Richard dawkins

[Glaucus]

That is one small part of Christianity, lots of Christians do not belive in catholic doctoring and as such the pope holds no sway. Many Christians do not belive in he'll or purgatory.

Doesn't the bible say no man is higher than anyone else and only god decides who goes to heaven. Making the pope and saints totally silly.


In other words it is utterly pointless trying to argue these points based on one denomination. All denominations are probably wrong. And do not follow what god wanted (if we assumed he existed). It also says you only need faith in him to get to heaven nothing more.

 

[footman]

Why should science have to prove that God exists when it is irrelevant to the natural progress of scientific investigation ?
When science does make a statement that "something" exists or that some process occurs it is required to provide a proof of some kind.

When the religious make a statement that God exists it is generally accepted without having to provide any proof whatsoever, it is deemed sufficient that "faith" alone is necessary.

As far as the notion that God is making the pill work, what about those for whom the pill doesn't work?
Have they been selected for non compliance because God doesn't love them?

 

[Glaucus]

Science doesn't have to prove god exists, it is totally out side science remit.
That is why science is pointless in arguments of religion, other than saying it offers an alternative view. It can not offer anything else to the argument.

Science also doesn't explain the why or how, just a predictive model and that the simplest method will be used, not nessaceraly the correct method.


Why ask a human for the decisions of. Deity, it I'd an un awnserable question as we don't know.

 

[Naffa]

Science doesn't have to prove god exists, it is totally out side science remit.
That is why science is pointless in arguments of religion, other than saying it offers an alternative view. It can not offer anything else to the argument.

How many times is those mistake going to be made? Religious claims can be disproven by science, and scientific enquiry. The resurrection? Scientifically impossible. Does Christianity claim that it happened? Yes. Does that show science and Christianity to be utterly incompatible? Yes. There are countless other examples one could cite.

If you're in fact making the mistake that I believe you to be making, then you're confusing the question of whether God exists with whether religious claims are true. The latter is falsifiable (eventually), whilst the former is not (at the moment).

Science also doesn't explain the why or how, just a predictive model and that the simplest method will be used, not nessaceraly the correct method.

Why ask a human for the decisions of. Deity, it I'd an un awnserable question as we don't know.

Exactly, which is why we must treat those that claim to know the mind of God (i.e. every religious person in the world, but more so the leaders of these religions) with suspicion, not reverence.

 

[Dolph]

How many times is those mistake going to be made? Religious claims can be disproven by science, and scientific enquiry. The resurrection? Scientifically impossible. Does Christianity claim that it happened? Yes. Does that show science and Christianity to be utterly incompatible? Yes. There are countless other examples one could cite.

You're making the mistake of confusing impossible an improbable, unprecedented or unwitnessed again and presenting your faith as fact.

If you're in fact making the mistake that I believe you to be making, then you're confusing the question of whether God exists with whether religious claims are true. The latter is falsifiable (eventually), whilst the former is not (at the moment).

Exactly, which is why we must treat those that claim to know the mind of God (i.e. every religious person in the world, but more so the leaders of these religions) with suspicion, not reverence.

Only a similar amount of suspicion to those who misuse science.

 

[Glaucus]

No religious person knows the will of god and few claim to know.

Science has not disproved ressurection. Science needs to see something and examine it. If something only happens once in every 10million years dies that mean it never happens.
Untill science sees something it just assumes it is irrelevant.

 

[Naffa]

You're making the mistake of confusing impossible an improbable, unprecedented or unwitnessed again and presenting your faith as fact.

Of course when one says 'impossible', one can mean nothing but extremely improbable. I thought that the pointing out of such a trivial thing in intelligent debate would be utterly pointless. Once again, I may have just overestimated the level at which the debate was taking place.

Only a similar amount of suspicion to those who misuse science.

Agree.

 

[Castiel]

Right, so what purpose does religion serve? Revealed truth isn't true? Knowledge imparted from God isn't absolute? How can such an absurd idea even be taken seriously?

I will not accept that religion can change it's stance on matters of this importance. The most horrific example is that of the Vatican's changing of it's stance on limbo, and purgatory. For thousands of years, mothers were led to believe that if their child was to die before (s)he could be baptised, they were doomed to spend eternity in limbo. Then one day, the Pope decides that this isn't the case anymore, they were wrong on that one, but they're ready to be infallible all over again. No serious person could listen to this nonsense without feeling somewhat ill.

Another example would be whether Bishop Rowan Williams is going to hell? According to his own canon, it's more certain than certainty itself. What about all of the homosexuals that have been going to hell for centuries? Are they now going to be raptured into heaven, from hell? Are they going to stay in hell, whilst those that die now are going to heaven?

Religion cannot change it's mind on this, in doing so it proves (yes, proves) it's utter falsehood to any thinking person.

It only proves that interpretation and perception of Canon can change over time, it doesn't prove anything other than that. It is the reason why many denominations within religions exist.

For example;

Jesus is not recorded as ever claiming to be the Son of God, his disciples interpreted his words as making that claim, as did those who wrote the Gospels, but he didn't say "I am the Son of God". He spoke about "the Father" or "His Father" in reference to God, but how you interpret that is up to you.

Also in respect of the Bible, Christians as a rule do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, regardless of what some Atheists would have us believe, thus the interpretation or even the acceptance of passages that are not within our current understanding of moral issues can indeed be disregarded or reinterpreted without disregarding their overall Faith.

A lot would depend on their denomination, the example you use Bishop Rowan Williams is an Anglican Bishop and as such doesn't have the requirement of Dogma or Church infallibility to consider as that is generally reserved to Catholicism. A mistake that Dawkins has made on occasion.

I will accept this, as long as you concede that believing in the teachings of Christ, without believing any of the metaphysical or supernatural claims that go with it, is unequivocally immoral.

Why would it be immoral? Can a Christian not simply accept that the language and interpretation shown in many of the scriptures is a product of it's time, and as such the actual message is what is important and not the requirement to believe in an interpretation of events that were written by men of differing era's, morals and perceptions.

I have often wondered what would be the result if the Bible was written using modern perspectives just how different it would be, would it retain the overall message (regarding the NT) and would it be as accepted today with modern perceptions as it was during the Medieval Period which saw a huge growth in Christianity.

 

[Dolph]

Of course when one says 'impossible', one can mean nothing but extremely improbable. I thought that the pointing out of such a trivial thing in intelligent debate would be utterly pointless. Once again, I may have just overestimated the level at which the debate was taking place.

Agree.

In a thread about Dawkins, the distinction is important, because enough of his supporters (and indeed Dawkins himself) use science in such a way.

 

[footman]

He spoke about "the Father" or "His Father" in reference to God, but how you interpret that is up to you.

No he didn't speak, he was recorded as having spoken since he didn't write a gospel and as such is as unreliable as anything else in any other gospel.

Also in respect of the Bible, Christians as a rule do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, regardless of what some Atheists would have us believe, thus the interpretation or even the acceptance of passages that are not within our current understanding of moral issues can indeed be disregarded or reinterpreted without disregarding their overall Faith.

Cherry picking.

 

[Naffa]

It only proves that interpretation and perception of Canon can change over time, it doesn't prove anything other than that. It is the reason why many denominations within religions exist.

For example;

Jesus is not recorded as ever claiming to be the Son of God, his disciples interpreted his words as making that claim, as did those who wrote the Gospels, but he didn't say "I am the Son of God". He spoke about "the Father" or "His Father" in reference to God, but how you interpret that is up to you.

Also in respect of the Bible, Christians as a rule do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, regardless of what some Atheists would have us believe, thus the interpretation or even the acceptance of passages that are not within our current understanding of moral issues can indeed be disregarded or reinterpreted without disregarding their overall Faith.

A lot would depend on their denomination, the example you use Bishop Rowan Williams is an Anglican Bishop and as such doesn't have the requirement of Dogma or Church infallibility to consider as that is generally reserved to Catholicism. A mistake that Dawkins has made on occasion.

Cool, so you can just pick out which parts of the Bible you like and base your denomination around that? What formula have you used to discern those bits of revealed knowledge which are false, and those which are true?

Why would it be immoral? Can a Christian not simply accept that the language and interpretation shown in many of the scriptures is a product of it's time, and as such the actual message is what is important and not the requirement to believe in an interpretation of events that were written by men of differing era's, morals and perceptions.

Not to alleviate myself of the responsibility of answering a question posed to me, but my answer would be something like this (but not written half as well as this is spoken).

I have often wondered what would be the result if the Bible was written using modern perspectives just how different it would be, would it retain the overall message (regarding the NT) and would it be as accepted today with modern perceptions as it was during the Medieval Period which saw a huge growth in Christianity.

Well, in my estimations, the necessity of religion's existence came from our ignorance of natural phenomena. To that end, I would hope that religion would not gain a grasp, quite as tight as the grasp it has managed to maintain over civilisation thus far. However, I do also think that humanity will always seek the presence of the numinous and the transcendent, and I think that a lot of people find religion to be the easiest way to achieve that. I do not deny the existence of those two things, but I do deny (or at least, heavily refute, or try to) the idea that they spawn from anything genuinely supernatural.

In a thread about Dawkins, the distinction is important, because enough of his supporters (and indeed Dawkins himself) use science in such a way.

A fair point. I'm reading a book on Quantum Theory at the moment, that I think you would find fascinating. It's called In Search of Schrodinger's Cat by John Gribbin, and if you haven't already read it, I think you would really enjoy it. It has made me go "" a few times when John questions a lot of things I had previously taken for granted in science turning out to be not so.

 

[Castiel]

In a thread about Dawkins, the distinction is important, because enough of his supporters (and indeed Dawkins himself) use science in such a way.

I agree. The distinction is all important when dealing with a statement which has no proof. Is it impossible that Jesus rose from his Grave, no, it is improbable and unlikely that it happened in the way in which it is recorded in the Bible. But again we have to consider the perception of events from the people of the time and how they would interpret certain things.

The whole 'there is no God' argument is based on this ancient perception of what God is. Religions may well be based on outdated and primitive interpretation of events which ultimately have an element of fact.

For example, I was thinking this afternoon about Hawking's alleged statement that science could prove that God is unnecessary.

Each Religion believe that there is a Creator, they believe that the Universe was created by this Godhead and so on. Hawking states that because of the Law of Gravity the Universe could indeed have sprung into existence without the need of such an intelligence.

So, what if Religion is mistaken. Men who interpreted each ideology behind this creation theory would have assumed that the Universe consisted of the entirety of what was in his perception, which given the primitive culture would be rather limited. So let's say then that God is not responsible for the creation of the Universe, but is in fact a creation of the Universe itself.

A creation that for whatever reason or by whatever means seeded a suitable planet (Us) with the required elements of life, and within these elements is some kind of racial memory that within certain people (prophets) has manifested in some way. Their interpretation of this racial memory would depend entirely upon their perception.

But in essence we had a creator and that creator would be regarded as God, by our own perception of the universe we would regard this God as an intelligence or another form of life, but that would not be the case for primitive man.

Highly improbable I admit, but not impossible and not provable one way or another given what we know currently.

 

[Castiel]

No he didn't speak, he was recorded as having spoken since he didn't write a gospel and as such is as unreliable as anything else in any other gospel.

Indeed, and as such any interpretation based on anything in the Bible is subject to change.

Cherry picking.

Indeed. Cherry picking is not in essence immoral or wrong. We do it all the time within our everyday lives.

 

[Castiel]

Cool, so you can just pick out which parts of the Bible you like and base your denomination around that? What formula have you used to discern those bits of revealed knowledge which are false, and those which are true?

I personally have no formula as I am not a Christian, but I can accept that being as the Bible is only a very small part of the overall writing and scripture regarding Christianity that the interpretation of the whole would throw up many different interpretations, including acceptance or denial of any given text, including those of whichever version of the Bible in existence.

Well, in my estimations, the necessity of religion's existence came from our ignorance of natural phenomena. To that end, I would hope that religion would not gain a grasp, quite as tight as the grasp it has managed to maintain over civilisation thus far. However, I do also think that humanity will always seek the presence of the numinous and the transcendent, and I think that a lot of people find religion to be the easiest way to achieve that. I do not deny the existence of those two things, but I do deny (or at least, heavily refute, or try to) the idea that they spawn from anything genuinely supernatural.

But we cannot define supernatural in any real sense. Once you can point to a supernatural event and say I can prove that happened because of x then it is no longer supernatural.

 

[footman]

I love this man, I pray for his recovery from cancer............oh wait.
Anyway, I still "love" him and wish him well.

 

[Uriel]

As somebody who did a philosophy degree, I fully appreciate just how indebted science is to philosophy and Ockham's razor (and am well aware of it's origins). I'm not sure if your post was directed towards me or not, but if anything my post was in defense of religion. As I said, science can show (using Ockham's razor, one of the scientific process's most basic tenets) that God does not need to exist, but it can't show that God doesn't exist.

The origin of Ockham's razor does not make it any more or less valid in its use.

The post wasn't directed at you. It was an additional comment not a criticism.

Anyway - I am a Christian. I think that implies not only belief in Christ but commitment to him. Reason can lead you to the edge of Christianity, at least to the point at which its claims seem plausible. To be a Christian you must have taken further steps into faith. The word 'faith' we use relates to the Greek pistis. That word implies not only belief but faithfulness in relationship. It indicates a commitment beyond mere belief.

I was raised in a Baptist Church, where you were encouraged not to think of yourself as Christian until you had made a commitment (unlike several other Churches they only baptise adults). My reasons for coming to believe were perhaps initially arrived at due to finding Christian claims of prophecy fulfilment convincing. So that belief led to an initial Christian commitment and to Baptism. This was cemented rather strongly by experiences I attribute to the presence and action of God. To pick a couple, I'll include seemingly miraculous healing to myself and close relatives and what seemed to me like literally feeling God's presence. There are plenty more. Later I underwent something of a crisis of faith, where I seriously doubted Christianity's historical claims. Reluctantly I started looking into the earliest details of Christianity, expecting to find a gaping hole. It was after in looking into them in detail that I realised that reason alone can take you to the point where you can be reasonably confident that you have the writings of those that knew Jesus and believed in his resurrection. The question that remains is simply do you believe their claims?. That's where faith steps in for me.

I used to think of myself as a Conservative (theologically not politically) Evangelical but I can no longer claim that. I would still think of myself of evangelical, in that I hold Scripture in high regard. Having said that, my view of Scripture has changed considerably. I now recognise that the Bible is a thoroughly human book. It is also something more - similar to how Christians believe that Jesus was thoroughly God and thoroughly man. Even so, I must recognise that it was written, edited and compiled by the early Church. To have faith in the bible one must have faith that God was active in the early Church. That was a big pill to swallow for me. I would no longer regard myself as Baptist as I disagree with them theologically on a few points. The church I currently go to is officially mutidenominational (Anglican, Baptist and House Church) and I feel I can be myself there.

Someone has mentioned faith in the Bible as being a defining feature of Christians. The earliest Christians did not have our Bible in complete form. Most of the early creeds were in responses to particular points of interest. The Nicene Creed is, however, regarded by most of today's Christians as being a defining mark of Christianity. That reads:

I believe in one God the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages;
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father.
And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there shall be no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the prophets.
In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins;
I look for the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the age to come. Amen.

I accept that, but I also accept that I can only attribute my acceptance of minor parts of it to reason. The rest comes by faith. Christianity is something of a full package thing. So that's a belief statement that sums up what most Christians would regard as Christian belief. I've used the Orthodox version, as it's closer to the original wording than the version used in Western Churches (some of the suff about the Holy Spirit in Latin doesn't translate very well back into Greek, leading to a big argument that's been going on about 1000 years...)

Recognising that the Nicene Creed is a slightly modified version of something agreed in 325AD, I would want to simplify the definition of Christian. The earliest Christians had only fragments of the New Testament and no Nicene Creed. With that in mind I would put forward my definition: A Christian is one who can sincerely say "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me: a sinner."

Anyway - sorry if that's straying too far off the Dawkins topic. As an aside I am a professional geologist, believe in evolution by natural selection and a 14 BN year old universe etc etc. I see no conflict between that and my faith or othodox (deliberate small 'o') Christian faith in general (just like to clarify that sort of thing early on when this comes up...).

 

[alfalavala]

I had a geology professor who was best friends with Dorkins, years back. He now hates him and managed to get a dig at him in every lecture!

 

[Castiel]

Christopher Hitchens is on SkyArtsHD Monday at 8pm discussing his memories Hitch-22.

 

[Xordium]

I'd say it was more of a how has been answered i.e. we know (or have a good approximation) of how evolution occurs. Unless you mean that the why is answered by "the conditions were right for evolution to occur"?

I believe it was vonhelmet who first brought up the question of science and the why but I also mentioned it. However even if we allow that science has answered the why - I think the phrasing I should have used is that science isn't set up to answer the why, science sets out to answer the how and anything beyond that could be considered a bonus based on whatever interpretation we want to put on it. The why is tangenital or secondary to the how and that's what we should remember here.

Evolution quite clearly answers why in that there need be no why as there is the drive from the mechanism itself and no end goal for any species as such. Maybe people were implying motive by saying "why" - but if I was a god and I wanted to set a law for the progression of species then I would personally design such a system that would take care of itself with no need for intervention so I could focus on really important stuff!

I really fail to see why science and religion can't exist - I mean at one extent you have a direct action in the form of prayer altering a mutable reality and at the other extent you have direct action in the form of observing a couple of slits in a lab altering a mutable reality. I mean both schools of though require some pretty hefty a priori belief structures that anything occurs outside of a perceived personal reality - the actual notions of a god or black holes or quantum physics or the great prophet are pretty minor if you have made that original allowance.

 

[Uriel]

Another small point: for me I see something of God's transcendence in every scientific discovery. If you don't believe in a God of the gaps (and Christians shouldn't) but essentially believe in a 'God of the links' you see evidence of him literally everywhere. Evolution tells us something about God. Gravity tells us something about God. Part of the aa priori commitment of a Christian is acceptance of God as sustainer as well as creator. Again -it's all or nothing - an entirely different worldview. In this paradigm, science can never demonstrate a lack of need for God. Every force, every law, matter, antimatter, energy, the lot all owe their continued existence to God. This type of belief is evident throughout Christian history. It's purely a faith position - but essentially irrefutable to a believer.