beigemaster

Cheers Jesus, I completely agree that it's a shame it's only a preview, would love to get hold of it some time. There are a few more debates with Hitchens and Lennox on the tube but again there all previews. I do however have Dawkins vs Lennox Oxford debate DVD on it's way in the post, should be pretty epic.

In order: 1- Yes, people have different interpretations, since you are talking about 66 books in total, there will always be alternative interpretations of text. Genesis is a good example, the majority of intelligent Christians will now interpret the creation story to be one of analogy (like many other books in the Bible) as apposed to literal truth. 2- Yes- see answer for 1 3- Yes, or at least it would be if that’s the way I worded it. However, that is a rather childish naive way of interpreting the Christian message and not the way I interpret it after reading and reflection.

and of course independent reason, philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, history and (wait for it) scientific understanding, knowledge and progression over time aren't used as tools within Christian apologetics? By your same line of argument, I could argue that all science is based on the pre Socratics of Greece (675 BC) and Aristotle's natural philosophy. These are the origins of the scientific method and understanding. By your own logic, I could argue that the only thing scientists have to argue with are the Pre Socratic texts written over two and a half thousand years ago.

OK I tried my best... If you are a genuinely open minded individual, I urge you to watch this preview of Lennox and Hitchens debate entitled "Can Atheism Save Europe". As I said, it's only a preview and I admit that I haven't seen the whole thing (although I'll try and get hold of it) but it at least demonstrates some of the misconceptions that people seem to have about these particular topics around religion/fundamentalism/new atheism ect . It also demonstrates that there are rational, intelligent arguments on BOTH sides of the debate. Youtube Video -> ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Rather than incapacity benefit, people receive ESAs- employment support allowance. Basically if you are considered eligible for working, you are given a set amount of money but you have to go to mandatory work based interviews and employment training schemes. Basically, you have to take active steps to find work or you don't receive any money. If you do find work, you receive an extra £40 a week if you're earning less than £15k a year. Summary can be found here

FYI, I am currently writing a research project (3rd year of uni) on the new welfare reform ideas such as "Pathways to work" and this thread contains some interesting (although some rather predictable) ideas so keep up the good work Has anyone heard about ESAs replacing incapacity benefits? Any views on this particular area? Essentially, it's the government’s way of weeding out those who claim incapacity but could potentially be working.

Shall we hasten to agree to disagree before another thread runs away down the path of discussion of dogma/materialism/secularism/mysticism/philosophical enlightenment that so many have fallen into

Proof that fundamentalism is not a religion but a state of mind. Doesn't just have to be kept to the Islamic traddition.

Unfortunately (and I know this as my wife is a nurse) that is the way the majority of people go, either at home or in hospital. The attitude we have for old people in this society is sickening. I guess that’s the product of a society that is afraid to grow up. Rant over.

Wow, that was pretty damm lucky. By that account, drowning sounds quite similar to hyperthermia. I've always thought that would be quite a nice way to go.

PS1?

Youtube Video ->Original Video

Think we may have a winner:

Here is a whole list of nasty ways which (to be honest) make drowning look easy. A particularly nasty one is the "Death by Elephant" method where (just for the giggles) they get the elephant to tear each limb off before crushing you. Nice.

That Merc SLR sounds gorgeous, best V8 Supercharger combo ever. My personal fave Youtube Video -> ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

I apologise for not backing up with quotes. To be honest I don't have the time right now to go through the entire book with critical commentary (nor I'm sure would anybody have the time and patience to read it) but then to be fair, pretty much none of the sweeping statements on this forum that attacks certain religious principles are backed up by quotes, citations or even reasons. Hence I quoted from a Prof of Philosophy (which we can assume is going to be not only rather bright but also open minded) to back up my point. The quote was only a short section from a long review which I could post up if you really want to read the whole thing. I’ll try and help get the thread back on it's original topic. Here is a rather amusing article all about Anjem Choudary, the guy behind the scenes of the Islam4UK march, quite an amusing read.

So obviously you missed my point about examples such as the reformation when Christianity radically changed its ideas and values by affectively becoming a lot less religious. Or how about the different interpretations and translations of the Bible? The variant ideas of the medieval philosophers or the different denominations and sects within Christianity? If Christianity (and other religions) is not subject to change from new evidence or ideas, then why is there not simply one global ideal? With regards to backing up the claim of some of the dogmatic attitudes of sciene, lets take "The God Delusion” as an example. I really respect Dawkins as a scientist but as soon as he opens his mouth outside of his field of science, all I hear is the loud palm slap of 100's of critically minded atheists. Some of the arguments in "The God Delusion" are (to be generous) laughable to any real philosophical thinker (especially those who are atheists), some of his arguments (ironically) are almost as pathetic as the creationist nutters he's criticising. His dogmatic faith in sciences abilities are highlighted in some of his unreasonable nonsense. I believe this is the type of attitude that Ben and myself are trying to highlight. If you don't believe me, let me cite a quote from John Cottingham, Prof of Philosophy at Reading on "The God Delusion"

Of course not no agenda there at all. If scientists have no agenda, then why are we even debating the existence of a secular society? I don't blame science for bad political decisions, I just worry that politicians rely upon science too much in the same way they definitely rely on economics far too much (to pretty much everyone's loss). A healthy democracy is a varied democracy by it's own definition, this includes certain concepts found in religion as well as science.

Fleetwood Mac- Rumours. Always forget how good this album is.

Is that not an example? I maybe I have misinterpreted what you said so please feel free to correct me. I'm afraid that people DO put science forward as a way of answering societal problems in the modern debate. Politicians will now tend to use recent scientific research (say for example recent neurological research in relation to when children should start going to nursery) and will attempt to use this as a sweeping statement to close of any other discussion. Now obviously in some areas this is very useful, say for example with climate change, but it is gradually starting to creep into more of social policy where normative questions will be far more beneficial. There was a good episode of "The Moral Maze” all about this topic but unfortunately iPlayer has wiped it off. I should mention that this point was put forward by Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas (whose website it down as I'm typing this so I can't provide a link) who is a humanitarian with no religious convictions at all. Or, if you want a slightly different example, looks towards market mimicking governance. This is position put forward by Prof Sandel who argues that moral questions have been squeezed out of world politics in favour of a misguided faith in market values (I say misguided because now we are all too aware of what can happen when the market is left unregulated). Although this is not strictly a relation to science, he argues that normative questions have been left to economists rather than moral or philosophical thinkers. I highly recommend you listen to some of his lectures HERE. He argues that politicians are often too afraid to make judgements based on moral principles so will often hide behind economic qualities to defend their position that (to a balanced reader) sound unbelievable. If you listen to the last lecture, he cites some good examples such as the economic advantages of encouraging people to smoke more so they die younger so effectively reducing the net cost. As I said, although these are not technically scientific issues they demonstrate that there already is a battle to keep moral issues alive in politics at the moment and politicians are now hiding behind scientific ideologies in the same way they currently hide behind economics.

So if you could enlighten me, how does science answer questions such as how should we govern our society? I'm sorry, but to try and dismiss normative questions as being "silly" is just ludicrous (unless I have misinterpreted what you ment) Science can only answer the descriptive but there are important normative (or 'why') questions that do require answers, like the one I just gave who questions such as WHY be moral or WHAT is good? Note this is a metaethical question not an ethical one, science could potentially postulate a type of behaviour that may benefit the species (although how this is possible using only description seems rather unlikely) but even if it could build such a theory, it could not defend it without stepping outside the ideas of science because you have to justify WHY your theory is a good theory. I am aware that secularism and science are too different things. However, as you have just demonstrated, the types of individuals who strive for a secular society tend to also believe that science can and will have all the answers, science effectively becomes a religion. If that’s your view then that's fine, but it's not one I share nor one I would want pushed onto me. I fear the secular society is a slippery slope to loosing the other values that I discussed (philosophy ect). If you embrace a secular state you are affectedly saying "Your religion in wrong and I'm not allowing it in my society" which is fair enough IF YOU believe that, but then why not say "Your worldview is wrong" or "Your concept of rational morality is wrong" ect. How many do you ban and how do you decide exactly what is religious? A quick side note, I'm not suggesting that religion is the core or grounding of morality but it has been the means to which it has been brought to the masses. I don't know if you have studied any of the great ethical thinkers (Kant, Aristotle ect) but they deal with very complex (although brilliant) ideas in defence of morality. Unfortunately, not everyone will have the time or ability to understand the groundings of these types of works, however religion can often break down these complex ideas into simple proverbs/teachings or parables. It is potentially a way to teach certain moral truths in a simple way.

First one is fairly simple, just manipulation so you look at a certain card more than the others either by slowing down on that card or having multiple copies of the same card, he has some good hand skills going on for the rest of it.

I can see where you're coming from but I think you might be slightly misguided. I'm not suggesting we should go back to the good ol days when men were men, everything was black and white and we all went to church on Sundays. I'm simply saying that some of the core foundations of our society are grounded within certain religious ideologies and you can not simply shake them off. To borrow your analogy, it's not so much dismissing the steam train but dismissing the entire railway or public transport system in favour of the car. The scientific model is fantastic and has contributed to some of the greatest achievements in human history, but I wouldn't want my life/society to be focused entirely on this worldview. There are many questions that science can't answer by its own credentials and if you don't want to look to religion then look to philosophy, ethics and metaphysics, these are some of the ideas that I fear would diminish in an entirely secular world.

That's the point I'm making though, back then we were in the dark ages and the Islamic world was way ahead of us. I agree that unfortunately it grounded to a halt and has since been left behind which I suppose is the result of a dogmatic attitude and a lack of willingness to accept new ideas. I think it's a good warning to any culture of what those corrosive attitudes can lead to.