To use an analogy, is a foetus an adult? Does it have the capacity for independent thought or self reflection, is it the image of its parents? I would argue no for all those questions. However, it does have the potential to 'evolve' into that state, given the correct time and external factors. I'm not saying this analogy is entirely reflective of the evolution of man, but it does highlight some of the key ideas. Going back to some of the ideas I was talking about before with having a perfect world with creatures with no independence from their creator, I think the same kind of idea could apply to this situation. To me, it seems somehow more disappointing if I knew that mankind suddenly sprang into existence rather than the on going remarkable process of evolution. 2. Yes, I do think it's possible. Although I think the arguments based on the first cause principle are very compelling, I will happily admit that they do not justify the God of Christianity with the various character traits and properties that people assume with a deity. Therefore, to try and justify the Christian God on first cause principle is a bit of a dead loss. However, if you conclude that the first cause argument causes justification to a necessary being (one that is independent of causality) then this opens the door to further enquiry about the nature of that being. From my own personal journey, I believe in the principles of a Christian God (although again, probably caricatured by the majority of people, i.e big white beard, sits of a throne ect). However, I don't think I am at the end of that journey and therefore I may change my mind or opinion if any new evidence contradicted my reasoning. To put it simply, IF you believe in a Christian based God THEN you must accept the principle of reason and therefore, by definition, your beliefs may change if reason leads you down a different path. If any of that makes sense?

1- No I don't think we are hence having the ability to be independent, this was the distinction that I was trying to make. A common argument is to say "well we're all just here for God the puppet master" ect. However, I was suggesting that if that was the case then surely a God wouldn't give the creatures the ability to reject him. If I am watching a film, I don't suddenly expect the characters to suddenly turn around at me and tell me they don't want to do anything else. I apologise if that's the impression I give off as it's not my intention. There are a lot of intelligent people on here and it's great to have dialogue. However, for a good discussion to happen, you have to have coherent beliefs and valid arguments backed by justification. I don't want to call people out on if they are right or wrong, but if you try and swing a bad argument then, yes, I will point it out. It so happens that the majority of these bad arguments are from the likes of creationists which is why rational people get so frustrated with them. However, I'm not going to go with double standards and if there are bad arguments on the other side then they also need modification. 2. Yes 3. Yes (although "fact" in the scientific inductive sense which can by definition never be concrete) 4. I believe that evil is some type of force because that logically must cohere with my belief in objective good. Whether this is an actual spiritual being I'm not sure, it certainly wouldn't be the stereotypical idea of the devil with hoofs, horns and a triton. 5. Yes, but isn't that the same as question 2?

But isn't that based on the presumption of a creator not allowing humans any free will? If you were God, you could solve almost all of the world's problems if you made your creations mindless robots without the capacity of freewill or independent thought. You would then have puppets playing the perfect play, with no problems at all. Question is whether that would be better than a world where free will, creativity and reason are possible.

More to the point Monkeysee, I'm sorry to say that you don't give the impression of being an intelligent person if you don't back up what you're saying with any kind of justification. I'm sure you are intelligent and have a passion against certain negative aspects of religion and blind faith. However, if you just use ad hominem and straw man attacks then you're argument have just as little credibility as those who say "God exists because atheism is evil and apes can't give birth to humans" ect. Example, if Joe is claiming that he has witnessed "miracle healings", would it not be more credible to quiz him on this point and ask for details or justification rather than just saying "well that's rubbish because they just don't happen", in a critical context, both are just as weak as each other as it boils down to being your word against his word.

It seems like this discussion is drawing to am end with some good round up of some general points/ideas. I'm sure once again, on many we will have to agree to disagree, but that's what makes humanity so interesting! Once again Bejus doing a fantastic job of finding a good middle ground for both sets of ideas and summoning them up with a lot more eloquence than I can muster. Just one little things though Monkeysee, quite a few times you have put forward some challenges and I have made an attempt to answer them followed by a new point. Now, quite a few of your posts you don't address my response to the challenge, and either go on to put a new challenge forward or pick a weakness in the new point I have put across. Out of interests, does this mean I have perhaps changed some of your original ideas or viewpoints? For example, the difference and separation between the origins of Christianity and its use and abuse further down the line? Or maybe even not all Christians are blind sheep but rational people with different ideas? Obviously say no if nothing has changed, but I just thought I would ask since (like I said) some of my responses have been left alone. As I said before (twice now) the Bible is a collection of many books, many authors and many styles. Many of the stories are analogies or myth with underpinning themes. As I’ve said this before, for the sake of argument, pretend God exists and really did influence the Bible. Do you expect he would give the full scientific account and mechanisms of the whole of creation of reality, to a civilisation that lived several thousand years ago? How about a full description of the astrophysics of the Big Bang or the entire theorem of evolution and genetics to explain the origins of life? I doubt it. Or, would it just be easier to have a creation story that contained some main themes (that science will back up) that reality: -Had a beginning -Has rational order (that we can amazingly understand through the process of science) -Has a distinction between man and the rest of organic order (the process of self contemplation, reason, morality ect) This seems to be the more rational thing to do, it may not satisfy our now scientifically obsessed ideologies in explanation, but that misses the point. It’s not within my time/interest to work through the entire Bible and list of what is what. Logically, some accounts are fundamental for the overall message to be consistent and so these themes will need more detailed attention. But, before any of that, a true rational free thinker has to address the Bible in such a way that is rational and (surprise) free of prejudice, not simply read the accounts and dismiss them as all rubbish. Even if you want to dismiss the account of miracles (in this instance I’m assuming the definition to be an act that contradicts the known laws of nature) well I put the challenge to you to put across a true logical, valid argument do disprove the possibility of such a miracle occurring. Like I said, don’t try and disprove any particular event happening, simply prove that a miracle can never happen. If you need help, I recommend reading some of David Hume for guidance, although even his brilliant argument has some major flaws in it’s structure, thus not making it sound. One thing I hope we can agree one (trying to get this back to the original posts) some people are stupid, dogmatic, close minded and even evil. These particular people can use or abuse anything in humanity to let these corrosive properties grow be it religion, science, utiltarinaism, vegetarianism, communism and any other human ideology you can think of. The point is, it is no good trying to blame the ideology (unless it is innately evil but I struggle to think of any that are) but to blame the people who abuse it. One final thing Probably the most wise point in this whole thread.

In some ways I'm sympathetic to your view, but I think you're missing the point because you're talking about Christianity’s abuses, or more to the point, people abusing Christianity. But you can't use this argument with regards to the origins of Christianity because by definition, it was a majority population who were subject to mass killings in an attempt to be silenced. How can you argue Christianity is a force for suppression when it stemmed from a small group who were suppressed? About 99% of your examples you are citing are with regards to the Roman Catholic Church and in general, I agree with its abuses. However, if you listened to the introduction of that debate with Hitchens you may recall this important point: I'll just try and clear up a few points quickly, 1- Metaphor (and analogy) is not equal to fiction, it is just an alternative way of expressing truth. For example, if I say "Democracy has some strong points" am I literally saying "Democracy is some sort of object which contains right angles with the ability to sustain a large load?". No. Does this mean democracy is only fiction? No. I'm sure Ben/Jesus could this point across a lot more eloquently than I can. 2- I am saying that a lot of the Bible is non fiction. I have already cited a few examples of its historical groundings. I'm not going to say it's 100% literal, but that does not equate it to be 100% fiction. Has anyone here who claims the entire bible is bs, ever actually studied from an objective, academic level?

1.Book ≠ Story/Fiction 2.It’s a common misconception that people 'in days gone by' were more gullible/ignorant/stupid. Remember, effectively your life and whole of humanity was built on previous people's ideas, many of which were hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Second, what do people have to gain by effectively scaring them into following a message? If these people were con artists, what did they get out of it? Well, if bother to look back into history, you will find out that most of them gained the benefits of poverty and eventually a violent death. Still, good con though right?

I will admit that a majority of humans are idiots and are doing more harm than good. But there are good ones out there.

Well that is a fairly narrow minded way of looking at it, remember the bible is effectively 66 books which are written in different styles and different people. Some are poetry, some historical account and others are letters. You can't white wash the whole Bible with "well none of this happened", if you are going to do that then you would have to do the same thing with regards to Plato, Aristotle, Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius or any other ancient historical figure. (FYI, there is far more historical evidence for Jesus Christ, at least as a historical figure, than any other the people I just mentioned) Another little example was that historians originally thought Babylon was only a fictional place since the only evidence for it was in the bible, well, until they found the historical remains of the city. Should we kill Tom Cruise? If we did then who would we have left to ridicule in the super rich bat sh1t crazy Hollywood elite?

I'm hearing rants and accusations but not much in the way of reason, argument or even intelligence. You know who else does that..... Youtube Video -> ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

I don't intend to put forward a comprehensive justification of the account of miracles in the Christian faith but I just wonder what is your justification for the concept of a miracle "bull shit"? If you assume from the outset that miracles are impossible and can not happen, then you have merely begged the question. If Scientology contained an account of miracles, even if Tom Cruise himself flew down from the sky thanks to his new Scientology miracle powers, scientology would still remain an instrument of manipulating the weak in order to create wealth for it self. People see that now and they will see that in 2000 years time.

You should check out that guy's Youtube Channel, he takes on Scientology suffers all their usual tactics such as picketing, fair game and smear campaigns and yet he keeps going. Think he's been at it for 10 years or so.

Its a fair point but I have based my opinion of scientology using the same tools of reason that I would use to reflect on Christianity. One only has to read the life of L. Ron Hubbard to fully appreciate the motivations and corruptions of he's so called 'religion'. When you have quotes such as It doesn't take a genius to put work out that a failed science fiction writer with these types of quotes that Scientology is bogus. Even if you ignore this obvious truth, you only have to investigate the Church of Scientology for maybe a couple of hours to see it's true colours. It isn't a religion or spiritual practice, it is clearly an organisation that simply makes money. Once again, using the powers of youtube, you can watch a the work of a great chap called Mark Bunker who has literally hundreds of videos on the nature of scientology. Here is a vid in which he compares the difference between a normal religion (in this case he discusses Christianity) compared to Scientology. Youtube Video -> ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

It’s called philosophical dialogue but I do see you're point. Problem is when dealing with intelligent people and complicated ideas it can take a long time to put your point across because if your argument has even one weak step or assumption, your whole argument is destroyed. I've written 6 thousand word essays that have really only argued maybe 2 points because you have to make sure your argument is water tight. BTW, when I say "dealing with intelligent people" I'm referring not to myself but the lecturer who is assessing your work. Politicians on the other hand take a long time to not say much because they simply over use the rhetoric. What do I think of Scientology? Similar to most rational people, I think it’s a murdering money making morally repugnant cult. Is you’re point to try and compare Christianity with Scientology or to try and establish what the difference is? In my opinion, the mark of someone who is truely intelligent because they obviously have such a strong desire to understand and develop their ideas.

I suppose to answer that you would need to consider the possibility of a first cause having the capacity for reason and lead us to the nature of revelation which would take us down another argument. Just found this frankly excellent un edited interview between Dawkins and McGrath. Youtube Video -> ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

But on a serious note, it's not so much the question of possibility that I would highlight, it's the use of categorical dismissive terms and remaining close minded about ideas outside the box of materialism. To put it another way, yes there is the possibility that one day we will find that legendary winged pig, but no one has put forward any argument to suggest such a creature exists. However, there are large amount of rational and highly intelligent people who consider the possibility that there is more to life than the materialist view. Examples (who I have cited before) such as Lennox, Lewis, McGrath and Swinburne who have put forward challenges to materialism based on logic, reason, mathematics, biology and morality. Of course, you can argue that such evidence isn't strong enough change your opinion which is fine, but to simply deny it altogether or dismiss it as preposterous is to adopt the same dogmatic attitudes of those crazy SOB's in the vid that started this thread.