成人论坛

The other parties may have to join the queue.
This is a very positive development in the new pluralist Northern Ireland that we now inhabit, and it helps to demonstrate that humanists, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, rationalists, secularists (at least 14% of the population, according to the 2001 census) are not bogeymen or pariahs but in the vanguard of progress.

I sometimes wonder if the sneering critics of Dawkins's work have actually read the book, which isn't solely atheistic but also discusses morality and its basis in human nature.

Roll on the 21st century.

Are the grasping at straws by enlisting the Alliance party as conscript鈥檚 to promote their Dawkins gimmick they have moved their predetermined goal posts of Westminster MPs to MLAs anything for publicity! any by electing Stephen Farry as the New leader of Alliance. Some people will do anything for a freebie.

Billy,
Forget your sarcasm for a moment and remember that in dictatorships, books are burned or censored. Indeed, they were on this island until fairly recently.

Better to have publicity for a non-fiction bestseller than media obsessions with whataboutery, tribal politics, murder and mayhem. What's wrong with promoting a bit of intelligent culture?

Woe unto those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight

I think it's great that an alliance MLA is doing this and I hope others will follow suit You won't get the DUP doing it.

Billy,
I ask you seriously: which is better: endless reports presented to our local MPS on wars, murders, bombings, police collisions and corruptions, or a book of reason? At least in terms of this choice, I know where my preference lies.

brian

sincerely, its quite jaw dropping that you describe Dawkins' critics as "sneering".

The man himself does little else in any interviews I have seen.

Are we going to model our 21st century society on "Darwin's rottweiler"?

PB

Tell me Brian and Alan

If humanism is so tolerane, "nice" and inclusive why is so much of your website specifically directed at attacking and undermining the Christian faith?

And why only the Christian faith?

Why cant we all live together in democratic tolerance?

Here are the list of articles written by Brian on the website - why the beef with Christianity Brian? About half of everything you write about is a negative attack on the Christian faith???

The First Humanists
The Development of Humanism
John Toland, Father of Secular Philosophy
Humanism in Ireland
The Blunder of God
The 12 Myths of Christmas
10 Facts You Should Know About The Bible
Who Was Jesus Anyway?
Science and Religion
Ulster's Killing Faiths
Religion in Schools
A Humanist Ethical Code
Abortion and Women's Rights
The Right to a Gentle Death
The Last Goodbye

This is my favourite quote from the whole website, written by Brian;

"There are no eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus Christ and no contemporary writer who was not a follower makes any mention of him whatever."

What sources are you using there Brian, quite curious when you read this;-

sincerely

PB

If Dawkins' tedious, jejune, petulant rant is the best atheists have to offer then theists have little to worry about. I've listened to GCSE R.E. students with a better understanding of religion than Dawkins. And at least most of the R.E. students don't sound like shrill psychotic wackos much of the time. Isn't it funny how atheists increasingly show the traits of the very religious fundamentalists they so despise?

If you want a better critique of religious philosophy then perhaps reading the works of some leading atheist philosophers would be more beneficial to the cause - Kai Nielson, J. Smart, Michael Martin, of pre-conversion-to-deism Anthony Flew.

Adopting Dawkins as spokesman isn't going to assist the long-term advancement of atheism, and many theistic philosophers - such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga - are more than a match for the pseudo-philosophical ramblings of the God Delusion.

SG

PB-Its fairly obvious why a NI humanist group would spend much of it's efforts on Christianity- Because this is Christianity that most atheists here have forcibly been "brought up" with. Its is hardly surprising then that they would firstly react against their brand of illogical morality.

I think this is a step forward for NI, not because I agree with Dawkins, (and I do have issues with his style) but because Ni is starting to wake up to the fact that attacking beliefs is a democratic necessity and is not to be confused with attacking Christians or anyone else.

...well would be nice if they could get ordinary historical facts about Christ correct while they are doing it...

;-)

PB

Sorry dont buy that K.

I think Holocaust deniers are generally accepted to be attacking Jews.

Likewise, Christ deniers like Brian are also attacking Christians, I would say.

If they are really nice mature, intelligent, tolerant adults, I think they should leave out the anti-Christ stuff as the main plank of their manifesto.

If they are really so damaged by their upbringings that they cant help themselves are they ready to play a serious role in influencing Govt policy etc?

PB

PB

have to be quick...

Christianity is the dominant faith in our society, many people have different opinions on it and Christians do not agree. Indeed I found the language used by Brian to be inoffensive certainly in comparison to the stuff that Paisley(and others) has come out with over the years. Indeed some of the articles by Brian could have been written by a liberal Christian especially considering science and the Bible. You seem to be saying that no-one can say anything negative about your faith...which seems rather odd and intolerant.

Brian is simply expressing his opinion and backing it up with evidence. don't see anything wrong with that!Or perhaps we should give theists ca rte blanche to print what they like and not be challenged?

Btw the quote you gave from Brian is not actually at odds with the wiki article.

And could you ask your fellow believers to moderate their language when talking about other Christians?

So, the Humanists of NI are using Ian Paisley as their character model now?

I certainly wouldnt do that.

And the wiki article blows Brians joke assertion out of the water DD, sorry.

The gospels themselves are valid archologically, historically, theologically, recognised documents and wiki lists a number of non-christian historians who attest to the existence of Christ.

(!)

PB

pb- Don't you think is ironic that you are attacking the right to attack beliefs, ie my belief.

Couldn't I say that by claiming that God exists you are willfully insulting my beliefs? Beliefs are not something that people are born with- like race for example, and so there is no moral issue with confronting them.

It so happens that humanists are suggesting that christianity has left this country in a much worse way than it would have been without it, and I think this is a point at least worth considering, not ignored point blank by pretending to be insulted.

Humanists are not attacking anyone, only suggesting that they consider a different point of view.

Not at all PB! I said that the language used in the articles did not come within light-years of the language used by Paisley. Please stop misrepresenting what I write!

"The gospels themselves are valid archaeologically, historically, theologically, recognised documents and wiki lists a number of non-christian historians who attest to the existence of Christ."

archaeologically and historically not really-in some aspects they do-I would put them under the category of historical fiction, theological well that's a matter for personal opinion.

Please note Brian said contemporary historians and none do mention Jesus.

Hi pb
You do have to read the items, and not merely list them, to understand what they are about. The first item in the Handbook outlines a positive set of Humanist principles based on the Amsterdam declaration. There is no mention of Christianity. The first on your list, The First Humanists, says nothing about Christianity either if you bothered to read it. It discusses Protagoras, Confucius, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, all of whom lived before Jesus. The next item, the Development of Humanism refers to Protagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius and Cicero, again all of whom lived before Jesus. It then discusses the Renaissance and mentions Leonardo, Shakespeare, Bacon, none of whom attacked Christianity but all of whom were challenging, sceptical and liberal in their thinking. The section on a Humanist Ethical Code says nothing about Christianity. The defences of abortion, gay rights, and euthanasia are all positive approaches to the topics and make little or no reference to religion at all. Yes, there are criticisms of Christianity, but in my view they are quite legitimate. It has been, as others have said, the dominant religion in Ireland for centuries, but has divided people instead of uniting them.
As for the historicity of Jesus, this is still very much the subject of debate. Wikipedia does not contradict what I wrote: that there were no eye witness accounts. I am agnostic about the existence of a Jewish teacher upon whom the gospels were based, but I am quite sure that he was not born of a virgin or that he raised people from the dead. Here锟絪 a story: 锟紿e was born of a virgin in a cowshed, visited by wise men, was credited with innumerable miracles, died as a sacrifice and rose again on the third day锟�. This does not refer to Jesus but to Osiris-Dionysus and Mithras, who were worshipped hundreds of years before Jesus. Was this story true of any of them, or were they all myths?

Cheers,
Brian

#14 pb -鈥淭he gospels themselves are valid archeologically, historically, theologically, recognized documents and wiki lists a number of non-Christian historians who attest to the existence of Christ.鈥�

Only as archeologically, historically, theologically recognized as any other religious text of the time which combined myth, vague historical details and supernatural mumbo jumbo. Why should we accept the bible as the word of god and disregard all the rest.
Even if christ existed why should we believe he had superhuman powers. It always seems to be up to the atheist to prove the non-existence of god. How about a few of you believers trying to prove his existence. Give me one good piece of evidence to support your belief.

This the text of the invitation sent to all the Stormont parties

Hello
Following on from the successful national grassroots campaign to present a copy of Richard Dawkins's recent book The God Delusion to every MP at Westminster
see

The Humanist Association of N. Ireland would like to present a copy to a representative from your party at Stormont on 8th May.
This is a sincere offer to highlight to MLAs that there is a large secular constituency here whose existence needs to be acknowledged and whose concerns should be taken seriously. For you to take part in this would help to indicate your real commitment to our increasingly diverse society, both ethnic and cultural.

Stephen Farry from the Alliance Party has already agreed to be available at 11am at Stormont formally to receive a copy from us and we would appreciate it if you could also nominate an MLA to do so, preferably just before or after 11am

I am sorry guys the gospels are eye witness accounts of the life of Christ and you will forgive me if I do not take DD's word for it when he calls them "historical fiction".
And your qualficiations to say this are what DD?

Of course I am not insulted by the essays on the humanist website and fully respect your freedom to discuss these matters openly.

My point was and is, why does a purportedly "nice" tolerant, inclusive group of freethinkers have to spend to much of their time and energy attacking a particular faith?

It seems like such a waste of time and energy for a group which purportedly wants to work for the betterment of NI to be so engaged.

SG is hardly going to be labelled my stablemate anytime soon and this is exactly the point he is making above.

No offence meant guys...

PB

PB

"I am sorry guys the gospels are eye witness accounts of the life of Christ and you will forgive me if I do not take DD's word for it when he calls them "historical fiction"."

They are not actually eye witness accounts, the first was written 40 years after the events they allegedly described happened.

"And your qualifications to say this are what DD"

The experts PB!

Remember PB extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your faith must be very weak if it cannot withstand a little gentle criticism.

Hi pb
Your analogy between Holocaust deniers and Christ deniers is ludicrous. We have ample evidence that the holocaust happened, including the testimony of eye witnesses, but there are no eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus. The first Gospel, Mark, was probably written around 70 AD. I would suggest that much of the writing in the Gospels is fiction, unlike the Holocaust. You haven鈥檛 answered my point about the similarity between the various Mythic Hero Archetypes 聽鈥� Osiris, Mithras, Jesus etc.
I would not describe myself as totally anti-Christian, pb. I think that ethically there are some good things in the story but that it is contradictory. Take tolerance, which you mention. The Jesus depicted tolerated the lepers, the paralytics, the deaf and blind, the adulterers etc. But he damned rival religious leaders and doubters to hell (eg. Matthew 23.33). Tolerance, of course, doesn鈥檛 imply lack of criticism (indeed, in a sense it doesn鈥檛 exist unless you ARE critical because it implies forebearance of something you disapprove of). Most humanists tolerate religions, as long as they do not impose themselves on others. That is where the problem lies.
Humanists believe in truth, not myth. So they are likely to criticise mythologies. But generally we would not bother too much with religion (Christian, Moslem, Jewish etc) if it were a private affair. Alas, it isn鈥檛, for religious people often impose their beliefs on others, e.g. in hatred of 鈥榯he other鈥�, in segregated schools, in compulsory worship in schools, in the narrowness of RE teaching, in Sunday opening laws, in censorship of books, plays and films, in media power, in homophobia (in some countries this involves the actual killing of gays), in discrimination against women (most religions are patriarchies), in having a 鈥榤oral monopoly鈥�, in trying to control rites of passage (e.g. in NI, a cleric can perform a legal marriage ceremony, but a humanist cannot) etc.

Having said that, there are many positive values which Humanists try to promote: reason, love, compassion, tolerance, democracy, freedom, justice, equality, etc. But precisely because religion dominates discourse in Northern Ireland (moral, cultural, media), we do not have an adequate platform to promote these secular values. That is why we are critical of religion. It obstructs the advancement of the humanist agenda, unlike more secular societies, such as the Netherlands or Scandinavia, where that agenda is more or less the dominant one (and rightly so because they are more liberal and tolerant societies as a result)

Cheers,
Brian

On the 8th May 1657 Oliver Cromwell refuses the English crown. On the 8th May 2007 will D.I.P. refuse to take a copy of the anti-God book on offer? Or will he offer a copy of the KJV Bible to the deluded humanists.

still waiting for your evidence pb.

Looking back over some of the posts -It's funny the different ways in which people view Dawkins. I've always found him to be a very considerate interviewee, willing to listen to an alternate point of view and give it carefull consideration before answering.
If he's the extremist side of Atheism - it just goes to show what a mild mannered lot we must be.

dp...I've seen Dawkins on both extremes. I think he's a fascinating character, my point above was mainly that atheists can do much better when it comes to picking a champion. There are many fine atheist philosophers of religion and ethicists and who greatly excel the skills of Dawkins. Many atheist philosophers don't take him seriously, and some are even downright embarrassed by him. Like it or not but theistic philosophy is in a very healthy state with thinkers of the callibre of Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Nicholas Wolterstorff, William Alston, and many others who are, putting it mildly, more than a match for Dawkins.

SG

Brian

ref post 15.

Here are valid eye witness accounts of the life of Christ and historians of the period on the existence of the person of Christ. You will also find that Judiasm and Islam also attest to the existence of him without accepting his divinity.

It would be interesting to see you make a comparable case for the life of an actual person of "Osiris" from attested documents.

There are many many old testament prophecies about Christ's life long before he was born, so getting the cheap imitation out early onto the market before the official launch date wasnt difficult.

Weeping for the death and resurrection of Tammuz (later known as Osiris and Adonis) was condemned in ezekial 8.14.

This Babylon mystery religion is condemned in the book of revelation chpt 17.

It is all the same, fertility cult, vegetation god, sun and moon worship paganism; known as Baal worship throughout the bible.

DP - ref evidence; consider "2007".

I have just spent a few days on this and am not starting it again.

I know most of you naughty boys have heard it all before and just want test me. sorry dont have time.

my thoughts are here;-

/blogs/ni/2007/04/will_god_look_like_a_psychopat.html

Genuine seekers could start here, though I emphasise I have not studied this site and cant stand over it.

cheers
PB

PS ref Christ's claims to divinity. Just try going around for a month referring to yourself in the third person as "The Son of God" and see what happens. You must use the definite article "The" if you are going to get the authentic response from your friends and family.
You could also try using the phrases "I am the bread of life" and "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes unto the father but by me".
You wont get this reaction in the west today, but "I am" in this context is the Hebrew name for Jehovah. That is why the Pharisees accused him of making himself equal with God.

PPS Random interesting quote of the day, from World History for Dummies. It lists the bible in its top ten essential documents in history;

It says of the bible;

"This is a package deal - a treasure chest of documents all wrapped up into one volume...

"...an indispensable document for understanding the course of many world events...

"Bible stories stand as an important historical source even as SOME [emphasis mine] historians challenge them."

Does anyone commenting on this thread have a science background? Do any of you actually read scientific journals on a regular basis? Or is it just another "rent-a-quote" or "rent-a-link" job? Seemingly Google has a lot to answer for.

PETE

"Here are valid eye witness accounts of the life of Christ and historians of the period on the existence of the person of Christ. You will also find that Judiasm and Islam also attest to the existence of him without accepting his divinity."

As has been pointed out to you that none of these sources are "eye-witness"-Josephus is not contemporary in the sense he never met Jesus and the extract is renowned as being a forgery. As for the rest of the historians they attest to the existence of a cult known as Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries-nothing wrong with that! Sources may indicate that someone called Jesus did exist and did attest to his "divine" nature but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

As wikipedia can be altered by anyone who wants to login and write or update an article, it should be treated with skepticism.

The information there is not peer reviewed and therefore can not be considered accurate.

Linking to the historicity of jesus on wiki is great, but it could have been authored by anyone who's motives are at best unknown, and at the worst blatantly biased.

Random interesting quote of the day, from World History for Dummies. It lists the bible in its top ten essential documents in history;
It says of the bible;

"This is a package deal - a treasure chest of documents all wrapped up into one volume...

"...an indispensable document for understanding the course of many world events...

"Bible stories stand as an important historical source even as SOME historians challenge them."

PB

Hey there PB, guess what - I agree with you about the bible - it is a fascinating sourcebook of history. However, like most historical documents, it is not 100% accurate, and you need to exercise discretion when reading it, just like you do when reading the accounts of the Battle of Qadesh from Rameses II, or the prisms of Assurbanipal regarding the conquest of Egypt, or Homer's account of the Trojan War.

For instance, the two contradictory accounts in Genesis of the creation of the world and humankind are just wrong. The account of Noah's flood is wrong. etc etc. But they tell us a great deal about the mindset of the people of the 7th century BCE who wrote them down, and that is also historically fascinating.

But swallowing it all as "fact" (such as Jacob's ludicrous "genetic engineering" feat with the mottled sheep) is extremely foolish.

Amen

Genuinely good to hear from you again, I thought we had lost you.

Of course you and I are not going to agree completely about the bible. but I appreciate your moderating input on this disussion.

But my point in quoting the Dummies Guide was just to show that the bible does have serious credibility in secular history.

Most of the posts above have been denying this outright which is just not sustainable.

Once we agree that it has historic validity I am quite happy for anyone to claim it is not infallible, though obviously I would disagree with them on that point!

;-)

PB

Hi PB,

Well, as a post-Christian, the bible forms a large part of my cultural baggage. I quite like a lot of it.

You don't need to be an atheist to see that the bible is not infallible - you just need to *read* the various books from which it is composed. My personal faves are the post-resurrection stories from the gospels. At least 3 of the 4 have to be wrong on virtually every point. The answer, of course, is that all 4 are wrong. Genesis 1 and 2 are another nice example of where two separate origins myths have been cobbled together in the original redaction, and then interpreted subsequently as part of the same story. Yet they disagree. It's only when we try to pretend that it's the "infallible word of god" that we come a major cropper.

ATB,
-A

way to go Amen

dont do half a job. if you are going to cut the gospels up at demonstrate your claims!

PB

I should like to return to the topic whiuch began this thread, for it seems to have got lost in biblical minutiae. Dawkins's book is a bestseller partly because it demonstrates the power of critical thinking.

Some posters ask why humanists attack religion so much. The fact is that we are in good company, for the world's greatest thinkers without exception wrote about religion (some in favour, some not). Why? The reason is that our critical intelligence naturally focuses a lot on an area which asks the basic questions: what is the meaning of life? why are we here? What does it mean to be good? It is what a developing teenager's mind continually focuses on (apart from the obvious less cerebral preoccupations).

Some people think that it is being negative to attack religion. But if it is factually wrong, if it leads to wrongdoing, if its perception of life is wrong, if its vision of an afterlife is wrong, then it is important to criticise and replace it with a more truthful and less harmful alternative vision.

In the same way that you cannot promote reason without attacking irrational behaviour, you cannot promote love without attacking cruelty and inhumanity (mental and physical violence), you cannot promote justice without attacking injustices (discrimination, poverty), you cannot promote freedom without challenging the threats to it (censorship, imprisonment without trial, torture, hangings etc), similarly you cannot promote scepticism, doubt and free inquiry without challenging dogmatic beliefs. Most major religions are systems of faith and unquestioning belief. In this sense, they are anti-thought or anti-philosophical. Remember Bertrand Russell's words: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt". Humanists seek to sow the seeds of doubt, and we think that it is a healthier state of mind. Why should we be concerned because there is so much that we don't know?

Sometimes I think that to say attacking religion is negative is just a smokescreen thrown up by those who are not sure about it and are afraid that they might actually be 'converted' to secularism by its arguments.

Remember Bertrand Russell's words: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt".

Was Bertrand cocksure when he wrote this statement or was he full of doubt? If full of doubt, then why should anyone listen to him?

Brian

I see you have conveniently dropped the Jesus never existed argument now...

;-)

well Amen

Are you actually going to demonstrate how the gospels are incorrect or not?

PB

PB, some of us have lives, remember. Anyway, why don't you read the 4 gospels, post-resurrection, side by side? I presume you have at least 4 bibles or a few bookmarks.

It's an exercise for the reader. See if you can spot the contradictions.

Have fun, but don't take it too seriously. It's not as if these accounts were written by eye-witnesses or anything like that.

It's because Bertrand Russell was full of doubt that we should listen to him.

And how about the evidence I asked you for pb. Go on - just one bit of proof for the exsistence of god.

How about the evidence i asked you for pb? Go on - just 1 tiny piece of proof for the exsistence of god.

pb,
Which Jesus? The Jesus who walked on water, turned water into wine, fed 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes, raised people from the dead, including himself 锟斤拷 no, he never existed. And you have not presented one shred of evidence that such a person did exist.
As others have insisted, there were NO contemporary eye witness accounts and no first century historian mentions him (The Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus, circ. ad 94, makes two short references, but few modern scholars believe that Josephus wrote them 锟斤拷 they were later interpolations).

As for the Old Testament prophecies, it seems obvious that stories were invented around Jesus in order to 'fulfil' these very prophecies and to make Jesus into a mythic figure.

In the second century the pagan Celsus wrote a polemic against Christianity, charging it with tryng to pass off the Jesus story as a new revelation when it was actually an inferior imitation of pagan myths. Some Christians replied by arguing that the Devil had copied the stories of Jesus's life in advance of it happening and so created the myths of the pagan gods!

As for an itinerant teacher who preached love and forgiveness, and who was crucified as a threat to the religious or political status quo, perhaps he did exist. But, if so, his story was embellished and dressed up, just like the others (Osiris etc) that I mentioned into an impossible combination of the natural and the supernatural This is how myths develop: stories are passed on and exaggerated and details are borrowed from other, similar tales.

Joseph Campbell in his books suggests that there is a central monomyth in which the hero accepts a call to adventure and to improve the world; then he faces a trial in another world (the 'wilderness'); if successful he achieves a great gift; then he returns to the world and uses the gift to save it or improve it. The hero is a man with a thousand faces 锟斤拷 Buddha, Osiris, Prometheus, Jesus etc. Even Star Wars makes use of it.
In this sense, therefore, the Jesus myth is not unique but is the one which has dominated in the west for nearly two thousand years.

@stephen G

"Like it or not but theistic philosophy is in a very healthy state with thinkers of the callibre of Alvin Plantinga, [..] and many others who are, putting it mildly, more than a match for Dawkins."

I read Plantinga's reply to the god delusion. To me it reveals clearly that he hasn't understood several of the book's arguments. If anyone has more than met his match, to me it seems clear that it's Plantinga.

Here's a thread about it, with both pro and anti responses:

I read Plantinga's response to The God Delusion quite a while ago, and I've got to be honest, despite loving Plantinga's work in general and respecting his philosophy immensely, I wasn't that convinced that he'd made a very compelling rebuttal. I was interested in the link bittbutter gave above, as some of the commenters made the same criticisms as me about Plantinga's response.

Stephen G- what a pompous and dishonest little rant you went on earlier. Explain why these mystery (and non existant) GCSE students have a better understanding than Dawkins? That is the typical rebuke that people like Dawkins constantly have to face from the likes of Alister McGrath (who incidentally performed woefully against Dawkins last month in a live one on one debate). Yes this is Alister "we Christians dont see faith as believe without evidence" but who then goes on to tabulate his own definition of faith which is entirely circular and leads to the original proposition-that it is in fact belief without evidence.
This is Alister "Christianity has so much to offer" but who then refuses time after time (between all the C S Lewis quotes) to explain exactly what it has to offer.
I scored 90/90 in 5 of my 6 AS and A level RE modules and got a letter telling me I was in the top 5% on N IreI also study philosophy and Theology at Queens and hve just applied to do a masters next year! Now do not insult me by saying that some GCSE students know more about Religion that Dawkins because I can see from his books and from listening to his debates with the Bishop of Oxford that he has a well above average understanding of religion!

pb- demonstrate how the gospels are incorrect? Why the hell should I! Explain to me why on Earth I should believe that a compliation of Gospels (gospels selected after the council of Niccea) displaying numerous examples of conventions employed in ancient cave paintings, Greek mythology etc etc (Star of Bethlehem, Virgin Birth) talking about a man called Jesus who performed lots of miracles and rose from the dead is the truth? Why do you believe it is true?
Why was christianity only a very small sect of Judaism until 314 when Constantine, lured by the promise of victory in war (and other financial reasons), decided to all of a sudden promote it to the official church of the Roman Empire?

Reading the history of the Church makes you realise that but for a lot of luck and circumstance, we wouldnt be talking about anyone called Jesus today. The "truth" would have been lost. Makes me think if he really did exist he made little impact.

In general saying that the bible is an accurate account of the life the son of man is quite laughable given the reliance on oral traditions and the gap before the supposed death of jesus and the writing of the first gospels!

Can you also answer me please where the wisdom comes from when Christians decide to reinterpret the bible? By what criteria do they do it?

Ernie:

Please don't confuse my position with that of McGrath. I don't think McGrath is anywhere near the best Christian intellectual around today.

Congratulations on your university education - and while we're strutting around with our chests out huffing and puffing and trying to be intimidating I should point out that my degree was theology and philosophy and I came first in my year. One of my lecturers in philosophy of religion informed me I was his only student to get a first in every exam essay and dissertation. So, sorry to bust your ego, but you do not intimidate me.

The GCSE RE students I alluded to are neither mysterious nor non-existent - just quite intelligent. I have yet to meet a Christian who believes in the kind of God Dawkins seems to think Christians believe in. Dawkins writings generally show a reluctance to engage with the work of theologians and christian philsophers of religion. With the exception of a fairly cheap shot against Richard Swinburne (claiming Swinburne tries to justify the Holocaust - which he doesn't) he doesn't engage with theologians or philosophers of religion at anywhere near a critical level.

Dawkins might well have an "above average" understanding of religion - but so do GCSE RE students. The issue is whether he understands it the why you would think an academic critic should. I don't think he does. You disagree? I couldn't care less.

SG

bitbutter:

I agree that some points Plantinga made against the God Delusion were not good arguments (but many were!) - that wasn't my point. My point is that as far as philosophy of religion goes Plantinga is much more than a match for Dawkins. It's heavyweight versus lightweight stuff in my view. Plantinga has produced ground-breaking work in the philosophy of religion over the past 30 years and remains probably the leading philosopher of religion according to many of his peers - atheists included. I wonder would Dawkins even understand half of it. Dawkins remains pretty much a laughing stock, or at best a mild embarrassment, to many atheist philosophers. I have read Dawkins attempts at philosophy of religion and, lets be honest, they aren't terribly good. His treatment of the arguments for the existence of God in the God Delusion is worse than my first year university papers, if you'll pardon my arrogance. To be fair, at least his book The Blind Watchmaker had some merit.

But, horses for courses - if you prefer Dawkins you're entitled to your view. As for me and my house, Plantinga is head and shoulders above him - as an intellectual and a gracious human being.

SG

dp...one bit of proof? On a blog site? I don't think that can be done - but there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God and plenty of work showing the rationality of theism. I commend the works of Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, William Alston, William Lane Craig, and Richard Swinburne to you. Thousands of books have been written on the subject - because philosophers recognise that you can't prove anything terribly significant in a few paragraphs on a blogsite.

SG

Holy Crap, Ernie really is a nasty, angry little man isn't he?

Wow!

Pete

Plantinga's is obviously a well respected thinker, but even if you accept the exsistence of an ultimate creator god that still doesnt give any validity to the christian (or any other) faith.
It may (or may not) be a valid argument for being a deist but not a christian.
But you are all much better educated than me, so i'm sure you knew that anyway :)

DP...I agree with you. Even if arguments for God succeed you are still miles away from Christianity. My own interests do not extend to the proofs for Christianity - I'm much more interested in theism generally. If you want to read evidence for Christianity you could do worse than to read the work of Gary Habermas - a philosopher who has written widely on historical evidence for Christianity. Sorry to keep recommending various books and authors to you but I think that if people are genuine about these questions then they should read these works (by experts) rather than the musings of a few punters hanging around blogsites with nothing better to do :)

SG

keep the reccomendations coming SG. My wish list on Amazon has got increasingly bigger and more interesting since visiting this blog.
Finding the time to read them all is another matter.
I think I remember Habermas from my time as a sociology student - or is that a different Habermas i'm thinking of.

Hello all,

I for one feel very worried that there would seem to be a great number of MLAs who have refused to accept this gift. It is not that I feel that Dawkins is right about things (indeed, his Atheism seems based on attacking his own conceptions of God), but rather that I feel concerned that there is a personal barrier in Northern Irish politics when it comes to the discussion of matters raised by the humanist and non-theist areas of our society.

It can only be a good thing that Mr Farry is willing to engage in dialogue with people who have genuine concerns with the prominence of religiosity in our culture. Such dialogue is not in itself a statement of opposition to religion, and it's unfair to those who find themselves on either side of the a/theism coin to be villainised simply because they want their raise their ideas and questions with the people that are there to represent them. The communities of Christianity - whether Catholic or Protestant - and Islam and Judaism as well, will be granted such dialogues themselves should they ask for them, and it would seem unfair to deny the same to other systems of belief too.

I hope that even if their own beliefs will prevent them from accepting the book (a largely symbolic act anyway), our MLAs will at least not shirk away from granting groups, like the Northern Ireland Humanists, an ear when they want to talk to the people who will (probably) control our land's legislation.

- Paul

Paul K
see my post 19

All the paries will receive a copy
The Alliance party is the only one at the moment to accept a public handing over.
No party has refused the offer - as yet.

As a punter hanging around this website with nothing better to do....

;-)

ref the numerous repeated challenges about the historical validity of the bible and the life of Christ.

I looked through half a dozen mainstream history references yesterday and none of them have the slightest doubt over the fact that Christ lived as a joiner and preacher in Israel at the suggested time.

What they do differ on is to what extent the gospels can be trusted, but none of them dismiss them.

Here is the hilarious bit; one volume which places the most credence in the gospels is the one which has Richard Dawkins as a "specialist consultant".

It is a volume on major events on world history.

To all the critics, please find me any general mainstream enclopaedia that disputes the existence of Christ.

pb

I agree with PB here...disputing the very existence of Jesus is somewhat idiotic and confined to a few crackpot scholars for the most part.

SG

Ernie

To be honest I cant give a good answer at this time; I dont have the time and it is not something I have been focussing on at this stage of my life.

I did look into it in some depth quite a few years ago.

If you are interested, I understand Josh McDowell has a reasonable reputation in such fields.

PB

Pete:

Lets not attack the man. Ernie may well be a little angry and agressive in some posts above, but you should still listen to his points. He did get 90/90 in 5 of 6 RE modules at A'Level afterall ;)

Impressive, no? LOL!

Tom

PB,

I don't think anyone here actually disputes the actual validity that there probably was someone who was called Jesus existed at that time, what is in dispute (and what you fail to grasp again) is that scholars and people are questioning the supernatural element.

Re: Josh McDowell, he has no serious reputation-I struggled the first few pages of his book and dumped it-really bad! at the opposite extreme I thought the same of Freke and Gandy's 'Jesus Mysteries'. If you want something decent and with a reputation check Geza Vermes or Karen Armstrong.

Regards

DD

Or try William Lane Craig or Gary Habermas - both are highly respected philosophers who argue for the suernatural elements such as the resurrection.

SG

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Dylan:

Not always. Sometimes they need no further evidence than any other claim. For one thing what is an extraordinary claim is to a great extent subjective - what you find extraordinary may not be extraordinary to me. Secondly, lets say my dad stands up and says "oh my God there's an elephant outside." That would be an extraordinary claim, but it doesn't require extraordinary evidence - all I have to do is stand up and look - thus verifying or falsifying my dad's extraordinary claim is no different from his rather ordinary claim that there is a red car outside. Both involve no more extraordinary evidence than the magic of sight.

SG

Dylan:

Not always. Sometimes they need no further evidence than any other claim. For one thing what is an extraordinary claim is to a great extent subjective - what you find extraordinary may not be extraordinary to me. Secondly, lets say my dad stands up and says "oh my God there's an elephant outside." That would be an extraordinary claim, but it doesn't require extraordinary evidence - all I have to do is stand up and look - thus verifying or falsifying my dad's extraordinary claim is no different from his rather ordinary claim that there is a red car outside. Both involve no more extraordinary evidence than the magic of sight.

SG

Stephen G- I wasnt trying to be intimidating though I understand it may have come across that way. I was using my education to highlight the point that there are many who understand Religion in various forms and find nothing wrong with Dawkins approach or knowledge.
I am interested when you say that you havent met any Christians who believe in the kind of God that Dawkins thinks they believe in. Can you explain what kind of God you think most Christians do believe in? This is why I brought McGrath into it, becuase he often says that exact same thing without ever clarifying what he means?
I do actually agree with you that Dawkins doesnt treat the somewhat traditional philosphical arguments for God with any care (half a page to the ontological argument wasnt impressive). But having studied the arguments (as you obviously have as welll) I dont think that they offer much anyway. Do you think there is much in the ontological argument for example. Do you think it deserves to be taken seriously? I myself think it is a circular argument, but anyway.
And for the guy who said I am an angry wee man, I am not lol! I wasnt trying ot be insulting truthfully. I do get angry however when I read that GCSE students know more about religion that Dawkins. People forget that when Dawkins did his own GCSE's he was still a practicing Anglican. He had a religious upbringing and has known what it feels like to believe in God. I think its insulting everybodys intelligence to say things like that. But I do respect everyones opinions. I also wasnt bringing in my education to say that I know more than SG just that I know more than the GCSE people he spoke of and I find nothing wrong with Dawkins knowledge. I was also raised Christian though I am currently unclear about were I stand on it all. But this debate is good. Ive only just found this site and I am glued to it. Peace!

SG

I get what you are saying but what you are saying is light-years away from saying that some holy man who was dead was resurrected! And the claims that you cited can be checked as you said by simply looking.

Of course it is subjective but then I find the religious element comes into it, we may find aspects of Hinduism extraordinary and likewise Hindu's can find claims of Christianity to be extraordinary etc etc ad nauseum.

I wonder if the philosophers that you mention also give equal credence to supernatural (and resurrection)claims of other religions and cultures or are they simply batting for their own side.

The story of the resurrection in the NT is extraordinary-no matter what way you look at it and claims to it's veracity can be made by claiming faith or some other form of special pleading-doesn't take away from it as being a great allegorical story though!.

SG

I get what you are saying but what you are saying is light-years away from saying that some holy man who was dead was resurrected! And the claims that you cited can be checked as you said simply looking.

Of course it is subjective but then I find the religious element comes into it, we may find aspects of Hinduism extraordinary and likewise Hindu's can find claims of Christianity to be extraordinary.

I wonder if the philosophers that you mention also give equal credence to supernatural (and resurrection)claims of other religions and cultures or are they simply batting for their own side.

The story of the resurrection in the NT is extraordinary.

Stephen G- I wasnt trying to be intimidating though I understand it may have come across that way. I was using my education to highlight the point that there are many who understand Religion in various forms and find nothing wrong with Dawkins approach or knowledge.
I am interested when you say that you havent met any Christians who believe in the kind of God that Dawkins thinks they believe in. Can you explain what kind of God you think most Christians do believe in? This is why I brought McGrath into it, becuase he often says that exact same thing without ever clarifying what he means?
I do actually agree with you that Dawkins doesnt treat the somewhat traditional philosphical arguments for God with any care (half a page to the ontological argument wasnt impressive). But having studied the arguments (as you obviously have as welll) I dont think that they offer much anyway. Do you think there is much in the ontological argument for example. Do you think it deserves to be taken seriously? I myself think it is a circular argument, but anyway.
And for the guy who said I am an angry wee man, I am not lol! I wasnt trying ot be insulting. I do get angry however when I read that GCSE students know more about religion that Dawkins. People forget that when Dawkins did his own GCSE's he was still a practicing Anglican. He had a religious upbringing and has known what it feels like to believe in God. I think its insulting everybodys intelligence to say things like that. Peace!

SG / DD / Amenhotep

SG
Yes, I agree with your point, if I have understood it correctly.

DD says extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence, and you reply that the definition of extraordninary is subjective.

I have tried to illustrate this issue tonight in [tongue in cheek] parable of the boxers vs the jiu jitsus, if anyone is interested, read it here;-

/blogs/ni/2007/04/humanists_send_dawkins_to_stor.html

DD

Sorry you are actually wrong on two counts;

1) When you says nobody is disputing that Christ existed, well the top bod at the NI Humanists assocation is doing it on numerous posts in this very thread, eg post 42.

Here is a quote from Brian on the humanists website;-

"There are no eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus Christ and no contemporary writer who was not a follower makes any mention of him whatever."

2) When you says that Jesus "probably" existed you are cautiously aliging yourself to Brian in as far as you can.

But can you find me an encyclopedia that or major work on world history that does not accept the general outline of his life?

BTW DD, you recommend a few authors to me above. The last time you gave me a list of "Christian" authors that had informed your views, I checked them out. None of them would consider calling themselves Christian as I recall. One of them was Arthur C Clarke and another Isaac Asmimov. None of them were specialist biblical scholars, as I recall.
Now you are free to read anything you like, but it didnt amount to a serious attempt to understand the Christian faith in my book. Peace!

Amenhotep

Contradictions in the gospels, that old chestnut! ;-)

Tell me this, four people witness a murder.

In case 1 they all churn out identical witness statements, down to the last word.

In case 2 they all churn out slightly different accounts, though none of them are wrong. Some remember some facts, others dont and remember other facts.
All four were standing in different locations at the time of the murder, so not all four saw everything from the same angle. eg if it was done at close quarters with a knife, some may not even have seen the knife.

Which case is likely to be found more credible by the police, case 1 or case 2?

BTW how long was it since you last prayed? just curious :)

G'night all, sleep tight..

fyi Brian

Here is yet another example of how the Christian faith exacerbated the troubles...

PB

PB,

Brian does not actually say that a person called Jesus did not exist he was only citing the difficulty in the evidence that is available.

"But can you find me an encyclopedia that or major work on world history that does not accept the general outline of his life?"

See the top point in your reply...we are not saying that Jesus did not exist and the story did not follow those general lines it's the other bits we have problems with.

PB please do and get something right! I recommended writers not simply because they were "Christian" rather because they were damn good writers! Never mentioned Arthur C Clarke, Issac Assimov wrote a great history of the Bible. The writers that I gave like Geza Vermes and Karen Armstrong, JD Crossan etc are giabts in their field and are well respected in Biblical scholarship-why does it not surprise me that you have never heard of them?;-)

Ahhhh so you have to be a Christian to write about Christianity!? and I bet you have to be a BIble-believing Christian? so you are simply going to agree wityh everything the Bible says? Some of the writers I mentioned are thesists, but I don't judge a writer on those grounds I judge on the quality of the work-myabe if you did the same you would not read "pop" history like Josh McDowell.

PB, it is a simple *fact* that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts, and unless Saul/Paul is lying (not beyond possibility), he never met Jesus (although he classifies his hallucination on the R2D in the same way as the post-resurrection "appearances" of Jesus, which is a bit screwy).

I would recommend Robin Lane-Fox's "The Unauthorised Version" for a really good historical assessment of the origins of the books that were later cobbled together to form our bible. I'm also highly intrigued by "Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times" by Donald Redford, as well as by the very clever ideas of David Rohl ("Test of Time" etc), although I do think that David Rohl is probably wrong on many counts.

As for Jesus, we don't know if he was born in Bethlehem (much less a "stable" - the bible mentions no such thing), we don't know if Nazerat (which I know very well) is the correct "Nazareth" (I have serious doubts), we don't even know if those charming wee stories of Jesus at his father's lathe have ANY basis in fact (because the word translated as "carpenter" just means "craftsman", and could represent anything from a skilled carpenter to a scholar).

I accept that you have a wee picture in your head of your "christ", but the linkages between that and any historical Yeshua are slim indeed. You could (as DD suggests) do far worse than to read "Jesus the Jew" by Geza Vermes. Jesus was not unique, but Vermes would like to see Jewish people giving him his place among the influential Jewish preachers of C1CE and thereabouts.

-Amenhotep (and I don't mind you calling me Amen - it's just a variant spelling of Amun, after all; "Mary" is just a contraction of Mariaman, which is a loan-name from Egyptian meaning "Beloved of Amun". A fitting name for Jesus's ma).

Dylan:

I agree that a claim about an elephant being outside is different from a claim that a man rose from the dead. However, it doesn鈥檛 matter for my point that 鈥渆xtraordinary鈥� evidence (whatever that means) is not required for an 鈥渆xtraordinary鈥� claim. Lets say for the sake of argument that Jesus really did die and really did rise again. Lets say the disciples then saw him afterwards. What extraordinary evidence would they require that Jesus was now alive in front of them? I鈥檇 say nothing more extraordinary than the type of evidence required to verify that the sea of Galilee was in front of them - sight. Philosophers like Gary Habermas argue that there is enough historical evidence to warrant belief in the resurrection. Rightly this evidence does not need to be 鈥渆xtraordinary鈥� - it just needs to be persuasive, and most importantly more persuasive than any other competing theory for what actually happened.

Moreover, many Christians believe that they have had experiences of Christ, and that they are aware of his presence. Also - within some strands of Christianity there is a doctrine of the 鈥渋nner testimony of the Holy Spirit鈥� - and many take this as a confirmation of the truth of events such as the resurrection- a confirmation of faith, or evidence for faith. So, for many Christians events such as the resurrection are well evidenced, and far from extraordinary. Given that their background belief context is one in which God exists as a loving creator it is not at all extraordinary that God might have acted as orthodox Christians say he did. Thus "extraordinary" for you is not the same as for a Christian.

Of course, adherents to other religions will differ in what they think is extraordinary and what they claim to experience of the divine, but what relevance is this? Since we have no access to any of their inner mental states it is difficult to comment intelligently on their claimed experiences. All you need to do is believe those things that present themselves to you through evidence, argument and experience. What else can be required of anyone?

ERNIE:

Would it help you if I retracted my claim about Dawkins understanding of religion? I think he probably understands it better than most GCSE students. However, I stand by my criticism that he doesn鈥檛 engage with leading philosophers and theologians enough, and well enough, to warrant much respect. Dawkins writes as if the God Christians believe in is a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal. Of course, he is careful to focus only on some selective Old Testament notions, but he implies (incredibly strongly) that the God Christians believe in is this same God. The God Christians worship is very different from this. From what I can see Christians believe God鈥檚 full self-revelation is as a loving and just being. Moreover, Dawkins seems to define 鈥渞eligion鈥� almost exclusively in terms of 鈥渂elief in God鈥� - and that is fairly weak and unacademic. He doesn鈥檛 appear to have engaged with much religious literature.

Regarding the arguments for the existence of God you appear to agree with me, but think that perhaps Dawkins treatment was warranted because the arguments are worth little. That is your judgment. I think there are many good pieces of natural theology. You ask me 鈥淒o you think there is much in the ontological argument?鈥� Well, which one? There are loads of different ontological arguments - and some do have the circularity you describe, but others do not. Anselm has 2 arguments (although it is unlikely he was trying to prove God鈥檚 existence and more likely that he was simply reflecting on the actual existence of God). Descartes gives a different argument. There have been modern versions of the argument - such as that of Normal Malcolm, and most notably that of Alvin Plantinga, who bases his on the notion of possible worlds. I think Alvin Plantinga鈥檚 version is a bloody good argument! He鈥檚 quite humble about it, and rightly so - since it probably wouldn鈥檛 convince a lot of people to start believing in God. However, I think Plantinga is right that the argument is as good as you will find in philosophy for any major conclusion. I think the argument needs to be taken seriously. Dawkins seemingly doesn鈥檛 even know it exists - just like God!

Kind Regards,

Stephen G.

PS...pardon any mistakes in the above, I had to type it damned quick!

ok Amen,

so the gospels are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. right.

Well I'm glad that I have spoken to you (a scientist) on this matter and learned something today - you who admits he has no authority in the field whatsover. ;-)

All the mainstream historical reference works I have consulted on this matter come to exactly the opposite conclusion, ref eye witnesses.

Anyway, you are jumping the gun a little. Would be appreciated if you could respond to the questions posed in post 69, as they were in response to a challenged you laid down to me.

Yes, Paul said he met Christ on the road to damascus.

There are any number of books out there about Christ, some say he was a spaceman, some a good teacher, some a madman, some a magician etc etc etc etc.

So I think mainstream historial references as opposed to anyone's personal favourite authors on the matter are going to be a fairer and more independent guide ref the reliability of the gospels.

;-)

BTW, how many of your scientist friends got married in a building contructed to honour an all-powerful supernatural being? have you?

And how many of them have taken definite steps to ensure they are not seen off this life in one of these same buildings? Have you?

ref polytheism, you do raise some interesting points previously. Upon reflection it does appear to me at this point that the only real monotheism today is based upon the worship of the God of Abraham.

This being the case, it seems that it is only really a choice of Abraham's God or many, many other Gods. That certainly seems to narrow down the choices for anyone who has any shade of belief in an Almighty God.

DD, I did go through the last list you gave me and the thing many of them seemed to have in common was "controversial" and sceptical views. You didnt appear to read anything that would challenge you views.

I dont make any secret of the fact that I dont try and keep up with "the latest authors".

While you are getting opinions second and third hand I prefer to read the primary source for myself, including the greek and hebrew.

I dont actually read Josh McDowell, as you will see above I issued a disclimaer on the link.

Must we have all this hostility while we converse DD? what does it achieve?

PB

Righty-ho, PB:

"so the gospels are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ."

Correct (I would use the word "Jesus", of course). Your "mainstream historical works": name 'em. Your wikipedia article lists precisely ZERO eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Sure, there were some people who chose to sex up their accounts by claiming that they had spoken to eye-witnesses, but that's about the best they can do. Nul points, my boy.

[snip] you who admits he has no authority in the field whatsover. ;-)"

Haven't I told you before that arguments from authority are rubbish (which, incidentally, damns "divine revelation" as a pile of pox too, but hey)?

"So I think mainstream historial references as opposed to anyone's personal favourite authors on the matter are going to be a fairer and more independent guide ref the reliability of the gospels."

I've told you before that argument from authority is invalid. If you *have* read the books, YOU make the arguments. If they're real arguments, then even you should be able to make a convincing case, regardless of your lack of authority.

"BTW, how many of your scientist friends got married in a building contructed to honour an all-powerful supernatural being? have you?"

As a matter of fact, I have. Doesn't mean I believe in pixies. I accept Christianity as a cultural construct. I don't believe in Santa either, but I tell him to Stop Here for my kids at Christmas (oh crap - I suppose that's a Cosmic Coincidence too?). I guess if I had been living in Israel, I may have been married in a synagogue. You do seem to have a very fuzzy perceptive line between "relevant" and "irrelevant".

ref polytheism, you do raise some interesting points previously.

Thanks. So you're an Amun-atheist, then? Your "god of Abraham" (whether Abe existed or not) is simply another syncretistic deity among many. But I love this:

"Upon reflection it does appear to me at this point that the only real monotheism today is based upon the worship of the God of Abraham. This being the case, it seems that it is only really a choice of Abraham's God or many, many other Gods."

Forgive me, but "that being the case" is jumping the gun in a big way. Care to explain to us why Allah/YHWH/God is your only monotheistic option? Expecially when he comes in three bits (according to the dominant heresy)?

It may interest you to know that there are Muslim PBs, Jewish PBs, Hindu PBs, Wicca PBs and any number of similar punters all "arguing" (using the term loosely) for their own favourite flavour of pixie, and for whom the mere countenancing of any other flavour is Worse Than Death.

You've already admitted to not being able to assess scientific information, which is fine. You evidently can't assess theology either, which is also fine. However, you then try to use arguments from undefined authority to bolster your prejudices, and they in turn are only based on a feeling of warm fuzziness you get inside when you think about your own wee psychological christ (whom you of course think was real and is the Real Christ for everybody). The Warm Fuzzies are a very very widespread phenomenon.

If you *are* going to argue for your own fave Ben&Jerry religion, you need to do a heck of a lot better than you've been doing on Will's (exemplary) blog...

-Amenhotep

Hey PB, Re:Post 69 - sorry - I lost that one. Here we go...

The old "different witnesses more credible" chestnut.

Tell me this, four people witness a murder.

Well, Mark wasn't there and Luke wasn't there. Matthew and Luke depend heavily on Mark. John contradicts MML in a very major way. There is no evidence of a murder in the first place. The police say "feck off you silly wassock" and no investigation is launched. *First* produce some evidence that a crime has been committed!

In case 1 they all churn out identical witness statements, down to the last word.

In case 2 they all churn out slightly different accounts, though none of them are wrong. Some remember some facts, others dont and remember other facts.

BUT: in case 3, they churn out statements that are word-for-word identical in *certain sections* which indicates that they did NOT derive their conclusions independently, but have a large degree of mutual dependency. Furthermore, we don't know their names, and we can't even interview them, and all the real witnesses died years and years ago...

All four were standing in different locations at the time of the murder, so not all four saw everything from the same angle. eg if it was done at close quarters with a knife, some may not even have seen the knife.

Yes, and none of them were anywhere near the scene of the crime. Yo ho.

Which case is likely to be found more credible by the police, case 1 or case 2?

Like I said, the police would say " no evidence that a crime has been committed". The bottom line is that IF Jesus rose from the dead, the gospels do not provide evidence for that, and certain details of the different stories (which are all supposed to be "god-breathed" whatever that means) are CONTRADICTORY. Which means >1 of the stories (and I would say all 4) are FALSE. Get your bible out again, and read 'em. *You* do it - don't get Josh McDowell to do it for you.

The point is this: it's just a story. It didn't happen. *If* there is any grain of truth left in the accounts (and the synoptics are a better guide than "John"), it is that Jesus's body was taken from its temporary "grave" for definitive burial elsewhere by people who were not largely known to his disciples. The donkey and the Upper Room are sufficient evidence that such people existed (assuming again that we can credit *any* of the gospels with any credibility).

But here's the problem: if the bible is the Word of God, it cannot contradict itself. If it contradicts itself, it may well be a flawed witness account, but then it is not the Word of God, and treating it as such is just silly.

BTW how long was it since you last prayed? just curious :)

Last prayed? Jerusalem 1993.

Hello Pete,

Earlier on this thread you wrote

"Does anyone commenting on this thread have a science background? Do any of you actually read scientific journals on a regular basis?"

Yes, I do have a scientific background and I read scientific journals on a very regular basis. I'm a physicist and I have a whale of a time when the religious people on this blog (pb being the most amusing example) start making 'scientific' statements. If you care for a good laugh, then read a bit on the original thread that announced the extension of the book pledge project to Stormont:

/blogs/ni/2007/04/humanists_send_dawkins_to_stor.html

greets,
Peter

Like Peter K, I'm a scientist, and I can very safely assure anyone who is in any doubt, the status of creationism/intelligent design is that of dirt in the scientific community. This is not a reaction against "gods" per se.

If you read any of the theistic scientists who have "come out", such as Francis Collins, you will find that their belief is *in spite* of their science, not *because* of it. Which suggests a certain lack of courage on their part, I would aver. But I can respect their *views* while still disdaining their arguments.

It seems that the remaining arguments against the likes of Dawkins (which were indeed largely dealt with by Dawkins and others anyway) fall into 3 main categories:

1. The argument from design (including the "Goldilocks effect", the orderliness of the universe, as well as life in all its gorgeous panoply, the First Cause principle): destroyed by Darwin and many others.

2. The argument from morality (as favoured by the ex-scientist, ex-teenager McGrath): a non-argument; theism can't make any more sense of morality than atheism, so they're no further on.

3. What I call the "Warm Fuzzies", which is that nice feeling that people get from being in a community of like-minded individuals. Life-changing encounters with the "risen christ" fall into this category.

Ho hum.
-A

Peter:

I agree with you that when certain untrained religious folks make scientific pronouncements it is highly irritating. However, what irks me just as much is when scientists over-step their intellectual boundaries - and part of my critique of Dawkins is that he does just that. He delves into philOsophy and theology and he really shouldn't have because, frankly, he's made a bit of an ass of himself trying to make dogmatic pronouncements in these areas, to the extent that even atheist philosophers are a bit embarrassed by him.

His book the Blind Watchmaker is a good book because he stays, generally, within the limits of his expertise. In the God Delusion he oversteps his limits and it's quite obvious that he has. One example I mentioned above was his jejune treatment of philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

So, you're right - no-one should overstep the limits of their expertise - but this includes scientists who are NOT the final authority on all other subjects and areas of inquiry.

Regards,

Stephen G

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for getting back.

I would say and to be honest to ourselves that extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts but lets say for the sake of argument that they are...now 12 disciples claim to have seen the risen Christ then observed shooting up to heaven on a cloud to be with his heavenly father, how reliable are the witnesses? could they have been coerced? are they biased? could it have been mass hysteria? and of course seeing the sea of Galilee is not an extraordinary event. Lets say for the sake of argument that Suetonius in his life of Caesar claims that there is eye-witness accounts of Julius Caesar shooting up into heaven on a cloud to join the pantheon of Roman gods, now that claims to have been witnessed therefore according to Habermas it's true!? also according to Islamic tradition when Mo hammed died he shot up into heaven on a white stallion this was also claimed to have been witnessed and I could go on and on with egs like eyewitness accounts of UFOs, claims of weeping statues of Christ/Mary/Ganesha/Buddha(strange that these sitings take place in which the respective faith is dominant-funny that). Would Habernmas accept these accounts, well I can't answer for him but something tells he wouldn't(this is Gary Habernmas of liberty "Univeristy" prop. Jerry Falwell and 10th rate glorified degree mill, a place that teaches their students that the world is 6000 years old and fossils are 3000 years old-don't want to true this onto and adhominen attack but it is essential to get the background of the person making the claims and I don't really want to get into the whole creationism thing again, had my full of that with PB! so back to the substance...).I believe that Habermas should stick to theology because as for history he just wouldn't cut it. So for Habermas who is a fundamentalist Christian the claims of the resurrection are not extraordinary but for Hindu's, Buddhists, Shintoists, also for Muslims likewise Christians find the claims of these religions to be extraordinary and they believe that their arguments are "persuasive" because of the side they are batting for, as I mentioned before these arguments usually come down to special pleading ie., turn off your critical faculties when it comes to my beliefs but turn them on when it comes to claims of other religions? sorry I just don't buy it-I would say that it is more honest to examine each case on their merits rather than on bias.

Yes many Christians have has experience of Christ and do not find the claims of the resurrection to be fanciful likewise many Muslims have experienced Mo hammed do not find the claims of Islam to be fanciful, likewise with Scientologists, Mormons, Buddhists, New-age Raellians etc etc ad nauseum-just because something feels right does not make it true.

I think you should try to experience what people of other religions feel and see where they are coming from because they could use the same arguments against you.

The claim that someone who was dead, rose up after 3 days, then shot up to heaven to be with his father in heaven is extraordinary and does require some pretty extraordinary evidence to back it up-if one is honest to oneself.

Cheers

DD

PB,

I have already stated that I have read people who challenged my view and of the writers that I mentioned I do not necessarily agree with everything that they say. To be sceptical is good PB, shows that you have an open mind! The writers that I choose are some of the heavyweights, why not give them a go?

Well if you read the the primary source in Hebrew and Greek you will be more familiar with the contradictions than I am!

Re: Hostility, it's because PB you constantly misrepresent people, things have been pointed out to you, then in a couple of posts you repeat the same assertion-very annoying and from what I can see you have managed to annoy most of the posters here at one stage or another-so it is not just me...perhaps you should change?

Regards

DD

Stephen G,

You are guilty here of the "Courtier's reply". Dawkins is not a theological expert, but he raises questions that, if they were as easy to address as theists like to pompously assert, then they should have *been* addressed.

All that our theologian pals have been able to do is add yet more layers of beautiful and intricate wrapping to a present that isn't there - it's *all* wrapping.

Of course when a non-wrapper comes along and points this out, we get a chorus of affronted wrappers, remonstrating that cheeky apresentists should not stray outside their area of expertise, and the wrapping is ever-so-beautiful, and *of course* there is a present inside - what else could explain all this wonderful wrapping?... etc etc. Although it may take a wrapper of great skill to wrap a present up in a pretty way, it need not take the same skill to rip the wrapping off.

But we get other presentists pointing to the previous presentists as having delivered a masterful rebuttal of the apresentist claims and so on and so forth, without *ever* addressing the central issue: is there a present there or not?

But hey - it's pass-the-parcel; the music has stopped, and Dawkins has the parcel. I was at a kiddies' birthday party on Saturday, and one or two of the four-year-old losers acted in pretty much the same way as our Plantingas and Swinburnes and McGraths. It was mildly amusing for a minute, but give 'em all a chocolate easter bunny, and they get over it. Pity *that* doesn't seem to pacify the wrappers...

Dylan:

Thanks for the response. I'll get back later, as I'm busy at the moment.

Amen:

Thanks for your response. I don't have much to say by way of reply since there is a fundamental disagreement between us. I think that in order to make pronouncements and academically respectable judgments in some given field you must first have a thorough knowledge and understanding of it. Seemingly you disagree.

SG

SG, you are arguing for argument from authority. Arguments stand or fall based on their content, not upon who makes them.

Dawkins' incisiveness bothers some people, hence the courtier's reply:

-A

Amen:

You're completely missing the point. Dawkins arguments are NOT incisive or particularly brilliant to anyone with much training in philosophy or theology. His philosophical comments smack of amateurism in the same way that much creationist commentary on the sciences smacks of amateurism.

Have you ever read any works by Swinburne or Plantinga? I think you'll find their philosophical treatises much more academic than the jejune musings of Dawkins in the God Delusion, which fail to engage seriously with the arguments being developed in philosophy of religion and theology.

I don't know why you have a problem with this point. Isn't it normal and unsurprising to find that professional philosophers are better at philosophical arguments than non-philosophers?

Plantinga's philosophy is highly credible. Dawkins philosophy is sloppy. This isn't an argument from authority at all. It's a simple observation.

SG

Hi Stephen,
Then it should be fairly straightforward for Plantinga and co to refute Dawkins' arguments directly. TGD is a book aimed at a popular readership; it is not supposed to be written in flowery philosophical fragaries, and it doesn't even have to be.

Unfortunately so far folks like Plantinga (and I haven't read much of his other stuff; just a couple of op-eds and articles he's written) have just been coming out with ever-more elaborate circumlocutions which they feel allow them to evade the very simple direct points being made.

If they can make the argument, let them make it, and let them address the core: is there a god or is there not? How do we tell?

Stephen:

Hope you will accept my apologies for my post in that it is a bit sloppy(bit dyslexic) in places(especially around the middle of the first paragraph)-didn't have enough time to check it and hope you can get my drift.

DD

PS, Stephen, have a look at this:

If THAT is the best Plantinga can come up with, I really have no idea why he is regarded so highly in theistic circles, and how anyone could possibly think he deals with Dawkins' points.

Looks like the Professor could learn a thing or two from the Sophomore. He's a wrapper, pure and simple.

Amen/Stephen-

Stephen is making the point that Dawkins' treatment of theological philosophy (eg. logical arguments for the existence of God) self-evidently betrays the fact that that is not his expertise. As I understand Stephen's argument, he's not saying that Dawkins is incapable of dealing with these subjects well, just that he is demonstrating his ignorance of good philosophy and isn't particularly good at it in The God Delusion. Therefore it isn't on the grounds that he's a biologist, not a philosopher; the evidence is in the arguments he uses themselves.

Help? Clarify?

Amen:

Plantinga is highly rated as one of the best philosophers of religion this generation - by atheists as well as theists. You admit to not having read anything substantial Plantinga has written. Need I say more? Is it any wonder you think Plantinga hasn't addressed the questions you raised in post 85 (along with a few vague critisms of his philosophy - despite having admitted you haven't even read it!) Unbelievable! Perhaps, like Dawkins, you would be better off educating yourself before commenting? Just a suggestion.

Anyhow I'm putting this discussion with you on ice because I have very limited time and I want to respond to Dylan later on or tomorrow.

SG

PS - DYLAN: I think I have got the thrust of your post, I hope to respond to you soon.

Hi Dylan:

Thanks for your patience. There is to my mind very little of substantial dispute between us. I would certainly grant you that, in my view, the resurrection is an extraordinary event. That much I agree on, although I would stress that 鈥渆xtraordinary鈥� is person specific - and I think there are good reasons for holding that for many Christians the event is not extraordinary given their background beliefs and experiences.

My bigger bone of contention (if calling it a bone of contention isn鈥檛 a gross over-statement!) is with your idea that the event therefore requires 鈥渆xtraordinary evidence.鈥� I have to admit that on reflection I鈥檓 not really sure what you mean by 鈥渆xtraordinary evidence.鈥� To my mind supposed events of any kind need persuasive evidence and that鈥檚 it. What else could they require?

In your post you ask several questions, on the basis of the hypothetical situation in which the disciples claim to be eyewitnesses to some event: 鈥渉ow reliable are the witnesses? could they have been coerced? are they biased? could it have been mass hysteria?鈥� These are all perfectly valid questions which defenders of the resurrection try to answer. Many commentators analyse other theories for what actually happened, trying to find out which ones best fit the evidence. For instance, is it likely that Jesus never died? Is it likely that the Roman鈥檚 wouldn鈥檛 have produced Jesus dead body to nip this new annoying religious movement in the bud? Is it plausible that everyone just had the same hallucinations? Just what accounts for the change in the behaviour and mood of the disciples that they started a religion that boomed as it did? Does this seem plausible if there was no resurrection? By the way, I鈥檓 not arguing for the resurrection. I鈥檓 just asking the questions and trying to outline the things that scholars think about and debate.

Next you hypothesise other examples of supposed 鈥渆xtraordinary events" and ask if Habermas must now admit to these non-Christian supposed events being true simply because someone claims them to be true. Well, not really. Habermas and others can weigh up the evidence for these other claims and see if they warrant assent. Obviously to many scholars they don鈥檛, but the point is that the acceptance one event on the basis of an eyewitness account does not mean you must accept any story on the basis of someone who claims to have witnessed it. I work in the legal system and things don鈥檛 work like that. Often juries rightly reject one eyewitness testimony in favour others. There is a lot of background evidence to weigh up when it comes to evaluating any witness claim. Some claims make much more sense given the background context.

I want to answer you personal criticism of Habermas. Yes, he is a professor at Liberty, but his Ph.D was from Michigan and his DD degree from Oxford university. Moreover, he publishes widely in mainstream scholarly journals and has (among many books) a book published along with the (then atheist) Anthony Flew about the resurrection. Sometimes, just sometimes, evangelical Christians are intelligent!

I don鈥檛 think Habermas asks you to turn off your critical faculties when it comes to evaluating his arguments. He鈥檚 a professional philosopher - he makes a living out of appealing to the critical faculties of people - mostly his fellow philosophers. I think Habermas would agree that each case must be tested on its own merits. I think you are making far too many conclusions about him, and others, before you read the arguments - and isn鈥檛 that a terrible bias?

That鈥檚 all I have time for.

Nice chatting to you.

Stephen G

Stephen,

Thaw the ice a little - I am judging Plantinga on what he has written, just as you and others are judging Dawkins. Check the link for his review. If this is the best that a supposedly very good philosopher has to offer in response, then I'm afraid he has been highly overrated.

I'm sure he could write more, and keep the crowd entertained all day, but it is a bit rich of him accusing Dawkins of lame philosophy, while dishing up a load of nonsense that comes nowhere close to Dawkins' arguments - and Dawkins a mere rank amateur! How disappointing. Like turning up to hear Oasis without Liam and Noel. You should feel cheated.

As regards your discussion with DD - two words: Bayes' Theorem.

-A

[Sorry - example called for.]

Plantinga writes this:

"First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane.3 (It isn't only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is "a single and simple spiritual being.") So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex.4 More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins' own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts.5 A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex."

If this isn't one of the most stupid pieces of supposed "philosophy" written in the last decade, I would be rather surprised. Care to define "simple", Alvin?

-A

Amen:

The difference between your criticism of Plantinga and mine of Dawkins is that I have read many of Dawkins books - the same is not true of you with Plantinga. You are not judging Plantinga by what he has written since you鈥檝e hardly read anything that he has written. Sorry if my response sounded frosty, but I find that sort of thing highly contemptible. Seemingly you are guilty of the exact same criticism I levelled at Dawkins - not knowing and understanding much about the object of your criticism.

With regards your two words - "Bayes Theorem": You should read the books of Richard Swinburne. He makes use of Bayes theorem to argue that the existence of God is more probable than the non-existence of God. William Lane Craig has also makes use of the theorem for similar purposes. I agree that Bayes Theorem can be applied in the resurrection debate, and many theists use it. Interestingly William Lane Craig uses the theorem to criticise Habermas, despite the fact that Craig also believes in the resurrection.

Finally, just to clarify - I wasn鈥檛 arguing that the resurrection happened.

Stephen 鈥渢he hopefully less frosty鈥� G.

OK...I really must actually do something today besides lurk here!

See you tomorrow :)

Hi Stephen,

No - I didn't take it as frosty :-), but you will note that I was responding to Plantinga's criticism of Dawkins, rather than what he perhaps thinks in general. He has made some points in that review of his, and he misses the mark. That's all I needed to demonstrate, and I think that's the case closed on Alvin until he comes up with some new arguments that actually address Dawkins' points.

I can indeed accept that Craig and Swinburne can make use of Bayes' Theorem in order to make mistakes. It is a tricky wee thing for non-specialists. Perhaps they should stick to what they're good at? ;-)

Amenhotep- Given the fact that both of those philosophers have strong science backgrounds it is no surprise they use Bayes Theorem - they ARE specialists. Just wanted to point that out.

Pete.

Amenhotep

Sorry, you know I wasnt intending to rile you by abbreviating your name
to amen, just shorthand I guess.

I'm not sure I understand where you coming from when you dismiss the gospels as not being eye witness accounts. Just raking again?

In my understanding the general outline of Christ's life is well established on this basis by mainstream historians.

To quote SG from post 57: "disputing the very existence of Jesus is somewhat idiotic and confined
to a few crackpot scholars for the most part."

Unless I have misunderstood you, I really dont think the onus is on me to stand up their validity.

Can *you* name a respectable history reference book that does not respect them as primary evidence, albeit while questioning the supernatural elements in them?

And Im not sure what point you're trying to make about authority, but again, I agree with SG's warning about people making statements outside their areas of expertise.

When I am talking about monotheism, I am having a conversation with you, I am not pretending to be an expert, so please bear that in mind.

However, you havent actually contradicted my suggestion/question. For which other God is there a text or followers who see him as The creator of all and the only real God - apart from the God of Abraham?

I am not trying to prove Christianity in this point and I accept many people in similar cultures may have similar viewpoints to mine.

I think I can say fairly certainly while there are many "gods" today few if any would be identified by anyone as creator of all things and the only true God, which is how abrahamic faiths generally work.

You issue me a serious challenge about apparent contradictions in the gospels, I give you a serious answer and all you can says is;-

"Feck off you silly wassick". nice.

Then you conclude with a circular argument that despite the complentary credibility of the gospels as witness statements, they are themselves no evidence, so my argument is invalid.

Come on Amenhotep, you are better than that, I've seen you better than this...

sincerely

PB

Amen:

Although you were responding to Plantinga鈥檚 short essay you were asking wider questions and criticisms above - such as your questions in 85, implying Plantinga would be better off answering such questions (ignorant of the fact that he's had 30 years of doing so). I agree with you that Plantinga could have done a better job, but to be honest I think that what he wrote was largely very good. Perhaps the reason for this is that I am aware of his background philosophy and have seen many of these arguments in a much fuller form. But, to be fair to Plantinga, there are parts of the God Delusion where it鈥檚 difficult to actually find an argument rather than dogmatic assertions alongside the strong implication that if you disagree you鈥檙e an idiot. Which points would you have liked to see Plantinga address? Which arguments in the God Delusion do you consider to be such terribly good ones that a non-specialist has stumped all the experts with?

Seemingly you next charge Swinburne and Craig with making mistakes in the use of Bayes Theorem. Can you tell me just what mistakes they make and where? You have read them before making that criticism I presume? Or just a few op-eds and essays perhaps?

Furthermore, Pete is correct about the scientific background of both, but that鈥檚 irrelevant. Bayes Theorem is fundamentally mathematical, and mathematics is fundamentally a mode of logic - and of course logic itself is a branch of philosophy. So, why think philosophers are non-specialists? Did you know that you can study maths in a philosophy degree?

Stephen G.

Amehotep

In an earlier post you suggest that some of Christ's followers moved his body to another grave.

As a scientist what evidence do you have for this?

As I said earlier, I dont read Josh McDowell, I actually issued a disclaimer above when I first mentioned him.

Also, you question whether Christ was actually a carpenter. The greek term used "tekton" comes from the root of a term for a general craftsman, yes, but in this form is general accepted to mean carpenter;-

I have checked perhaps two dozen translations and cannot find it translated as anything but carpenter in any of them, eg

Have you really the expertise in greek to make such statements?

In any case, you are disputing Christ's trade based on the greek text you are rejecting at the same time!

Yes I appreciate that "some" of Mark and Matthew are the same, which does not in itself discredit them, if they agreed with what actually happened in these portions.

I repeat, the broad outline of the life of Christ if accepted by all mainstream historians today and I dont see you contesting that anywhere.

He was also accepted as the actual founder of the faith -without question- by numerous pagan writers in the century following his death and resurrection.

And of course, there are many references to his life by some of his bitterest enemies, Jewish authors of the time of his life, death and resurrection.

As I understand it, nobody, even his bitterest enemies, ever thought of denying his existence in the immediate years after his resurrection.

sincerely

PB

BTW, fyi, I am going to the funeral of a friend's daughter today, who died of a brain tumour while in her early 20s. The family say that while they are hurting, they are happy that they will all be reunited one day.
My own sister was healed miraculously of a brain tumour, as you recall. She had open brain surgery for biopsies, but afterwards it just vanished from the scans. The Dr said "miracles do happen" and brought her to a lecture for doctors as an "unexplained case".

Hi Stephen,

I would agree that the definition of extraordinary is person subjective and to many Christians the resurrection is no extraordinary however to people of other religions the resurrection is extraordinary and Christians find the claims of other religions to be extraordinary and vice-versa, which would indicate that people are unwilling to look out of their own box.

Well I would suppose that extraordinary evidence would be evidence that is out of the ordinary! or appealing to the supernatural etc. I would agree with you that the evidence would have to be persuasive, however the evidence presented by the theologians that you mention is subjective and appeals to people who are already convinced. As I said before Islamic scholars can rationalise Islam and the same with Mormon scholars etc etc ad nauseum but how much cross-over is there, how many Buddhist scholars agree that there was a resurrection? how many Christian scholars agree with Muslim scholars that Mo hammed shot up to heaven on a white stallion? To me it is religious scholars who are batting for their side.

I get the questions that you are asking about Jesus but their conclusion always comes to the same conclusion ie., the Bible is true in the same way that Islamic scholars do the same way Islamic scholars could ask how could Islam have started if Mo hammed did not shoot up into heaven on a white stallion?

I also get what you are saying about legal systems and it was actually going to be one of my original arguments about the reliability of eye-witness statements. Is not odd that Habermas and others can seemingly weigh up evidence and dismiss other religions eye-witness accounts yet only accept their own religions claims(the same likewise of other religions)? do you not think that this is bias and a severe case of cognitive dissonance?

I know what I said about Habermas and did not want to turn it into an ad hominen but do you not think given that he has genuine qualifications what the hell is he doing wasting his time at a glorified degree mill like Liberty "university"?! do you not think that this institution is a tad biased?

I wouldn't say that I am biased (well I would wouldn't I!)as I do try to take each case on it's merits and this is something that Habermas (and theologians of other religions) seemingly cannot do. I would still say that the bias is on the part of Habermas as his argument is...the claims of religion is true the rest are false and of course theologians of other religions make the same distinction which is biased. Would it not be fair to take each case on it's merits, stop special pleading and step out of our own respective circles of delusion?

Off now and another rushed reply!

All the best!

DD

ps. will have a look at this Bayes theorem...something else to add to the list of things to google!

Hello Billy,

At the beginning of this thread you wrote

"Are the 贬耻尘补苍颈蝉迟鈥檚 grasping at straws by enlisting the Alliance party as conscript鈥檚 to promote their Dawkins gimmick they have moved their predetermined goal posts of Westminster MPs to MLAs anything for publicity! any by electing Stephen Farry as the New leader of Alliance."

You may be interested to learn that a second political party has agreed to participate in the handover event at Stormont. Sinn fein has decided to join in. Daith铆 McKay, MLA, North Antrim, will accept the copy on behalf of Sinn Fein.

And btw: what moving goal posts? The extension of the project to N. Ireland is in parallel to the UK project that has finished succesfully and has gathered a good bit of attention for non-believers. The extension of the project to N. Ireland doesn't take away anything from that, it's an added bonus alongside.

And the book pledge project is set to go further. A similar project has been started in the republic:

And from the comments on the pledgebank website it seems almost certain that a similar project will be started in the US.
It's wonderful to see that atheism/humanism/rationalism are having an increasingly strong voice.

Peter:

Youwrite "atheism/ humanism/ rationalism" as if these three words are interchangable. They're very different. A person could be one of them and not the other two. The blurring of concepts is part of the problem, but perhaps you're not a rationalist :)

Pete

Dylan:

Thanks for the response. I鈥檒l keep this short. You鈥檙e main bone of contention is with the existence of competing accounts and claims for truth. However, I don鈥檛 think this rules out ALL evidence as worthless, biased, or unclear. Presumably you have a view regarding the resurrection. Is your view based on selective use of evidence? Don鈥檛 you do just what everyone else does and place your belief wherever the evidence takes you? What is wrong with Habermas doing this? Lets say there are 5 views: A, B, C, D & E. Habermas holds A, and you hold E. In holding E you are exclusing A-D. With Habermas holding A he is excluding B-E. Why should he be suspected for bias but not you? You both hold positions which exclude many competing accounts.

To put it another way 鈥� lots of religious people and non-religious people have opinions about many things. There are two ways we can look at this. Do the Christians just go out there and find all the evidence that supports their position and just ignore everything else? Would you say atheists do the same thing? Are they selectively picking evidence to suit their position? Or, alternatively, are people looking at the evidence as fairly as they can and coming simply to different conclusions? You seem to think folks like Habermas are biased because he鈥檚 arguing for one position out of many. But, everyone who holds an opinion 鈥� atheists included 鈥� argue for one position (in this case that the resurrection never occurred) over many. You accuse religious scholars of 鈥渂atting for their side鈥� 鈥� but would you accuse non-religious scholars of the same bias and 鈥渃ognitive dissonance鈥�? If not, why not?

On Habermas: you ask why he is at Liberty with his qualifications and standing. I don鈥檛 know. I would guess though that he鈥檚 there because Liberty is one of the few universities that allows him to pursue his interest in Christian apologetics.

If you take every case on its merits, that鈥檚 good. But, you still seem to making judgments about Habermas without reading his arguments, and that, to my mind, is as bad a bias as you can have.

Sorry for not being as short as I would have liked!

Cheers,

Stephen G.

hi Stephen,

No it does not rule out all evidence as being biased etc. My view of the resurrection is that it simply did not happen...why? because it's extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence! I apply this across the board and do not demand special pleading to back up my claims only evidence that is objective credible and verifiable.

I would say that Habermas is not being honest and is biased, I have already said that I believe my views are consistent and I reject supernatural/extraordinary explanations. Habermas accepts this criteria ONLY when it backs up his fundamentalist faith and rejects the claims of other faiths even when they do exactly the same thing as Habermas. Further Habermas is claiming that a demi-god who was dead, got up after 3 days, met his disciples and then shot of into heaven on a cloud!! I don't know about you Stephen but that's pretty freaking' extraordinary! And again why accept this and reject Muslim, Buddhist claims etc

I would say that atheists would tend to look for a naturalistic explanation rather than supernatural. I believe a good analogy can be drawn with Biblical creationism-they claim that they have evidence that can back up their claims, however this "evidence" can only be found by fundamentalist Christians-not even all Christians thank goodness! You never hear of an atheist, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist etc etc Biblical creationist...why is that? the same goes for Hindu creationism, you never hear of an atheist, Christian etc Hindu creationist. Can you name me a Buddhist, Hindu scholar who would back up the claims of Habermas(and likewise) So I believe that the point about cognitive dissonance still stands Habermas argues for his own faith and rejects the rest the same goes with other faiths-personally I reject all these extraordinary claims and special pleading because evidence matters to me and the evidence shows that the gospels were not eye-witness accounts. I would say that non-religious scholars are more honest in that they tend not to make extraordinary claims.

If Habermas has genuine qualifications then what a waste it is to go to a glorified degree mill like Liberty-like a concert pianist playing in a cheap brothel.

I have looked at Habermas and his position is that he is a fundamentalist Christian and finds "evidence" to back up his own claims(like creationists) and rejects other religions extraordinary claims I find that double-think in the extreme!

Cheers

DD

Hello Pete, you wrote

"Youwrite "atheism/ humanism/ rationalism" as if these three words are interchangable. They're very different. A person could be one of them and not the other two. The blurring of concepts is part of the problem, but perhaps you're not a rationalist :)"

I fully agree they're different. I meant it in the 'and/or' sense, not to indicate that I think they are the same. Btw Dawkins book does cover all three to different extents. Most of it is atheism, but there's also some parts dedicated to humanist values and calls for rational thinking.
And you would perhaps agree that while they're different, they do have areas of considerable overlap (perhaps more limited overlap for rationalism and humanism)?

As for being a rationalist, I try to be. May not always work, I must admit :).

Kind regards,
Peter

Peter

Yes, I understand. I just see humanists and atheists quite frequently define their positions as "rationalism". It grates on me.

Pete.

OK chaps, a couple of points first. Swinburne and Craig: background in science? Pretty damn weak, I would say. Swinburne did a couple of research fellowships in the 60s as part of his theology training. Craig has none from what I can find. Someone may be able to correct me.

Of course they are allowed to use Bayes' Theorem (Bayes was a minister after all ;-), but Dawkins is similarly allowed to try his hand at theology, and it would seem that his contributions in this area are far more impactful than the contributions of Swinburne and Craig to science. (I don't agree that Bayes' theorem supports the notion of god, because you need some idea of the prior probabilities before you can run the theorem, but that's a side issue).

My point is merely that you can't complain that Dawkins isn't allowed to criticise theology because he's not a theologian. Of course he can. but if the theologians have answers to his points, instead of weeping and wailing, let's see them. If they exist.

As I said, my criticism of Plantinga (and I hope that you're right that that's not his best effort, because it's pretty dire) is based on the review he wrote. Again, if he has better stuff, bring it on.

Right, PB, me old pal, did I call you a "wassick", or was that just wishful thinking on your part?

I said that the gospels were not eyewitness accounts. This is not disputed by ANY serious scholar, and as you know, at least in the cases of Mark and Luke, they were not part of Jesus' entourage anyway, and even if Matthew wrote his gospel (which there is no evidence for whatsoever), he wasn't there at the resurrection. Neither was John. But there is universal agreement that these gospels were not written by their supposed titular authors.

I will re-state what I said: they are NOT eyewitness accounts. I have NEVER said that Jesus did not exist, and I have no idea where you got that from.

You say there are many contemporaneous accounts of Jesus. Newsflash - there is not even ONE. ALL of them are at the very least decades after his death. Sounds like you need to go back to your wikipedia article (which is actually quite interesting, but simply proves my point).

As for the empty tomb, I suggest what I suggest because it is a strong possibility based on the very paltry evidence that we have in the form of the gospels. It is far more plausible than a resurrection, and indeed we know from "Matthew's" gospel that the idea had wide currency at the time the gospel was written. So it's not a new idea. What is also obvious is that the gospels contradict each other. Not different viewpoints - straight contradictions. Which would be OK except for the fact that some people claim that these flawed documents are somehow "the word of god".

The interdependency of the synoptics: these are not independent witness statements. They share actual documentary sources, NOT witness accounts. You just need to read them to see this. Line 'em up. This is not disputed (again) by any serious biblical scholar. I don't contest the "broad outline" of Galilean-preacher-goes-to-Jerusalem-gets-crucified. Happened pretty regularly at the time, as it happens.

So it would seem that I am right in this and you are wrong. I am (as I hope I have demonstrated above) totally cool with the existence of Jesus as a Jewish itinerant preacher (and have explored many of the places he would have been familiar with), and regard him as a fascinating historical figure, but he wasn't the "son of god", and he didn't rise from the dead. The bible simply does not provide the evidence to back up those assertions.

Hello Amenhotep,

"Right, PB, me old pal, did I call you a "wassick", or was that just wishful thinking on your part?"

No, of course you didn't. You quoted someone else saying it to a hypothetical murder suspect, not in any way directed at pb. But pb is in the habit of attributing statements to peolple who never made them. Happened to me only yesterday on the original book pledge thread.

Ah - I see I used the term "wassOck", rather than "wassIck". That's what had me confused.

The gospels are interesting for other reasons. John, for example, explicitly states that it is written "so that you may believe" (i.e. propaganda), and Luke is also quite explicit that he's trying to make the best of a bad job, and set a rather large profusion of tales "straight" (as he saw it).

Not eyewitness accounts, but jolly interesting all the same.

Dylan:

Pardon my delay 鈥� life has been hectic the past few days.

You have continued with your judgments of Habermas, despite admitting you are unfamiliar with his arguments. I don鈥檛 understand this at all. I think that much of what Habermas says is very interesting and sound, even though I think his overall theory is flawed for other reasons. You appear to dismiss him all too readily. I find this terribly biased and anti-intellectual.

Your other point about atheists being less biase, or "more honest", strikes me as odd. Prsumably you have some evidence or argument to back this up? The only thing you tell me is that they seek naturalistic explanations and rule out the supernatural. Seeking naturalistic explanations is not a problem, and theists should also do that. But, to rule out the suoernatural 鈥渁 priori鈥� - before you begin to enquire into any given matter 鈥� is to presuppose the truth of naturalism, and pretty much begs the question. That is another bias in your approach that you don鈥檛 appear to be aware of.

One other point you make is utterly bizarre: that you never hear of a biblical creationist who is atheist, hindu, Buddhist etc, and presumably by extension you never hear of an atheist etc who accepts the resurrection. What is supposed to follow from this? You could argue that atheists are biased because you can鈥檛 find a theist who accepts atheist arguments regarding the existence of God. Funny that, eh? If they did accept the arguments for such fundamental conclusions then presumably they wouldn鈥檛 be theists any more. Likewise it鈥檚 pretty obvious why you don鈥檛 find atheists who are biblical creationists, because the positions are mutually exclusive. Your point here is so odd I鈥檓 not even sure you meant what you said.

That鈥檚 all I have time for.

SG

PS 鈥� AMEN: Sorry, I have no time to respond to you. I simply suggest that before we discuss these matters again you read the works by the scholars in question, which you obviously haven't.

Some of you may find this pod cast of interest. It is a debate between Gary Habermas, Bob Price, Mike Licona and Richard Spencer about the resurrection of Jesus.
Haven't had chance to listen to it myself yet - hopefully i'll find the time tonight.

cheers

dp

Stephen,

I tried to lessen the ad hominems on Habermas and to concentrate on what he was saying, although I do believe that it is not in his favour that he choose to teach at a degree mill and not a genuine university anyway I have looked at his arguments and have found them to be wanting. His argument is that extraordinary stories about his religion are true, extraordinary stories about other religions are false(even though other scholars from other religions argue the same thing as Habermas)just don't buy that-sorry.

I know you would pick up on the atheists being more honest and to be honest I was not happy with what I wrote-perhaps I should have said secular historians. I would simply ask where is the evidence of the supernatural? My own thoughts would echo those of David Hume "a miracle may be accurately defined, [as] a transgression of a law of Nature by a particular volition of the Deity there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, education and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves." Given the choice between doubting the evidence, and having faith in a divine suspension of the laws of Nature, only someone already convinced that divine intervention occurs could opt for the miraculous as an explanation.
I would also say that Habermas's evidence is biased and presupposes the truth of the claims of his religion but rejects all the rest and as I have already stated before other scholars of other religions do the same thing.

The point about Biblical creationists is consensus...they claim that their evidence is empirical so I would say that it is entirely reasonable to assume that there would be atheist Biblical creationists-bizzare as it sounds!-it is all apparently the same evidence- but you don't and you don't find Hindu, Buddhist Biblical creationists because it is a matter of fundamentalist religious faith. Sorry don't find anything bizarre of odd about that. It would be good to find someone ie., an atheist, Hindu etc etc who reached the same conclusion as Habermas by independent means but it doesnt happen. My point was about a bit of consensus, for eg., the historian RL Fox(who is an atheist) wrote a great history of the Bible 'The Unauthorised Version' some of his conclusions are actually more conservative than Christian scholars - go figure! the point is to be honest to yourself and that is what I believe that theists who argue exclusively for the miracle stories of their own faith are not doing. It is always good to get a bit of consensus!

Good talking to you, certainly google was busy looking new things up, which is never a bad thing!

regards

DD

Ummmmmm...I agree with Stephen G regarding Dylan Dog's last point. Dylan, are you really saying that there is something wrong with arguments in favour of, say creationism, because you never find atheists who are creationists? What an absurd argument! Is there something wrong with believing in the resurrection because people who don't believe in the resurrection do not accept the arguments? Doesn't this put you at the mercy of every single dissenter in existence? Are we to suspect the intellectual credentials of atheism because there are no theists who agree with atheists? What nonsense! I've enjoyed your exchange with Stephen G thus far but you're giving him an all too easy ride with terrible arguments like that.

Pete.

Just to echo Dylan Dog's recommendation there re Robin Lane Fox's book "The Unauthorised Version". It's a really interesting survey of the bible.

All is not what it first seems!

Pete

Perhaps I did not explain myself well. I am talking about some form of consensus. Biblical creationists claim(by their own admission) that their evidence is empirical and scientific ie., they examine rocks, fossils etc and come to the conclusion that the world is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days-now I think it is entirely reasonable(not absurd or bizarre) to assume since creationists claim that their evidence is empirical that you would find atheist, Hindu, Buddhist etc etc Biblical creationists but...you don't. A scientist who is a Hindu(or Sikh, Buddhist ad nauseum) when examining a fossil has never come to the conclusion that the evidence indicates that it is 6000 years old and backs up the Bible...why is that? and I am not talking about worldviews rather evidence and I am not talking about a divide between atheism and theism because plenty of Christians accept evolution/science it's about bias about competing world-views and in the case of Habermas he is arguing his position on the basis that the Bible is true.

I am not saying there is nothing wrong in accepting the resurrection(nor do I think I ever did)what I am questioning is Habermas credentials for doing so, he seems ready to dismiss miraculous stories from other world-views and only special pleads on the part of his own and scholars/theologians of other religions do exactly the same thing.

I was not trying to say that because atheists do not agree with theists their arguments are invalid and vice-versa. The point I was making was about evidence and not world-views.

Hope that is clearer!?

Regards

DD

Dylan:

Your position seems to include two separate bits:

1.You think that 鈥渟ecular historians鈥� are less biased and 鈥渕ore honest.鈥� However, you fail to give persuasive reasons why (and fail to identify just who you are talking about). Why is Habermas necessarily more biased than, say, an atheist, Hindu, or Buddhist or anyone else? If all of these people are honestly weighing the evidence and coming to best conclusion they can then I can鈥檛 see how you can charge one over the rest as being 鈥渂iased鈥� simply by virtue of his worldview. Or do you think everyone is biased unless they are arguing from a naturalist worldview? If so, don鈥檛 you see the inherent bias in THAT?

2. The next part of you position contains horrendous conceptual blurs. You ask why there are no atheists who are biblical creationists. This is a woefully inadequate position. Let鈥檚 say Bob is an atheist. Let鈥檚 say he then gets convinced of the case for biblical creationism. Is he now an atheist who believes God created the world? On your view he would be. But this is utterly absurd. Can鈥檛 you see how insane that notion is? Bob is no longer an atheist. He has become a creationist. If you want an example of someone who was an atheist and became a theist CS Lewis is the best known example.

To try to save your argument you bring in the notion of consensus as if democracy is a guide to truth. Perhaps rather than produce arguments for our beliefs we should just ask all the experts and believe whatever the majority tell us. Incidentally if we do that 鈥� ask philosophers of religion about the existence of God 鈥� you will find that most actually do believe that some sort of God exists, and thus that naturalism is inadequate.

That鈥檚 all I have time for.

Stephen G.

Stephen

1. Well I believe that "secular" historians tend to reach conclusions that are free from religious baggage. Reasons? The mainstream version of the Gospels are they are not eye-witness accounts, Habermas's view is that they are eye-witness accounts-why is he arguing this? is it based purely on evidence or his world-view? Of course people bat for their own side, that is precisely the point that I was making all along, the trick is to try and sift through the evidence and attempt to reach a conclusion. That is a position that I believe that Habermas and other theological scholars lack. I am charging them with bias because they do not give other world-views the same credence that they give their own.

2. I am sorry that you do still not get my point about Biblical creationists, perhaps I have not explained myself well enough. They say that their opinion is based on empirical evidence so I think it is eminently reasonable to ask why there are no atheist, Hindu etc Biblical creationists. "Bob" need not necessarily have to become a fundamentalist Christian to become a Biblical creationist, he could still be an atheist and on the evidence alone be a Biblical creationist, because after-all they do say that their opinions are based on evidence. The reason that you find this so bizarre and absurd is that you already know the answer ie., Biblical creationism is not based on empirical evidence but rather a narrow world-view, it's a religious viewpoint and that was the point I was trying to get across. I am aware of CS Lewis and I am glad that you used him as an example because he was indeed an atheist who became a Christian and did not become a Biblical creationist...why? because of a complete lack of evidence and that it is a narrow, fundamentalist world-view. Love the Narnia books BTW.

As I said before Stephen my point about concensus was in terms of evidence not in competing world views(which we will never have) nor in the search for "truth"-which is subjective.

Good to talk to you

DD

Amenhotep

Come on, you ridiculed my belief in Jesus the carpenter because you said the greek did not support it and when I pulled out the greek (post 98) which contrdicts you, now you have dropped the subject altogether.

Come on now, lets conclude this claim of yours properly please!

What does the greek actually say? post 98.

I think we are getting a bit complicated about the gospels but lets keep it simple;

Can you name any mainstream historical reference work that does not respect them as eye witness accounts of the life of Christ?

You have also glossed over the fact that you are trying to use the greek from the gospels to prove he was not a carpenter, yet how can you use that evidence to support your claim if the gospels are not credible? You are undermining your own argument.

And lastly, you say it is "a strong possibility" that Christ's followers moved his body to another grave but actually offer no evidence whatsoever for your suggestion.

Why not, for example, just claim he was buried only once and the gospels made the rest up?

Except of course that the gospels are recognised historical documents which all mainstream hsitorians use to verify the life of Christ.

I think the gospels debate here has gone on long enough.

Anyone left in any doubt, check your own mainstream history reference works if you are interested how they are viewed today.

You seem to have gotten quite personal in recent days Amenhotep, I dont think it really adds to the discusion.

Kind regards

PB

BTW Amenhotep

when you say Jesus was not "the son of God" you seem awfully certain of that for someone who says they have no certain evidence about him.

How can you make such a definite statement?

PB

Stephen G and Dylan Dog

I have just had time to follow your stimulating discussion through in detail.

I have to say SG, I have made all these pointd to DD before, admittedly not so eloquently, but he doesnt really seem to get it.

DD, from reading your responses, you seem to be in denial about having a worldview at all. It appears to stem from your determination to find "truth" and not to be bamboozled by mystic loonies. No bad thing.

But as SG says, you have your own assumptions, ie naturalism, that God, miracles and the supernatural just dont exist. A big untested (untestable?) assumption.

That is a subjective assumption that requires a very definite belief system to arrive at.

I too previously made the same point to you that democracy does not define truth.

I also made the point at length (as SG and others did) to you that anyone who comes from another faith and believes into the Christian faith and believes of course becomes a Christian and not some sort of hybrid.

I personally know a Hindu woman in England who did this.

Ref empirical evidence for creationism; evolutionism and creations both take "facts" and "evidence" and interpret tham based on different assumptions - one for supernaturalism and the other against. result; two contrasting worldviews from the same "facts" or fossil records.

I fully appreciate your point that all faiths do this and see the facts differently, so how can one be right? But you are doing the exact same thing with the facts from your own worldview. So your view is just another one among many too, as SG said.

That is why you repeatedly demand scientific evidence for my faith and cant understand why I dont give it to you. But I dont have a scientific worldview.

I am fully aware that none of my comments in this posting make any claim for the absolute truth of Christianity. That is not my aim.

What I am saying is that you need to recognise that you *have* a definite worldview with all the inherent bias that entails.

BTW, I still dont get how you can say mainstream historians reject the gospels as eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. All the mainstream secualr reference books I have checked say exactly the oppositite

You appear to be injecting your own bias into this matter in how you define "mainstream historians" in order to compliment/protect your own worldview.

Also, ref assumptions against the supernatural, I can fully understand you saying you dont believe the resurrection happened.

But at a distance of 2000 years, you have made a monument of an assumption to say you are absolutely sure it didnt happen.

How can you be so sure about that at such a distance and through reading accounts of "experts" many, many times removed and who bring in their own biases?

That is just about an equal and opposite measure of anti-faith in the resurrection as I have faith in it.

After all that, my last question would be, if you recognise that all religious scholars make similar claims for their own, and that you cannot differentiate between them using your current method, then what other approaches have already been made by others to surmount this problem?

PB

PS I dont think you understood my point about biblical scholarship either, ref slavery.

This point has nothering to do with the supernatural and is just simple English comprehension.

You attacked my analysis of the biblical record on the matter quite fiercely. But Will's essay confirmed my account was 100% accurate.

I dont dispute your moral objections to the analysis, but your total rejection of the accuracy of my analysis seems to speak, again, of a tough-as-teak bias against the actual biblical record on the matter.

It also displays you lack the depth of understanding of what the bible actually says, though you appear to think you have a serious understanding of it. Again, this point requires no belief in the supernatural whatsover, just english reading ability.

PB,

What does the greek actually say?

Tekton. It can mean any number of things, *including* carpenter, but it is an unwarranted leap of assumption to think that Joseph *was* a carpenter. It's just one possibility.

Can you name any mainstream historical reference work that does not respect them as eye witness accounts of the life of Christ?

Yes. All of them. Can you name any that claim that they *were* eyewitness accounts? Mark and Luke weren't there; John wasn't written by John, and Matthew wasn't written by Matthew (and anyway, Matthew was not a witness to a resurrection). In fact, even John wasn't present with the girlies at the empty tomb, and "his" story contradicts the others in important points. Just read them, for goodness sake.

You have also glossed over the fact that you are trying to use the greek from the gospels to prove he was not a carpenter

No I'm not. Anyway, the gospels never actually claim that he was - he was the son of a tekton. Have a read of A.N. Wilson "Jesus" or Robin Lane Fox "The Unauthorised Version". They're pretty mainstream, I think you'll agree.

And lastly, you say it is "a strong possibility" that Christ's followers moved his body to another grave but actually offer no evidence whatsoever for your suggestion.

The gospels are the only evidence we have, and although that evidence is flawed, there is evidence there. 1. Jesus had "followers/associates" unknown to the disciples; 2. Jesus' family were embarrassed by his activities; 3. The young man at the tomb said that he had gone to Galilee (and this was misunderstood by the women).

Why not, for example, just claim he was buried only once and the gospels made the rest up?

That is possible too.

Except of course that the gospels are recognised historical documents which all mainstream hsitorians use to verify the life of Christ.
*I* use them to look at the life of Jesus too. I don't swallow everything they have to say, nor do I do that with Homer, Herodotus, Josephus, etc. They are human documents.

I think the gospels debate here has gone on long enough.
Agreed.

You seem to have gotten quite personal in recent days Amenhotep, I dont think it really adds to the discusion.

I don't think so. I am just challenging your assumptions. I suggest you read a bit more bible.

All the best,
-A

PB

To be brief

The whole point is evidence not world views(this was explained to you in detail by Peter Klaver and John Wright on the other thread).

To go over it again Biblical creationism claims it's "evidence" is based on empirical evidence, then if it is it is reasonable to assume that their would be people of all faiths and none that would subscribe to it and those of none but that doesn't happen-why is that? It's because it's an entirely subjective view-point that is based on a narrow world view. That is why Pete and Stephen found it is bizarre and absurd that you would find an atheist or Hindu etc Biblical creationist.

Compare this to science...the evidence for evolution is objective, you find people of all faiths and none who support it, why is that?

The answer is of course that Biblical creationists do use the same evidence but reject the evidence that disagrees with them(99%), then perverts and distorts the rest in order to suit themselves and they have been found out doing this on numerous occasions. I'm sorry PB but as has been pointed out to you before it is complete and utter twaddle!and for that matter an embarrassment to Christians.

I never said that your god(or any) or the supernatural don't exist, just that I don't see any evidence.

Re: Evidence for Christ...no-one is arguing that a person called Jesus did not exist and no mainstream historian says they were eye-witness accounts.

The consensus is that Mark, Matthew and Luke(the synoptic gospels) are based on a single source. Mark makes the most of this and this source and Matthew and Like to a lesser extent, and these were written about 40-60 years after the events. The writer of John(we do not know the names of the writers)uses a different source and so his story is different was was written later than the other three. That's a condensation of the consensus.

"After all that, my last question would be, if you recognise that all religious scholars make similar claims for their own, and that you cannot differentiate between them using your current method, then what other approaches have already been made by others to surmount this problem?"

To be honest PB!

Re: Slavery. PB you cannot criticize anyone on English reading ability! especially so when simple points have been addressed to you, explained then you repeat them(see Peter Klavers posts and several posts above). My points still stand about your interpretation of slavery. BTW I did not reject your whole analysis just points.

Regards#

DD

Dylan:

I鈥檓 not sure how we can proceed here since it seems apparent to me that your position is showing some major cracks at the moment, if not guilty of being downright incoherent. Perhaps you aren鈥檛 explaining it correctly. I hope so because at the minute it looks to me like it is woefully flawed.

Let me turn things around. Take Bob and Fred. Bob is a theist and Fred is an atheist. They sit down and argue about the existence of God. During the debate Fred becomes convinced by Bobs arguments and comes to see that God does in fact exist. What do we make of this fact? On your view it seems that Fred is now an atheist who believes in God. This is absurd, and since your position leads to this absurdity it is, by extension, absurd also. The truth of the matter is that Fred is no longer an atheist. He is a theist. The reason for this is simple 鈥� the positions are mutually exclusive: holding one necessarily excludes the holding of the other.

So, just what is your point about atheists being biblical creationists?

The only way I can make any sense whatsoever of your position is that if it is construed to mean that if position X has evidence for it then people who hold position Y will become convinced of the case for X, and if they don鈥檛 then the arguments or evidence for X is lacking. But, even this more coherent construal of your position wouldn鈥檛 help you much since it would apply to every position on which there is no universal agreement 鈥� which is pretty much most positions that exist. And why must any position be judged inadequate because people who dissent think differently? For instance, lets say Bob had failed to convince Fred. Are we to conclude that there is something wrong with Bob鈥檚 arguments? Surely not. There COULD be, but his inability to persuade Fred does not alone allow us to conclude that there IS something wrong. There could be something wrong with Fred鈥檚 ability to understand. Or perhaps he is just too damned stubborn to accept good reason. Or maybe has something too great a stake that he doesn鈥檛 want to give up.

Either way as things stand your position is either incoherent or incredibly weak. But, like you said, perhaps you haven鈥檛 explained it correctly.

SG

Stephen,

Perhaps I have not explained myself correctly...

The point about Biblical creationists is that they claim that their evidence is empirical ie., that they use the same evidence as anyone else. Then is it not reasonable to assume that a Hindu or Buddhist etc scientist should independently arrive at the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old without ever having heard of the Bible? Why by independent means is there no support for Biblical creationism? by their very OWN standards there should be. The evidence is supposed to be empirical so there should be universal acceptance but there isn't and I agree 100% with you that the likelihood of finding an atheist biblical creationist is "absurd", "insane" etc etc that is precisely the reason why I raised the point. The existence or non-existence of god/s is something that cannot be tested but Biblical creationism/Hindu creationism/ID does claim to be "scientific", therefore CAN be tested, so belief in their respective gods should be entirely immaterial to the evidence presented. Your responses indicate that you already know the answer to this question(as do I) that the claims of Biblical creationists is not based on reason, science or objective evidence but rather (fundamentalist) religious faith, your responses presuppose that you must believe in the respective god of the person making the claim before it can be accepted therefore it IS absurd, insane to think of a atheist, agnostic, Hindu etc etc Biblical creationist. You are right about Bob and Fred but as I said but you are talking about belief in God, this should be immaterial to empirical evidence that should be independent of faith. Bob walking along, finds a dinosaur fossil and should examine it and come to the independent conclusion based on evidence that it is 6000 years old(belief in god/s should have nowt to do with it)based solely on an objective appraisal of the evidence but this doesn't happen.

We are not talking about objective evidence but rather subjective "evidence" that is not based on reasoning but rather an emotional, special plea that a literal interpretation of Genesis is true.

In the case of "And why must any position be judged inadequate because people who dissent think differently?"

Evidence Stephen! evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable. That is why I believe that a naturalistic/scientific analysis of evidence is the only one that is honest. To turn the question around the acceptance of evolution and science is not based on extraordinary explanations nor on special pleading that only appeals to one group. Christians/Muslims/Buddhists etc do accept evolution/science and have no problem reconciling it with their faith. The problem is when you get the fundamentalist extremes of faith who say they have "scientific" evidence to back up their claims but when you look at it, it is only sectarian propaganda and only special pleas to a their own side.

Hope that is better?

DD

Have to agree with DD on all this; if there is *scientific* evidence in favour of the creationism/ID hypothesis, it is evaluable regardless of "worldviews". Stephen does have a minor point though - if someone "converts" to accepting a recent creation (such as the ludicrous 6000 years nonsense), then they are pretty likely to lose *all* their rational faculties, and they'll more or less inevitably end up believing in a god.

But there are other ways of looking at this. The classical scientific way of working things out is not just "looking at the evidence and incorporating that into your presumptions" as PB would like to paint it - far from it. It goes something like this:

- Get a hypothesis.
- Gather data.
- Test the hypothesis with the data.

So we can do this with creationism. And we have done it. And the hypothesis has been conclusively falsified.

We can use the data to help us generate another hypothesis (this is what Darwin did): species evolve, and have been doing so for millions of years. So we gather the data, and we use the data to test the hypothesis, and bingo! We have a hit. So we look at extant species - bingo! We look at fossils - bingo! We look at genomes - bingo!

Note how we do not need to include or exclude god (or pixies or unicorns or aliens or pastries or toothbrushes) from any of the above. No presuppositions required. Just a hypothesis, a means of testing it, and evidence.

That's what DD is saying, and that is why he is right.

Now, theism is also a hypothesis. It proposes the existence of a god. We can compare this with the counter-hypothesis that there isn't a god. And here's the rub: the counter-hypothesis performs *at least* as well as the hypothesis (it actually constrains the flavour of gods available, so it arguably performs *better*). Occam's razor does the rest.

-A

Amen:

To claim that the counter-hypothesis to the existence of God - ie the non-existence of God - "performs at least as well" is a judgment call. Many thinkers believe that the hypothesis "God exists" performs much better - hence their theism.

Many highly intelligent people believe in God and many highly intelligent people are atheists. Your rather simplistic analysis does not do the debate or either side much justice.

Pete.

Sorry, Pete. No can do.

I am saying that the hypothesis that there is no god explains the data at least as well as the hypothesis that there *is* a god. It does, and has the added advantage of not multiplying entities beyond strict necessity. That's just a fact - what you *do* with that fact is the judgement call, and I accept that many people (some of them even "thinkers"!) prefer the theistic option. But that has nothing to do with the validity of my statement.

-A

Thank you Amenhotep!

I thought I was going bonkers there!

I actually agree with Stephen and Peter 100% on the grounds that they mention ie., that the question is absurd, insane etc because they already know the answer to the question why there are no atheist, Hindu etc etc Biblical creationists and the answer is that it presupposes a firm belief in the respective God. The point that I was making that this belief should be entirely immaterial because creationists claim that their evidence is empirical and "scientific" therefore by THEIR criteria(not my own!) there should be atheist, Hindu ad nauseum Biblical creationists but there isn't-That's my point!

DD

I think you folks may have been talking 'past' each other a little. A biblical creationist necessitates and entails belief in God. There's no third option: either the universe arose by naturalistic means or an intelligence was involved in its creation. Therefore an "atheist biblical creationist" is a contradiction in terms, which is what Stephen so eloquently points out in post #122. (I can't believe this thread has gotten so long!)

Nevertheless I believe DD's point is that, if creationists were right on many of the points of a literal Genesis, an atheist should at least be able to observe that the age of the earth is 6000 - 10,000 years old, should be unable to date anything older than that period, and should be able to verify the empirical claims of creation science independently before even committing to belief in Christianity. In other words - and I agree - if creationists are right, scientists should be among the easiest converts to Christianity since all the evidence would be pointing toward their position!

Hi John,

I agree with what you are saying, there is no "third option" in being a Biblical creationist, and an atheist (or Hindu etc)Biblical creationist is a contraidiction in terms, and strange as it may seem that is why I used the point. The problem as you pointed out in paragraph 2 is when they claim their beliefs are backed up by "science" and thanks for getting what I was saying.

Anyway this thread has indeed gone on too long...

DD

Amen:

Restating what you have already said doesn't change the fact that it is only YOUR judgment that the cases have equal explanatory power. It isn't an objective FACT, or at least not a clear one - hence millenia of disagreement. Sorry. :P

Pete

Hi Pete, sorry to bang on and keep disagreeing with you here, but the problem with your position is that the "no-god" hypothesis is (whether you choose to accept it or not) of at least equivalent explanatory power to the "god" hypothesis - if you disagree with that, you need to come up with some data that fits the GH that does *not* fit the NGH. It actually doesn't matter one whit what people have thought for millennia - for millennia they thought the Earth was the centre of the universe, or that it was created a few thousand years ago. And we all know what happened to *those* hypotheses when those nasty scientists started throwing *evidence* around.

I do appreciate where you're coming from - I used to be an evangelical Christian myself. There is a whole other world beyond ;-)

Dylan:

Thanks for clarifying your position. Yes, what you are saying makes more sense now. And I agree largely with it. If there was evidence outside of the Bible for a 6000 year old earth then we would find it. Very true. Like yourself I believe this position to be devoid of intellectual merit. When you used the term 鈥渂iblical creationism鈥� I thought you were talking primarily about the belief that God created the world.

Anyhow, that clarified let us return to the topic of the resurrection and Habermas鈥檚 views. Let me make it clear that I think Habermas method is flawed. However, I think he makes important arguments. I think you should be aware that he doesn鈥檛 assume the truth of Christianity or make any 鈥渟pecial pleadings鈥� as you put it. In actual fact his apologetic method for the resurrection relies on what is called a 鈥渕inimalist鈥� position. In other words he takes the minimal amount of data that scholars can agree on and he tries to show how the resurrection is the best understanding of the evidence. Even if you think he is being biased, it still would not invalidate his arguments. Dawkins is very much biased in favour of evolution, but that doesn鈥檛 stop what he says from being true on matters of evolutionary biology does it? We must take care to read every scholar critically as bias can be present in all many of viewpoints for many reasons. That鈥檚 were our critical faculties come into play.

One point I would agree with you on is that Habermas鈥檚 arguments are more likely to convince people who already believe in God. In fact, theistic philosopher William Lane Craig criticises Habermas for trying to argue not only for the resurrection but also for the existence of God on the basis of the resurrection. Craig prefers a 鈥渃lassical apologetic鈥� method - that of giving grounds to believe in God FIRST and then proceeding to other matters such as the divinity of Christ and the resurrection. I agree with Craig here. But, seemingly Habermas and others have found that their methods and arguments have persuaded many people.

As for me I have spent most of my 鈥渋ntellectual life鈥� thinking about the existence of God generally rather than other matters. I am convinced that a powerful and intelligent creator exists (and I agree with Pete above in his response to Amen - I don鈥榯 think the hypothesis of God鈥榮 non-existence has as much explanatory power as the proposition 鈥淕od exists鈥�). I went to study theology and philosophy as a conservative evangelical Christian and left almost agnostic. The reason is that I couldn鈥檛 see how many of my beliefs could be justified, so I gave many up. The only belief that I have never doubted is that God exists, and I believe this as strongly as I believe anything, for reasons too detailed to get into here. I would describe myself, somewhat inaccurately, as an 鈥渁gnostic Christian鈥� (am I right in saying that Amen calls himself an 鈥渁theist Christian鈥�). I believe in God and I鈥檓 still broadly within a Christian framework - largely due to upbringing and culture - but I鈥檓 agnostic about most of the minutiae of Christian doctrine.

Let me end by telling you why I disagree with Habermas. Not because I consider him biased. Not because I think his position fatally flawed by Craig鈥檚 criticisms of his method. And not because he engages in special pleadings, as I don't think he does.

I think an analogy would help. Lets say I go to a friends house and I hear a loud noise coming from a bedroom above. My friend tells me - 鈥渙h, it鈥檚 just our ghost.鈥� Lets say my friend then tells me that the room is sealed off from the wind, a plumber has fixed the pipes so it isn鈥檛 the plumbing, the room is sealed from rodents etc. In fact, lets say every alternative hypothesis I can think of is eliminated. Lets say also that the noise occurs at 9.34pm every day - the same time as a little boy died in 1983 in that very bedroom. Does this mean I am forced to conclude that there is indeed a ghost in the bedroom? No. Even if I cannot offer a better explanation I am still not required to believe that. The reason is simply that for me the 鈥渁 priori probability鈥� of ghosts is far too low to entertain. The same is true of the resurrection hypothesis - even if Habermas is right and it is the best explanation we are not forced to accept it. Of course some people might, but many others will not. Much depends on the antecedent plausibility different people will assign to such an event. So as a proof or piece of compelling evidence I think Habermas fails, but any one interested in the topic needs to reckon with many of his arguments.

Nice to chat to you.

SG

Amen:

Again, saying so doesn't make it so. You haven't said why the NGH is as good or better than the GH. There have been debates for centuries about which hypothesis best fits the data and these debates continue today unresolved and without consensus. Stephen G was right earlier - you need to educate yourself about the topics you comment on rather than making dogmatic assertions (something you seemingly do on your blogsite too).

Pete.

PS am neither evangelical nor Christian. Perhaps educating yourself about that before making more assumptions would have been smart. For a scientist you are remarkably unscientific.

Good grief, Stephen, your last paragraph actually made *sense*!!! Well done that man.

Nearly there ;-)

Hi Pete,
I was talking about *me* being an evangelical christian, not you. I haven't a clue what persuasion you are or have been. My blogsite is pretty much stream-of-consciousness - every now and then I get back to it and remove a few things that I think are too crap. Maybe the rest should go, sure. But I do seem to have hit a wee nerve with you. Sorry about that. Let me poke further...

You are confusing the *judgement* one makes on the basis of testing a hypothesis with the hypothesis-testing process itself. I am indeed a scientist, and I do in fact have some degree of a clue what I'm talking about here. I appreciate that some people don't like hearing it, but that's too bad.

Let's go back to the hypothesis testing business. In what way do you say that the GH works better than the NGH? Both explain the data. The NGH has the added advantage of doing away with a redundant presupposition. What am I missing here?

-A

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for getting back to me, had a brief look through your reply and initially I agree with most of what you say...but up to my eyeballs today in real-life so will reply at some stage when I can actually sit and relax.

Cheers

DD

Amen:

Sorry, but you told me you knew where I was coming from, because you were once an evangelical Christian yourself. It鈥檚 fairly clear that you thought I was. An apology would have served you better than fudge.

Anyhow, you say GH and NGH 鈥渂oth explain the data.鈥� But this isn鈥檛 the whole story. The issue is which one explains the data most simply and most adequately. To my mind the GH does that. I think it makes much more sense of why there is a universe at all and why that universe contains many of the features we do in fact find. Even if the NGH is 鈥渆qual鈥� as you say (and, sorry, but I must continually correct you because it IS a judgment of data and not the basis on which we evaluate data) that is still not the end of the matter. The reason is that the GH, to my mind, has more by way of evidence for it. Much of this evidence is primarily philosophical in nature so I can forgive your incompetence and ignorance of it. Philosophers of religion busy themselves with offering arguments 鈥� very detailed arguments 鈥� and I have found a number of these arguments to be persuasive or at least to give the GH an edge over the NGH - arguments such as Craig's kalam cosmological argument, Swinburne's cumulative case and many others. These things we could call 鈥減ublic evidence.鈥� But in addition we have private evidences 鈥� the GH makes much more sense of the phenomena of religious experiences of individuals 鈥� myself included.

Sorry if I sound prickly but to be honest it鈥檚 frustrating arguing with someone whose views are so utterly simplistic and whose knowledge of philosophical literature so lacking that it鈥檚 increasingly difficult to take seriously.

Let me ask: just what kind of scientist are you? At what level did you study it? What do you currently do?

You end you post with the question: 鈥淲hat am I missing here?鈥� Knowledge and understanding of an entire relevant area of study I鈥檇 say.

Pete.

Pete,
I only assumed (!) that you were a theist. I used to be a theist, and the type of theist I was was an evangelical christian. No fudge, and no assumption on my part. Yes, you do sound a bit prickly, but that's OK - we all do it from time to time; I do too occasionally.

Philosophy is argument. It is not evidence. Private religious experiences are not evidence. Every religion has experiences them, so they reveal more about human psychology than the Great Beyond.

Craig's kalam argument is fundamentally flawed. It is a reasonable question(!) as to why there is anything at all, but the core fallacy is that "existence" is only something that applies *within* the universe. The Fibonacci sequence is an example of something that has a beginning, but doesn't have a cause. Similarly a "Life universe" (Conway-Morris's famous mathematical "game") is a mathematical entity comprising a state and iterative operator. Yet, although we may seed the "universe" with a value, that value is representable as a number, so do we "invent" numbers, or do they "exist" platonically? *Within* that structure, and "creatures" would perceive themselves to exist in actuality, whereas we would regard them as mere mathematical abstractions. Anyway, I digress. Kalam is actually quite a good argument (I would go as far as to say the best of a bad bunch), but it is flawed, as you can (hopefully) see from above.

I'm sorry if my direct approach to the issue is "simplistic" - you will recall my argument (maybe) about "wrappers" - the vast majority of religious philosophy falls into this category, and hence is irrelevant to what lies beneath. The fundamental question is (and kudos to Craig and Swinburne here, even though they are wrong) "is there a god/gods?" That is a simple question, and it turns out the answer is simple too.

No.

OK...Amen, once again you show your misunderstanding of philosophical arguments. You claim that the Fibonacci sequence is an example of something with a beginning but which isn't caused. What relevance has this to Craig's argument. Craig's argument relies on the premise "everything that begins to EXIST has a cause of its existence if its existence." He isn't saying that everything with a beginning is caused. You have blurred the two concepts. I could sit and count 1,2,3,4,5 - a set of numbers with a beginning, but about which it would be a category mistake to say "began to exist" in the way that some given physical object - a stone - "began to exist." You have misunderstood Craig entirely if you think this applies.

As for your other comments, I really can't be bothered. I've grown tired of your rather naive simplistic approach to this debate and your wanton ignorance of philosophical arguments.

To claim that the answer to the question "is there a God" is 'simple' tells me something about the simple nature of the mind making that claim.

Pete.

Sorry, please answer my question: what type of scientist do you purport to be? At what level are your trained? What do you do?

Pete.

Hi Pete,

Doctorate; Human genetics.

And you?

-A

Hi Amen

I did post a more considered response to your last postings last night but its gone!

So forgive me this is rushed!

I sympathise with Pete here.

You are making dogmatic statements which appear to be more "stream of consciousness" than considered views.

For example you say the gospels never claim Christ was a carpenter but what about Mark 6:3?

And how can you be so certain when you say Christ is not the Son of God?

I am also boggled as to how you arbitrarily use parts of the gospel you trust to counter other parts you dont.

I can understand you saying you dont believe it or that the evidence doesnt convince you, but you seem to be overstepping the mark when you make statements of such certainty about Christ without evidence.

Ref Tekton in the greek text, I have shown from authorities how it primarily relates to carpenters though not exclusively.

Every translator of every English new testament has put it carpenter.

What is your expertise in greek to overrule?

Ref the reliability of the gospels.

The Sunday Times History of the World and Oxford Dictionary of World History both explicitly accept them as evidence for their detailed biographies of Christ. They certainly treat them as eye witness accounts and give no reason at all to counter that common assumption.

The Oxford Compact Dictionary says their authors were the Four Evangelists and this was the view of the early church leaders. So does World History for Dummies.

It appears you are far too dogmatic about your opinions when viewed against mainstream authorities.

How did your favouritie authors on this do in their peer reviews?

You also said life works equally well without God as with, yet you admit in your "weaker" moments you have nostalgia for your old faith.

You obviously have a few years left in you yet, perhaps you have concluded your experiment too early to make a conclusion?

Did you never experience any power in your life from God when you were a believer?

I imagine you might have been a little more humble and gracious than you are now when you worshipped a humble and gracious God.

Perhaps a straw poll among your acquaintences on any change might give you some data to whether there was a difference?

Why continually joust over the faith you now disown? Is your nostalgia a part of you that is looking for a way back?

got to run

sincerely
PB

Cripes, Pete, you really don't like it up you, do you? Let's put the toys back in the pram, there's a good boy.

Let's look at this another way (because I have not misunderstood Craig at all - he just hasn't fully grasped the issue). Craig is presupposing something about the definition of the word "EXIST" - namely that it has any meaning outside the system within which things exist (if you get me). When applied to the universe, this is actually a bit nonsensical, because there is "nothing" for it to exist *in*. So if were dealing with the universe as a whole, we need a much more satisfactory definition.

My own opinion (and far be it from me to regard it as infallible; I am open to rational argument - try that next time) is that our universe *is* mathematical, and "exists" in precisely the same way as the Fibonacci sequence "exists" or any particular "Life Universe" exists. The important point is that from *within* the system, the concept of "existence" becomes much more concrete - the little "creatures" inside a Life Universe would perceive themselves to be "existing", even though in *our* universe they are no more than a mathematical abstraction.

OK, I appreciate this is hard to swallow, particularly since we really oughta keep blog comments short 'n' snappy, but try this thought experiment - suppose you simulated your brain inside a computer - all the cells & interconnections etc. Would it/could it be conscious? If so, what would it experience if you turned the computer off? What about if you jotted down all the memory contents of the computer, calculated the next states using a pencil and paper, and programmed them back into the computer when it rebooted? What would the brain have experienced during that "hiatus"? Mull that one over for a while.

-A

A doctorate in Genetic, eh? So, you're NOT an expert in philosophy, cosmology, physics or mathematics? That much was obvious. (In case you're curious I have a masters degree in physics and am completing a Phd in philosophy - epistemology to be more precise).

Craigs argument makes perfect legitimate use of the word exist. Why has no philosopher of religion made such a criticism of Craig if it's just that obvious? Thank goodness for doctors in genetics to keep us all out of error, eh?

You have misunderstood Craig entirely and your points above do nothing to weaken his argument. I would reason with you but you have no argument worth reasoning with. The fault lies with YOU not with Craig.

Earlier Stephen G called you on your philosophical ineptitude, but I thought he was too hasty with such an allegation. As it turns out, he was prophetic! Sorry that you're upset to the point of babbling incoherently about brains and computers (you've watch too much of the Sci-fi channel me thinks). Poor baby! Amen want a blankie?

Pete.

Pete- For all your supercilious, arrogant chest-puffing about the level of your education, you appear to be incapable of holding a conversation above the standards of a primary school pupil. I quote: "Poor baby! Amen want a blankie?" What did you say you're doing, epistemology?

Perhaps basic respect (101) would be a more worthwhile discipline on which to spend your time.

Amenhotep- I wouldn't dignify this with a response.

John: I agree, but Amen has hardly been respectful either: "you really don't like it up you...put your toys back in the pram. There's a god boy"

Dylan...please hurry Amen & Pete have lost the plot here.

RATIONAL discourse anyone?

And these guys purport to be intelligent? Honestly, I find it hard to berlieve either of you about your education on this basis...mud slinging and missing the point...jeez!

SG

Don't have much time...

PB

Briefly...although you addressed your points to Amenhotep...

The works you mention are compendiums and are basing their articles on the gospels but that does not automatically mean that they endorse them as eye-witness accounts.

The consensus amongst scholars is basically that the synoptic gospels use the same source, known as Q(which if I remember correctly is from the french word Quelle). The writer of Mark used the most of this source and the other synoptics to lesser degrees. The writer of John used a different source and was the latest and that none were eye-witness accounts. Now I am willing to be corrected and it has been several years since I have looked at it but if memory serves me well...

For goodness sake PB what is this?

"I imagine you might have been a little more humble and gracious than you are now when you worshipped a humble and gracious God."

I believe that Amenhotep has "handled " you very well! a lot of posters end up losing it with you when you misrepresent them, I see nothing but patient good humour on the part of Amen with you!(ps. do you mean humble and gracious like Ian Paisley?)

"Perhaps a straw poll among your acquaintances on any change might give you some data to whether there was a difference?"

Really PB!?

Pete: John's right whatever "argument" that you think you had, you've now lost it-you sound like a ruder version of "The Courtiers Reply"

Is this the same Pete who said in M50 "Holy Crap, Ernie really is a nasty, angry little man isn't he?"

Pot..kettle...black...

Anyway came back to reply to Stephen G but got distracted and outta time.

OK OK OK, I apologise, Pete. I did indeed perhaps ramp up the sarky arse side of my nature a wee bit there, and we ended up doing this intellectual pissing-up-the-wall contest.

So let's be good pals again and tone it down before William starts rejecting our comments.

I'm saying kalam is flawed because the word "exist" is being inappropriately used. You're saying that I am wrong and Craig is right. Yet I have pointed out that from the p.o.v. of critters in a Life universe, *their* universe, even though it is "only" a mathematical abstraction, *exists* in as real a sense as ours does from *our* pov. The Life critters would be just as justified (and just as wrong) as Craig to postulate kalam as an argument for a god of *their* universe.

Where have I gone wrong?

Furthermore, what would you like me to clarify for you about my thought experiment?

[PB. I was lovely as a Christian, and am just as lovely now. And still as argumentative. But the thing is that even when you or Pete are losing the bap with me, I'm still *listening* to you. Keep 'er lit. Wrong is OK. But I'll not get upset over it.]

-A

DD / Amen

It seems I am not the only one to notice Amen is getting a bit sarky with people and of course he does admit it himself in post 148, so please dont somehow try and make the issue into something about *me*.

Look at all the other people Amen has annoyed in the past few posts; what is wrong with you DD???????

And you say alot of posters lose it when I "misrepresent" them do they?

Sometimes I do misunderstand people and it is not the first time I have apologised on this blog for getting ratty.

But you dont really appear to try pay any respect to my viewpoint at all, even at a basic civility level.

You do seem to repeatedly imply that everyone on this blog is sane and I am the only one who is really not, because you consider me a "fundamentalist" which I am not, BTW.

If I can remind you as an example; on the slavery debate, about two dozen posters tried to cyber crucify me ( including you!!! ) for suggesting the bible does not promote slavery.

Then of course Will vindicated my analysis 110%.

Was I intellectually and morally wrong for upsetting all those people, yourself included?

Dont be ridiculous.

Lets just drop the ad hominems altogether and be civil, shall we?

Its a nice attempt at dismissing the historical reference works I have provided on the validity of the gospels, but I really dont think it works, at all.

They are respected mainstream history works, without any question whatsoever.

If you want to suggest others, fine, go ahead, but you cant just dismiss mine as though they dont count. You will *always* find a very upstanding reason to dismiss ANY book that might support anything I would say, no matter what their qualifications.

Your favourites authors on Christ are just that - your favourites - and they reflect and confirm your worldview. As far as I can recall your authors are known for being firm sceptics or controversialists, which they are entitled to be of course.

There are many, many, many mad books about Jesus, with new ones coming out each and every single year.

How are you really going to seperate the good and the bad out of all the hundreds of books?

Do we just select the ones we are comfortable with as "good" and sweep the rest under the carpet?

I dont see how you have the authority to define the limits of historical authorities we shall consider as valid here.

Lets all just reflect a little more on what expertise we *really* have and not what we *think* we have, whether that be a phd in genetics and/or amatuer religion or science and take a more realistic view of our own expertise.

And Amen

Just please stop patronising me. I never ever lost the bap with you.

It is you that is being ignorant to people here.

So if you really are still listening then I would appreciate it if you answered post 142.

If you are so sure I am wrong, how does a phd in genetics be absolutely certain that Jesus is not the son of God? what evidence do you have for such absolute certainty?

cheers

PB

So nobody every misrepresents me

In the absence of a reply from Dylan and in the absence of epistemological Pete lets run with the current discussion. We can all be sarky arses, as Amen so charmingly put it! If we can all agree to be rational then we might have a decent discussion here. So, slate clean, pals again, lets have a conversation. Agreed everyone?

Amen: Your criticism of Craig鈥檚 kalam argument intrigues me. To be honest I thought the bigger problem with it was the use of the word 鈥渂eginning鈥� or 鈥渂egan鈥� - and some philosophers have charged him with equivocation comparing his sense of 鈥渂egins鈥� in his first premise with 鈥渂egan鈥� in the second and detecting a subtle shift in meaning. I鈥檓 not convinced that there is an equivocation here, so I鈥檓 not going to pursue the point here.

I鈥檒l state the argument first for the benefit of everyone so we all know what we鈥檙e talking about.

(1) Everything that begins to existence has a cause of its existence
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.

This is the first argument in a chain of arguments given by Craig.

Amen - your problem seems to be with premise 1 since you try to argue that some things begin but have no cause. I think Pete was correct on one point - having an beginning is a different concept from 鈥渂eginning to exist.鈥� So, I think your first counter-example regarding the fibonacci sequence doesn鈥檛 work.

You give a second example - regarding a 鈥淟ife Universe.鈥� OK. You鈥檝e got me here since I鈥檓 not entirely sure what this means and perhaps either you (or Physicist Pete) could explain it and how it relates to Craig鈥檚 argument.

As I understand Craig he is using the word 鈥渆xist鈥� or 鈥渆xistence鈥� to refer to everything that 鈥渋s鈥� - that 鈥渉as being鈥� if you like. Stones exist, the sun exists, humans exist, atoms exist and by extension the universe exists. So, from what I can see Craig has a perfectly acceptable definition of the word 鈥渆xists鈥� or 鈥渆xistence,鈥� and thus to me his first argument in the chain is not prone to the criticism you level at it. Craig鈥檚 argument could perhaps be modified thus:

(1) Everything that began to be had a cause which made it to be
(2) The universe began to be
(3) Therefore the universe has a cause of its being

This is a slightly different formulation of the argument (and, of course, there are various forms of the kalam argument).

I鈥檓 not sure your criticism applies to Craig鈥檚 actual argument, and less so to this modified one. But, admittedly I鈥檓 not even sure just what your criticism amounts to as a critique. Perhaps a bit more explanation is in order.

Thanks.

Stephen G.

DD,
Epistemological Pete,
Peter Klaver,
Stephen G,
PB,
Amenhotep,

If we'd like to keep this little parley going - why not, since it's some kind of a record already! - I have a suggestion. In a few days, this post will disappear from the main page, but it won't disappear from existence (see how I tied that in, Amen!).

Basically if you bookmark this page right now, it'll always exist here to come back to and continue the conversation.... otherwise we'll lose access. So, 1, 2, 3...

BOOKMARK!

Stephen G - you don't understand? That's because the point makes little sense and Craig's argument is perfectly clear. Why have no atheist philosophers ever pointed such an "obvious" criticism out before?

The debate isn't worth having - not with your current debate buddies.

Pete.

Good plan, John. PB, I have addressed the gospels issue ad nauseam, and the mainstream historical works you have cited support *my* case, not yours. As for J being the SoG, I ofer that as an opinion; if you have evidence to the contrary, bring it on. I am open to argument, but *not* open to nonsense.

Right, folks. Kalam. You don't need to be a physicist, a geneticist, a philosopher or anything to figure this out. Just bring your brain, and let's ride!

My problem (as I've stated before) with kalam (which is not a bad argument - just based on false premises) really boils down to what it means to "exist". Craig is trying to use "rocks and trees" as examples of things that "exist", and then apply that to the universe as a whole. However, this "definition" of existence is only relevant *inside* the universe itself. It is not at all clear that such a definition applies to the universe as a whole.

In fact, if quantum theory has taught us anything, it is that rocks and trees and we are *parts* of the universe, not simply "in" the universe as objective observers/occupants. So the term "existence" is actually a relative term: such and such exists *relative to* something else *in the same universe*.

Without extending this post too far, I am suggesting that, relative to a critter in a Life universe, another critter would seem just as real (and therefore "exist") as one person in our universe does to another. Yet in that case it is just a mathematical abstraction. The implication is that our very own universe may well be *completely* mathematical in nature.

In which case, kalam does not apply. Nice try, Bill. Please someone tell me that "proper" philosophers have not missed this point?! Maybe they should spend more time listening to geneticists ;-)

Hi John,

I may keep with this thread, but it's nowhere near a record yet. Try the McIntosh threads that were started somewhere around the turn of the year. Another few cases where religious people turned to science, often such a disaster (Maureen might turn out to be different on the science delusion thread, I've debated her too short to make a judgement, but she seems to be more sensible sofar). In that case, they had a gripe with the second law of thermodynamics. A '6000-year-old-earth' creationist professor in an Engineering department (who also became very defensive and evasive when William Crawley asked him if he would confirm being a geocentrist) stated that tslot precludes evolution. If was such a laugh. That yielded more than 300 posts last time I checked. Maybe still more now. pb was in on it of course, as his very worst. Endlessly touting the 200 AiG phds. And also nagging on and on and on about 'Why are there no half-evolved fossils', even when a large volume of literature on them had been pointed out to him, literally dozens of times by many different posters.

So no, while this thread may have seemed hopeless, pb et al can take it to a much lower level still if he tries. In fact, he has now conceded many points that were the corner stone of his naggings. Not that he did it in a very graceful manner, but for him it already was a vast improvement. I hope that that trend continues, but I fear he may all too soon slide back to his old ways and take us down with him again.

Hi Stephen,

Apologies for the delay, as I said real life intruded. I am glad that you got my point.

My argument was that Habermas uses the same level of debate as Biblical creationists. I am well aware that history nor science is a democracy but evidence should be standalone and it would be good to get a theologian from another persuasion to come to the same conclusions as Habermas. Of course even if I believe that Habermas is biased that does not invalidate his evidence and likewise with Dawkins, although the evidence that Dawkins presents for evolutionary biology is "standalone".

Anyway you are right that I am largely ignorant on the arguments of Habermas and Craig, my opinion was based on what you have told me and googling(one thing that is great about these discussions is the new names and viewpoints to look at). So I will look at the arguments in more detail.

I like how you discuss your background, it shows that you are honest, open to new ideas and willing to questions beliefs that you hold dear and what more could anyone ask for! I would say that calling oneself a Christian agnostic or atheist is not so strange, I have met quite a few atheist Jews who are still culturally Jews but do not believe in God, culture and upbringing do play a large part. Personally I would describe myself as a "soft" atheist as a statement and a free-thinker in terms of how assess world-views and do attempt to take each case on their merits but sometimes no matter how much we try, personal baggage does come into it. I am open to new ideas and challenges though. I am interested in the Bible and history and used to be more widely read when I had a greater interest (no real reason for me losing interest, more a case of getting other interests and wanting to find out about them)but these discussions have piqued my curiosity again.

Liked the analogy in your last paragraph!

Good to talk to you!

DD

PB,

Amen and Pete were 2 posters getting a bit sarky with each other not really misrepresenting each other.

"And you say alot of posters lose it when I "misrepresent" them do they?"

Yes.

"Sometimes I do misunderstand people and it is not the first time I have apologised on this blog for getting ratty."

I know that you do and you have apologised and it has been noted.

"But you dont really appear to try pay any respect to my viewpoint at all, even at a basic civility level."

Oh come on PB! it's not on "every" occasion, it depends on what is being discussed and we had civil conversations. To dig up the past PB, in one of the previous(I believe that it started on one of those interminably long Andy Mac threads), you said that the views of 2 other posters disagreed with my own. I explained in detail why I thought you were wrong, it was brought up again in another thread and then another thread! I don't know how many times I told you that I agreed 100% with the views of the posters, gave evidence links etc and you still brought it up again-that is frustrating!

PB when have I said personally that you are insane? I believe that some of your views are (ie., Biblical creationism) but I have backed up what I said and gave my reasons. If you got the impression that I was personally calling you insane I apologize for the misunderstanding and PB you certainly do hold some fundamentalist opinions!

Re: The slavery thing, I disagreed on a few points with you and I still disagree on them and gave my reasons.

Since you brought up that debate, do you remember that a poster criticized you about some aspect of your analysis and I actually stuck up for you and defended your opinion? I try to be honest PB! Of course you have every right PB to defend your opinion , that is one of the points about these boards. However on several occasions you have complained about me challenging your opinions and the impression that I sometimes get is that since you are defending the Bible that somehow makes anything that you say to be above criticism.

OK PB do you want to start afresh, I admit that I have been ratty with you in the past and I will endeavour not to be again-OK? but could you also try to understand fully what people are saying and if people do post links/evidence to you and if you do not have the time etc to look at it, please say so in order that I do not have to repeat myself.

Is that fair enough?

Regards

DD

Amen:

I鈥檓 not sure just where this discussion can go from here as we seem to be at a dead end. I think you鈥檙e construal of the word 鈥渆xists鈥� has little or no effect on Craig鈥檚 argument, and much less on my reformulation of that argument - which you never addressed. Like I said above Craig is using the word in the sense of 鈥渢o be鈥� and perhaps, without sounding arrogant, my version of his argument is a better way of making that explicit (although to be fair to Craig he probably rightly guessed that most people would understand his usage - which they do - you鈥榬e an exception I鈥榤 afraid). On this understanding there is no 鈥榬elative鈥� sense of the word at all - things either 鈥渁re鈥� or they 鈥渁re not.鈥� If only one thing exists that entity 鈥渋s.鈥� Period. It鈥檚 not that it 鈥渋s鈥� relative to something else - since there is nothing else about which it can be relative too - it just 鈥渋s.鈥�

There is nothing invalid about using trees and stones and other objects as examples of things that exist - they 鈥渂e鈥�- or 鈥渁re鈥� - in the relevant sense. To extend this to the universe as a whole is equally valid - it 鈥渋s鈥� - it exists. It 鈥渉as being.鈥� You say that rocks and trees are 鈥減arts鈥� of the universe and not just 鈥渋n鈥� the universe. But this actually bolsters Craig鈥檚 point. Craig agrees 100%. That鈥檚 why he can legitimately speak of the universe - made up of all these parts - as being something which 鈥渋s鈥� and which 鈥渃ame to be.鈥� To me it is clear enough that Craig鈥檚 terms and definitions apply to the universe as a whole, and where I agree with Pete is that if you are correct it鈥檚 incredibly odd that atheist philosophers haven鈥檛 noticed this before. As it is philosophers of ontology - that branch of philosophy specifically dealing with matters of 鈥渆xistence鈥� - have no problem with the use of the word 鈥渆xists鈥� in Craig鈥檚 argument. Strange that. Why do you think that is? The reason they haven鈥檛 is because the criticism isn鈥檛 valid. The word 鈥渆xists鈥� is a fairly uncontroversial one in Craig鈥檚 argument. I think you鈥檇 be better focusing on Craig鈥檚 second premise and his use of the word 鈥渂egan鈥� as I think valid criticisms might be levelled at the argument on these grounds. You are trying to use the term 鈥渆xists鈥� is an unnatural way and in a way which Craig doesn鈥檛 mean, and which doesn't apply. Craig is using the word in a very natural way - the way most rational people mean when they use that term. For his argument - and remember this is just the first in a chain - the term succeeds for his purposes. The universe 鈥渋s.鈥� It 鈥渉as being.鈥� That鈥檚 a pretty uncontroversial thing to say to be honest.

If "exists" simply means "is" or "has being" then saying "the universe exists" is no more controversial than saying "Stephen G exists."

SG

Dylan: Thanks for the response and your openness to enquiry. Hopefully our discussion proves that these issues can be debated without vitriol.

Cheers,

SG

In fairness, Stephen, I have said that his argument is a good one, and "exists" is indeed where I would wish to pin the tail on this particular donkey. It is precisely because it is so natural and (seemingly) sensible that it has slipped beneath most folks' radar (including Craig), and why the kalam is kaputt.

Now, it seems to me (maybe I'm wrong here) that all that cobblers about infinity and set theory is just a fancy way of trying to excuse god from the room when we try to fling the argument back one step ;-) Must read it over again and report back.

But please bear with me on the existence of existence, and return to my little Life critters. Do they "exist"? How would they be able to tell if *we* exist? How can they tell whether or not they are a mathematical abstraction?

ATB,
-A

DD

I appreciate the fresh start :)

I think a mental committment to avoid sarcasm and ad hominems from both of us would go a long way.

Ref what I say about the bible being above criticism, it is not at all of course. But neither is just dismissing my understanding just because I am not a best selling author.

I think I have demonstrated I have some level of understanding, honesty and reading ability in this matter.

I think we touched upon the case before that both of us felt the other did not really listen to the other, you on evolution and me on the Old Testament Law.

In my case, I think my reasons for that is that I understand the scientific community is churning out zillions of papers all over the world daily and I dont know how anyone can objectively pick between them, beyond zeitgeist consensus.

I also find it very unconvincing for anyone to tell me that ambition, power, money, agendas, fear, politics, and pro/anti-religious bias cant and wont affect what scientific research is done, challenged and upheld.

Even Peter Klaver admitted last night he reads science all the time but is not up in the politics and funding of his field.

I also think I am hopeless at making sense of phd science papers!

In relation to your attitude to the Old Testament Law, I never felt you really gave the overall bible's view on what it really meant a fair crack of the whip.

I find it very frustrating when you say you are interested in the bible but only read selected authors *about* the bible.

There are many very well qualified conservative scholars too!
FF Bruce anyone? we can all play name dropping, where does it end???

If I could ask you to understand only one thing, it is that (in my understanding) the New Testament clearly says that the Old Testament law was an excercise in the art of the possible in a world where virtually everyone was barbarian in relation to 21st century sensibilities.

Christ plainly acknowledge the OT teaching on divorce fell far short of God's ideals because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts.

While the OT law was there to bring some semblence of order, the bible nowhere says the whole OT was to apply to all men for all time (some of it *is* repeated in the NT for the church though).

In Hebrews it is plainly stated that part of the reason God created the law was as part of a gradual revelation of himself to man, to teach man that man could not be perfected by the law but that he was corrupt in his heart and needed that to be changed spiritually, through Christ.

I realise you will probably mirror back some of my queries, no problem.

You have been provoking some thoughts about religions in general. later...

PB

Pb, I've had it with you.

"Even Peter Klaver admitted last night he reads science all the time but is not up in the politics and funding of his field."

I said I was not up in policies and politics in the context of string theory, an hobby interest far removed from my work. I never mentioned my own field. You have falsely attributed statements to me and distorted others multiple times in only the last week. And that has been your behaviour to others as well (DD, Amenhotep, etc). I really, really resent your somewhat dirty ways of conducting yourself in this blog.

Amen:

Sorry for the delay, I鈥檝e been busy all weekend. Regarding the word exists - you haven鈥檛 actually shown why Craig misuses the term. You鈥檝e made a few complaints and offered the odd irrelevant thought experiment but from what I can gather you have misunderstood Craig鈥檚 argument. I鈥檝e tried to make Craig鈥檚 meaning clearer by giving an alternative version clarifying the meaning of the word as Craig uses it. I suggest either:

1. Everything that came to be had a cause of its coming to be
2. The universe came to be
3. Therefore the universe had a cause of its coming to be.

OR

1. Everything that hasn鈥檛 had being for an infinite period of time had a cause of its coming into being.
2. The universe hasn鈥檛 existed for an infinite period of time.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause of its coming into being.

Remember also that Craig is speaking of time as a philosophical concept. It relates to sequences of events - more specifically it relates to a 鈥渓ogical鈥� sequence of events as much as a 鈥渢emporal鈥� sequence. So, to say that the universe began does not necessarily mean 鈥渂egan in time.鈥� It primarily means 鈥渃ame to be鈥� - that the non-existence of the universe was LOGICALLY prior to its coming to be; which is something of a truism since nothing exists until it exists, funny enough. It鈥檚 fairly uncontroversial from a logical point of view. That you don鈥檛 understand it no reason for anyone to reject the argument. I understand it. Lots of people do. And lots of people accept it. Others reject it - but for different reasons (I recommend the work of JL Mackie or Graham Oppy if you want a decent critique to help you out).

Again I must ask: why has no atheist philosopher ever pointed this out before? Isn鈥檛 that odd? Where is this knockdown argument of yours in the academic literature? Does this not make you wonder about its validity? What is the probability of this criticism passing all the atheist philosophers by but springing to the mind of a geneticist? This would be to require people to believe a less probable event over a much more likely one.

If you want my own personal opinion of the matter I think the argument - or perhaps more accurately the arguments Craig associates with it, primarily with respect to the finititude of the universe - should make for uncomfortable reading for any diehard naturalist. I think Craig鈥檚 argument can also be reformulated into an inductive form rather than the deductive form he presents. As such it is slightly less strong as a 鈥減roof鈥� but much more resilient in the face if the most common criticisms, since inductive arguments are less dogmatic and rely on probability or signs and pointers.

I have just reviewed how this argument came up. It came up because Pete mentioned it as one of many arguments for why a 鈥淕od Hypothesis鈥� is better than a 鈥淣o God Hypothesis.鈥� I agree with him. I think that the God Hypothesis has more explanatory power (I don鈥檛 see how the NGH explains the existence of the universe at all to be honest, nor for the origins of life, let alone explains these things equally well or better) and I also think the GH has more evidence (just what evidence does a NGH have?). Craig鈥檚 argument is only one piece of natural theology that people have found persuasive. In fact it鈥檚 only one of many versions of the 鈥淐osmological Argument鈥� - many of which do not rely on Craig鈥檚 arguments about existence, beginnings and finititude (instead they rely on notions of necessity and contingency). For many many reasons, all too detailed to go into here I think the NGH looks terribly weak by comparison.

That鈥檚 all I have time for.

Cheers,

SG

DD

Are you still there?

Ref your points on religions, plural.
Am I right to believe Christianity is any more true than other religions?

You have prompted me to ask myself, and these are a few points that came up;-

1) In terms of instinct/psyche, what sort of God are we defining? I think we probably think of an all-powerful, compassionate creator. And You?

2) When comparing religions, how do they define God? I dont think there are many that are compatible with the common definition in point 1. Agree?

3) Would we expect a caring Almighty God to try and communicate with man? I would say yes.

4) In what format? I would at least expect a written format that would be widely available, if he cared and was Almighty.

5) I Would we expect caring Almighty God to visit man on earth? I would suggest yes.

6) Would his creation reflect God's character? I would find that logical, in terms of its beauty, majesty and love - ie practical love, in how it caters to all man's physical needs.

7) Would a caring God expect man to constantly work for his approval? I would say no, and that would point me to the unique Judeo-Christian doctrine of grace ( I would say that wouldnt I?)

I know these may be simplistic, but that does not mean they are invalid. They seem like logical starting points to me, but interested in your thoughts.

Ref peer reviewed science and your dependence on it for reuqesting and weighing evidence;

I have here an article from the Sunday Times by former New Scientist editor Nigel Calder.

He says that in modern science, "truth" is widely accepted by scientists and the media and politicians as anything defined as 90% likely.

But he says 10% uncertanity in any theory is a "wide open" breach for a modern Galileo or Einstein "to storm through with a better idead".

"That is how science works".

He also says some areas of current science have been highly politicised and explains that one warping factor is pressure exerted by politicians who adopt and promote certains science theories to justify taxation increases in the media.

He says dissenting but credible views are regulalry blocked from respectable science journals, adds - how do they then get peer reviewed??????

And scientists from the dominating school of thought show open disdain for these dissenting but credible views.

One regular blogger on this site, Michael Hull, has a phd in electrochemistry and is quite open that he has seen such shenanigans warping "truth" in science.

I think it is all inevitable considering human nature and the general climate of politics and business that science must operate in.

I am not dismissing the value or integrity of science generally, please note, just adding some caution and qualification.

From what you have said recently, I gather you have little or no first hand experience of the politics in science yourself.

So my overall point on peer reviewed science is that I would contend it is maybe not just as objective and dependable as you might have believe.

Interested in your thoughts, sincerely, they do and will help inform my views.

My laptop is going to the workshop for a week or so, but I will try and keep in touch.

sincerely

PB

Hi Stephen,

No, I don't think I misunderstand Craig's formulation of the cosmological argument. Really, have no atheist philosophers thought of it before? Blimey, I'm chuffed. Maybe I deserve some sort of Philosophy Prize or something. But neither you nor Pete have countered my argument.

Let's look at this another way. Does Pi exist? What caused the number 746? What logically precedes the circle? Did Pythagoras *invent* his theorem or discover it? Did Mandelbrot *invent* his set, or discover it? This is where we need epistemologist Pete to help us out.

And you say that the GH is preferable to the NGH, but you're still stuck there with giving an explanation of *god* in the first place. Yeah yeah, I know it's timeless etc by definition, but that does not remove the requirement for a LOGICAL cause, such as you correctly identify above. Unless, of course, god is just another word for mathematics, in which case we have been talking about the same thing all along... (but which precludes religion, of course).

My little thought experiments are very far from irrelevant - please explain how you would go about testing whether you were, as the Life critters, "hosted" in a simple mathematical abstraction?

Cheers,
-A

Amen:

This is fast turning into a pantomime 鈥渙h yes I did鈥� 鈥淥h no you didn鈥檛鈥� It seems clear to me (and two other colleagues I鈥檝e passed this debate on to) that you鈥檝e misunderstood Craig. In fact one of my colleagues reckons your entire notion of existence might be incoherent. But anyway, let me try to get the debate back on track.

Firstly, let鈥檚 leave aside the issue of GH versus NGH. I think Pete has you well beaten here, but unfortunately he鈥檚 disappeared without properly pursuing the matter.

Secondly, let鈥檚 leave aside other arguments 鈥� including Kalam 鈥� for the meantime and focus on this question:

鈥淲hat does it mean for something to exist?鈥�

Let me ask you a question:

鈥淒oes Stephen G exist?鈥�

Or

鈥淒o you exist?鈥�

If you answer yes then in what sense of the word 鈥渆xist鈥� do you mean?

I ask because I鈥檓 trying to get to the bottom of your criticism of Kalam 鈥� to make some sense out of it. The only way I can make any sense out of it at the moment is if we construe it along the lines of the philosophical skeptic who questions whether anything actually or really 鈥渆xists.鈥� If so, then your criticism isn鈥檛 new at all to philosophers, but is highly problematic and has much wider application than perhaps you realize.

Might I be merely a brain in a vat and a malevolent scientist is prodding it and causing delusions that I am a flesh and blood creature called Stephen G in a real physical world having a discussion with another real human being? Is the truth of the matter simply that my own existence is an illusion? Is that your point? I really hope it isn鈥檛, for your sake. And for mine 鈥� since if you don鈥檛 actually exist and this physical universe doesn鈥檛 actually really exist then it would be rather futile to continue the discussion.

SG

PB

Congrats PB, a new start and you start off misrepresenting Peter!

Yes you would say that and Muslims would frame the questions differently to suit their worldview, likewise for Hindu's etc etc and of course Christians do the same, you know as well as I do that getting Christians do agree on major and minor points can be difficult.

PB that gentleman in question was talking about the issue of Global warming and from what I can pick up from Michael Hull he is far from being a Biblical creationist because this is what this boils down to.

What vested interests are their in evolution(besides the Evil Atheist Conspiracy!)? there are political interests in science ie., scientists hired by tobacco companies said that cigarettes did not do any harm!

Of course a new theory may come along and doubt is good! However if a new theory came along to replace the existing theory of natural selection(to explain the fact of evolution) then it is not an either/or fallacy ie., it does not mean that creationism would replace it as you well know that it is twaddle and was exposed as being twaddle even before Darwin.

PB I know you will not like it but Biblical creationism is complete guff, and if you think I am wrong please present the evidence and make it objective, credible and verifiable.

DD

DD

Hi Stephen,

I think you are dead right to focus on this area, because it is important, and (to my mind anyway) the stumbling block that sends kalam crashing. I can't explain why other philosophers haven't picked up on this before. Maybe they're all thick. But anyway...

What does it *mean* for something to exist? I appreciate that this is hard to imagine, but bear with me.

EXISTENCE is relative. You remember in Sophie's World that Sophie turns out to be a character in a story (I've forgotten the name of the "real" girl), but from her perspective the big dog "exists". Yet from *our* point of view, the dog is just an object in a fiction.

So you *exist*, but you do so relative to this universe (at this instant of "time"); *outside* this universe, you and I do not exist; we are merely mathematical abstractions within a larger abstraction that is the universe - just like the critters in a Life Universe.

Gotta go now - will pick up more on this later. We're not brains in a vat! ;-)

-A

Peter- I'm smiling as I read your exasperation with PB since I've been there many times myself. To be fair, though, I'm willing to believe that PB simply forgets sometimes what conversations have been had and the clarifications that people have made with him before, rather than doing it willfully. But it is a problem. I can't tell you how many times I've defended myself from some kind of allegation from PB, only to have the same charge brought up again, sometimes less than a week later.

back again.

Basically, I'm asking: if this universe is an *unhosted* (i.e. no computer required) State/Operator combo (just like a Life Universe), could we tell the difference?

And if this is the case, could we not therefore say that the Fibonacci sequence is just another "universe"; the Mandelbrot function represents a "universe"; ANY iterative equation acting on a seed value may therefore be a universe, and the contents of that universe would perceive it as *real*.

Which would mean that all possible universes "exist" but only to structures/critters *inside* them. We can't travel between them, but if we completely simulate them, we gain a "window" into them.

Kabam!

-A

John

The last time you made these claims against me was on the slavery debatem whe you said I was aruging against "pure fact".

Of course the next posting from Will proved me 110% correct.

I still dont recall getting an apology from you ;-)

I do make mistakes and can freely own up to them JW, but I will let your record speak for itself.

PB

DD / Peter

Yes Peter you are quite right, you were talking specifically about poliitcs and funding in string theory field, I apologise.

However, my central point is and was that politics and funding is a real issue in what current scientific truth is accepted to be, which still stands up.

My postings in relation to Peter were clearly not focussed on damaging his obvious credentials, if anyone reads them, it was on illustrating this point only. The mention of Peter's view was only made in passing.

DD

ref post 162, it is quite obvious that the questions I posed are framed from a Christian worldview, I never tried to hide that; I dont hide my beliefs as you know.

But I was still sincerely interested in your thoughts on them. I was surprised at your reaction, is there no possibility of discussion on these points ref religion?

Whether yes or no, I would be equally happy to discuss your counterpoints if you share them.

And at no time in the post did I mention or allude to creationism.

What I had in mind was DD's objection to the Christian faith in relation to supernatual elements of it generally, more specifically the resurrection.

Calder has clearly identified how various interests can censor legitimate scientific research being published in reputable journals. And how this distorts the common perception of "truth".

My point was, peer reviewed evidence is not 100% reliable as a guide to reality, which in effect you have not disputed.

Of course, in saying that I am not dismissing the value of modern science, the fruits of which I benefit innumerable times in my daily life.

sincerely
PB

PS I am clearly on record as saying I dont believe creation science can be published in any scientific journal because it begins with a supernatural event. So this argument of mine about the reality of corruption existing in science can *never* shore up the lack of creationist published papers, as far as I can see.

PB- This reply of yours is a perfect case in point; either forgetting or willfully ignoring previous conversations on this matter.

How many times are we going to be treated to a reminder of the slavery debate and you being
"vindicated", (a) as if Shibboleth's piece was some official authority on the matter, (b) as if that piece actually came down on your side of the debate, and (c) as if that piece somehow disagreed with me?

Really, PB, this is becoming as bad as your constant citing the 200 AIG scientists.

For the record: in the Primate of Homophobia thread I addressed your approach to homosexuality in post #38; this wasn't about slavery at all. The rest of your conversation about slavery was with GW and DD. The next time I addressed it was in the Shibboleth on Slavery thread in post #31 where I asked you, "What happens to your position IF it is possible to prove that the bible reflects the culture in which it was written with regard to supporting slavery?" In #43 I went on to agree with you several times on some of these issues, and went on to clarify the reasons that I thought the question "Does the bible promote slavery?" is misleading and inadequate.

I would also repeat that for you to conceive that you somehow "won" the slavery debate is pure self-delusion.

PB

Re: the questions...

Your first question referred to a "compassionate" god, as you know this instantly rules out your god...

To be honest PB I dislike these type of questions, in that they are loaded and with a few changes can be fitted to any sectarian bias.

Creationism is ultimately what you meant by trying to say that all of science is in the thrall of political interests. Calder was talking specifically about global warming.

Peer reviewed evidence and the scientific method is the only system that we have to fully and honestly assess evidence.

DD
Ps. as has been pointed out to you before PB, creationism makes claims which CAN be tested by the scientific method ie., empirical method (the supernatural beginnings have nowt to do with it) and when it is tested it is shown to be complete and utter twaddle. There is a discussion here about creationism specifically the "flood".

/blogs/ni/2007/04/godtube_broadcast_him.html

Amen:

Apologies for the delay, but I haven鈥檛 had time recently to pursue the matter.

础苍测丑辞飞鈥�

What does it mean for something to exist is our question, and you give it what is to me a rather unclear and incoherent answer. For you existence is relative. I honestly fail to make any sense of this notion and your analogy is a little odd. You reject the notion that we might be just a brain in a vat being manipulated by a malevolent scientist and yet the example of existence you give is in the same philosophical neighbourhood as that. Your example is a character in a story who isn鈥檛 real except from her perspective. But in the example of the brain the person isn鈥檛 real except from their perspective. The truth is they鈥檙e really a character created by a malevolent scientist. [Your later question in your second post confirms this similarity with the brain in a vat example: 鈥淏asically, I'm asking: if this universe is an *unhosted* (i.e. no computer required) State/Operator combo (just like a Life Universe), could we tell the difference?鈥漖

Seemingly your criticism amounts to little more than a re-package of philosophical scepticism, given a twist of a many-universes hypothesis. So, I鈥檓 afraid you鈥檒l have to hand back that philosophy prize you awarded yourself earlier (with the rather absurd acceptance speech of 鈥減erhaps all philosophers are thick鈥�). Never fear though because you鈥檙e still in the running for Best Rehash of a Tried Old Worn-out Philosophical Critique 2007.

It鈥檚 strange that you say outside of this universe I do not exist. How do you know? Have you been outside the universe? What is outside this universe? Where is the outside of our universe? To me you鈥檙e making fairly dogmatic, and highly speculative, claims about something you couldn鈥檛 possibly know about. You have given me no reason at all to believe that your position is true. All you have given me is a thought experiment and a (un-testable) hypothesis. Pardon me if I鈥檓 not terribly impressed. I cannot yet detect a counter-argument to Craig (remember that arguments have premises that entail a conclusion).

Furthermore, if you are right, you are wrong. Existence is relative. But, if so then we cannot coherently claim that there are any other universes at all. Take some given universe - Alpha. What are we to say about Alpha? We can鈥檛 say it 鈥渆xists鈥� - since it isn鈥檛 inside our universe. So, what can we coherently claim about Alpha? In fact on your view you would have to say that Alpha does not exist. How then does something that does not exist have any bearing on Craig鈥檚 argument?

For someone to accept Craig鈥檚 concept of existence is not an unreasonable move. Craig, and I agree with him, sees existence in objective terms - something has being or it does not. There is no 鈥渞elative鈥� sense to existence. Craig鈥檚 argument, like all arguments for any conclusion, makes a number of presuppositions. To me it is perfectly clear that rational people could accept those presuppositions Craig asks us to accept. You haven鈥檛 provided an argument to the contrary - just an interesting Star Trekesque 鈥渨hat if.鈥� I鈥檓 afraid that doesn鈥檛 amount to a serious problem for Craig. Which is perhaps why philosophers don't take it seriously.

Cheers,

SG

DD

I appreciate you taking a second look at the questions.

I agree, it is patently obvious they can easily be amended to any bias, but I think I could (and would dearly like to) learn about any weaknesses in my argument if you critiqued each one; your call of course.

I was trying to think last night of someone else who would critique them for me, and I couldnt, except for yourself!

I can assure you I was not pushing at creationism, although it comes up here for debate lost because it is controversial - Will knows ;-) - it is a very secondary issue for me.

The resurrection is, was and always will be the main show as far as I am concerned.

Please dont mispresent/misunderstand me, I didnt say that all science is in the thrall of political interests.

But I certainly do mean that if something so global as the climate change debate is so vulnerable to this, then certainly it shows that science generally must be vulnerable.

I am not being so cynical as to suggest that the majority of published reseatch is seriously biased, I dont know enough to get into that debate.

While Calder was talking about global warming he also *clearly* said that he was addressing general misconceptions about how science works.

ref Creationism, I am a bit flummoxed how proper scientific papers on it could be presented? wasnt this the whole conclusion of the Dover trial and inherent in the term itself?
A process beginning with supernatural creation is hardly going to sit well in any scientific journal - unless you know better?

sincerely
PB

PB

It is a non-issue that creationism starts with a supernatural beginning, the central issue is that creationism whether of the ID or Biblical variety both say(and this is their criteria not mine) that their position is backed up by empirical evidence(fossils, rocks, irreducible complexity etc) ie., the same evidence that the rest of the world uses therefore it CAN be tested to the same degree and (to be polite!) that is why it is found to be so wanting.

DD

Ps., PB I would never misrepresent you! perhaps I misunderstood you!

DD, pb is back on half-evolved feathers! see

/blogs/ni/2007/04/humanists_send_dawkins_to_stor.html

It's as bad as ever, bringin in the AiG phs. Check it out, it's something you should see!

Oh dear!

Had a look and you have answered PB very well. Don't know what else I can do to make PB realise that AIG is psuedo-scientific hogwash.

OK Stephen, so you don't do humour (or maybe I'm not that funny - that's always a possibility, since humour is relative too).

I can accept what rational people think (being one), and I can see how Craig's argument at first glance looks convincing (I've even said it's a good argument). However, the great big flaw in it remains that he (or anyone) is on pretty good ground talking about things that exist within the universe, but on shaky, nay, non-existent ground (and I use the term cautiously ;-) when it comes to defining what "exist" actually means in an overall context.

I'm sorry if my clumsy phrasing of the issue is less than glittering, but it remains the crux of the whole thing. A rock "exists" to me, because I can see it. OK, I know it's made up of fundamental particles in the same way that I am, so the term "rock" is actually a higher-order label, but we'll let that go for a moment.

But if I *imagine* a rock, does it exist? If I imagine a Life Universe (and this *is* relevant, which is why I keep bringing it up), do the gliders and puffers etc exist? And in that context, what does "exist" even mean?

Yes, I *know* what rational people think, but Paul Daniels can do stuff that makes rational people drop their jaws in stunned amazement (it's true). It's not *magic*, but an illusion.

Basically, "exist" is a term that only has meaning *within* the universe.

Tell me this: does five-minutes-ago "exist"? Does next week "exist"? Does Pi exist? Or the square root of 2?

I have cast out a few notions (actually, the brain in the vat notion is not one I subscribe to, but you're right that it remains a possibility - it just doesn't help explain anything; we still have to explain the vat etc.) about what our universe *might* be like, not to *prove* them, but to show that there is a big gaping leaky hole in Craig's argument that needs filled.

Kalame.

-A

Well it seems as if we're now just going around in circles. I have argued that your concept of existence is incoherent, your hypothesis untestable, that you haven't actually produced a counter-argument (with premises that entail a conclusion) against Craig, and that your thought-experiment does not constitute an impressive knock-down of kalam. (Besides all of this your position is great). You have continued to re-state your position nonetheless. If anyone is still following this debate then they can draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for discussing it. I'm off for a bank holiday weekend in sunny portrush with my wife and 7 month old son. Fun fun fun fun fun.

See you later,

SG

OK Stephen - have a nice time in Portrush. I hope Monday shapes up better than it's forecast!

I think it is perfectly clear to anyone who has been following the discussion that it is *Craig* who is making the x-therefore-y leaps. All I am doing is showing (quite cogently, I thought; I'm a little deflated that some think otherwise) that this inference is actually flawed, as there is an assumption in there that quite clearly begs the question.

That is the meaning of "exist". While it seems reasonably clear what "exist" means for one "thing" within the universe in relation to another "thing", it is not at all clear what that means with regard to the universe as a whole. Therefore, for Craig to invoke kalam is assuming something about the universe that really should be demonstrated, before invoking the pixies.

This seems rather reasonable to me; if Craig (or you or Pete or anyone) can sort that one out, then it's game on - kalam is back in the picture. Until then, it is conjecture based on a big (if non-obvious) presupposition. If you can point out my error here, please go right ahead.

ATB,
-A

Stephen G & Amen:

It seems your discussion is more or less at an end. In my view Stephen G's position is clearly to be preferred. I think Amen's posts got weaker as things went on and the charges levelled against it by Stephen above stick like glue.

You have a right to feel deflated Amen.

Pete.

Well...thanks Pete...It's up to everyone to make up their own minds. I think Kalam survives (quite easily) the point made by Amen. I think there are other problems which face the argument, but basically I think if the argument is given a more inductive form then it should make for uncomfortable reading for any diehard naturalist/materialist.

I'm pleased to see that you decided to stick around to see how this thing panned out. I thought Amen and I had bored everyone to tears!

SG

Um, yeah, thanks for sticking with it folks, but I think the points I made remain rather unrefuted. The kalam argument makes a presupposition on the very nature of what it means to "exist" that may not be obvious, but is critical, and fatally undermines the whole thing.

Nighty night :-)

So have we discovered that we've generated a whole lot more heat than light?

Amen:

I guess we disagree about that. To me not only does your criticism not apply - it is largely incoherent, irrelevant, and fails to amount to a counter-argument at all. Interesting thought-experiment though.

In any event, I'm pleased with what has been argued above that should anyone stumble accross this thread in the future they will see your criticism for what it is.

Sleep tight.

The End.

John:

Seemingly. As so often happens some see X while others can only see Y.

Oh well.

SG