Thanks for your thoughts.

You are, of course, correct when you say that the stats on air travel safety allow someone to make a reasoned risk-assessment. The track record of British Airways might give me comfort but it can’t give me certainty and the only point I was making is that we routinely deal with ambiguity and uncertainty in our daily lives. That we have to place our trust in things we can’t prove is just part of living a normal life.

The ‘cherry picking’ issue is not easy I agree and it will not surprise you that there is significant debate about how to interpret certain passages even amongst Christians of from a similar background. In my experience this sort of discussion amongst Christians is handled with maturity and respect and has never been a source of conflict (although I know others might have different experiences).

I am interested in the issue that you raise about the choice to make up my mind as a child. I agree that for a child to grow up in a loving environment it must include the right to explore and embrace views other than those of the parents. There is no room for coercion of any kind in a loving relationship. I have witnessed faith based homes and atheist homes where there has been a suppression of freedom with disapproval being expressed at honest exploration.

The whole indoctrination debate is interesting and I think it is a much broader concept than a religious one. The prevailing culture in this country is currently secular and so it is easy for people to fall into the trap that this is somehow the ‘neutral’ position. If we allow a child to grow up into secularism we are not indoctrinating that child. I just don’t buy that. A child growing up today in the UK in a media rich environment will be indoctrinated into capitalism/consumerism/materialism and these are not ideologically neutral positions. The value system that a child picks up from such exposure has far-reaching implications and may well infringe their freedom to make informed choices about their future. Ultimately we can’t help but be brainwashed by the sensory inputs we receive I don’t think.

I am going to sign-off this discussion page now partly because I should be spending more time with my wife in the evening and less time thinking about these things when I should be working during the day. If anyone wants to carry on any discussion please do so by contacting me at tony.p.wilson@gmail.com

Thanks for having me

>”Granted, these are all checkable in principle (the plane could have had a defect undetectable by any instrument of course) in a way that is not so easy to apply to the god debate”
Exactly, except that what you term taking things on “faith” I would argue is in fact a perfectly rational application of evidence-based probability, no deity required. In the case of an airline, we could research their safety record, that of the aircraft involved, the incidence of pilot drunkenness, etc. You are absolutely correct that an exact measurement of every detail is impossible. We can, however, use empirical evidence (which could then be open to challenge) to determine whether we find the risk acceptable. There is no such option with supernaturalism. In the example of your wife, then a long-term study by a properly-qualified behavioural scientist (my kind of area, I’m afraid) would produce a wealth of suitable evidence to support a rational conclusion one way or the other!
We could head down the old Popper/Feyerabend (sp?) route if we want to by absolutely logically pedantic (which is very enjoyable from time to time), but I am happy to have to live my daily life by an “Uncertainty Principle”, based on probability derived from empiricism.

It could also be argued that ‘measurement’ is actually the cornerstone of science, which doesn’t require so many of those tricky abstract mathematical principles for it to work, perhaps? I confess I am relying on articles in New Scientist, & obtuse discussions I’ve had with mathematicians regarding the abstract/applied ‘divide’ here, and make no claims to understanding the more esoteric stuff. I tried to a long time ago, but my brain didn’t want to co-operate. “Not a high-flyer, just a medium-flyer supported by the occasional gust of wind”, I suppose (smugness prize to anyone recognising the quote source)

I don’t think you can really wriggle off the “cherry-picking” hook, to be honest. How does one decide what’s allegorical, what is a finely-turned piece of art (well, at least the Song of Solomon,etc are in the King James version. While modern versions may have more translational accuracy, they have little sense of style or linguistic aesthetics), and what is one side’s account of a historical event? Thus we end up in the realm of evidence, and where science contradicts the book, well, that’s where the fun starts, isn’t it? Then the big issues arise over religion in education, claims of moral authority, censorship, the right to decide public policy/law, etc,etc. That is where the battle-lines are drawn on this web-site, in my experience.

I make no claim to be an “atheist”. I much prefer the term I’ve seen Prof. Dawkins use, “non-theist”. Not truly “agnostic”, because I won’t give ALL claims a chance, rather “not a subscriber”. What exactly happens after death? No idea. PROBABLY nothing, MAYBE..??? Cosmologists are engaged in very heated debates over the Big Bang – we simply don’t have the evidence. Yet. But with scientific rationalism, we at least have a framework to progress. The rising influence of fundamental supernaturalism seeks actively to prevent this, something which many of us have experienced first-hand (e.g. I have direct family ties to the heart of the American creationist movement), and which is growing in this country. I am glad that you had the CHOICE to form your beliefs as an adult, rather than having pseudo-science, moral absolutism, and discouragement from critical thinking surrounding you as a child. I won’t get started on the “hellfire & damnation: fear as social control” aspects right now, because then I’ll start to become irrationally intemperate!

All the best, and may your reflections bear fruit for you.

Cheers,

Andy

I agree with Laila (post 69) that it is a shame when debates get heated. I understand why it happens. People invest a lot of themselves into their worldview and they are often hurt by other people who ride roughshod over it.

On other hand there have been many thoughtful and graciously phrased questions (posts 70 and 71 for example) which are actually seeking answers rather than scoring points. I will have a crack at answering these even though a PhD thesis would barely scratch the surface.

“how, as a scientist, you can accept claims to knowledge and/or “truth” that are based on an unfalsifiable appeal to supernatural authority?”

I just don’t think life unpacks into neat parcels that are falsifiable or unfalsifiable. In actual fact we are content to operate on the basis of faith in any number of areas. For example, I flew from Glasgow to Manchester this afternoon and was quite happy to take ‘on faith’ that the pilot was qualified to fly the plane, that he wasn’t drunk, that the plane had been properly serviced… Granted, these are all checkable in principle (the plane could have had a defect undetectable by any instrument of course) in a way that is not so easy to apply to the god debate. But my point is this; we do operate in a faith based way for much of our existence. Life would be intolerably tedious if we didn’t.

Taking another example, I believe that my wife loves me but I can’t prove it. The external evidence suggests that she does but she could be a supremely good actress biding her time to get her hands on some insurance payout should I peg it prematurely. I think that the things in life that are most important to us are also very hard to ‘prove’ in an objective sense.

I have already said twice now that mathematics, the cornerstone of science, simply cannot be proved to be internally consistent or ‘true’. This also holds for any axiomatic system incidentally.

So I think we have to accept we live in a world of blurred boundaries.

Now why I am a Christian in particular is a long story but in headline terms. I grew up in an atheist family, as an atheist and attended a secular school (I had one RE lesson in the whole of my secondary education). I remained in this state until after my first degree (Physics) and, only after starting out as a research scientist, did I begin to ask questions about faith. A sequence of events then occurred in a Christian context that I struggled to fit into my materialist worldview and I reached a point where the step of faith into theism was actually smaller than the leap back into atheism. There is so much I could say on the above but this isn’t the place to do it.

Onto ‘cherry-picking’ (post 71). I am a conservative evangelical/charismatic Christian (but I dislike George Bush’s attitude to foreign policy and the environment, I did not support an invasion of Iraq, I have never voted Tory and I have gay friends who I love dearly) and so I do have a reverence for the Bible. The Bible is full of all kinds of literature which include poetry (psalms, song of songs), fictional stories (parables) and it is important to recognise that these can communicate truth as well. When it comes to the early chapters of Genesis to properly interpret it I have to ask what purpose does it serve? Clearly God would have been able to record a complete scientific treatise on the general relativity and the singularity that was the Big Bang if he so wished. Even now we would not have been able to understand it because it would refer to principles which are way beyond our current understanding. Essentially it would have served no purpose to us, or any previous generations. My gut feel is that these first chapters are allegorical and actually teach some very foundational principles about the nature of God and the relationship between man and God. That they might be allegorical doesn’t diminish their importance; they are very precious chapters to me and I find myself meditating on them frequently. This is such a short and inadequate response to a very good question but it’s the best I can do right now.

Jamie, you are correct to point out that one cannot read scripture without also having ‘cultural spectacles’ on. This is why a literal translation of the ancient text is sometimes less useful than a translation that employs ‘functional equivalence’. This kind of translation seeks to culturally translate at the same time as linguistically translate, so that the modern hearers will have a similar response to the text as those to whom it was originally addressed.

When it comes down to it I just love sitting quietly in prayer in the presence of God. The relationship feels every bit as real and personal as any other friendship I have and the communication is as deep. I never feel so fully ‘known’ as I do when I spend time with God. I know you will all think that’s just a load of bunkum but there you are!

This statement seems to imply that only religion can make inherently good people do evil things in which case Tony W’s argument is correct.

1- Are all evil people religious?

Of course not. Stalin springs to mind.

2- Can people belong to a religion and still commit sins? (ie: a cristian girl might have premarital
sex), a leader might go to war, a doctor might kill a pacient, a child might kill a cat)

Christianity would have it that every single person commits sins.

4 – Do atheist also practice the same abominations practiced by religious people? And what do they
use as scape-goat? Society? Money? phsycholgy? the existence of Religion in the world?

Atheists are just the same as theists. They do many of the same things, just for different reasons.

3- Dawkins mentions that one can not attack other people’s religions, but it s ok to attack someone’s
politics.. – what about attacking people’s sexual orientation? Is that ok?

There’s a difference there. A persons sexuality is not a choice, their religion is. Most of us on this site to defend freedom of speech, and so see nothing wrong with people expressing their views on sexuality, however abhorrent we may find those views.

4 – Do Atheist think that when a natural disaster happens, it proves that there is no GOD? If not,
why then it s an argument used by so many learned science men, also in the papers, books and TV?

Not in most cases. Most atheists (in my experience) doubt the existence of god/gods due to the sheer implausibility of the concept.

5 – when a mother murder her own child – does that means God DOESNT exist to an atheist?

When a mother murders her own child, it just means she’s a murderer. The question of god doesn’t come into that at all.

6 – Atheists say that religion make people feel less pressure to make the best of this life since
they believe there will be another after life.. But isn’t more difficult to live under spiritual and moral code
then living as if we are just another tribe of monkeys?

Atheists usually have some sort of moral code. Would you cease to have a moral code if it was proven 100% that god didn’t exist?

Even if we were living as a “tribe” of monkeys, that wouldn’t make a difference as far as morals go. Most primates have some sort of what we would call a moral code.

7 – Pascal wrote a defence of Christianity – he was a mathematician, inventor (ie, a man of
science – but he does not get mentioned in the TV program. Is that because he does not fit in the
prototype of religious class that Mr Dawkins is making his point?

I assume you’re referring to Pascal’s Wager here. Dawkins probably ignored it due to the fact that this defence is incredibly flawed and is one of the most pathetic arguments in favour of Christianity ever.

Was Hittler a man that practiced his religion? Or was he secular?

By all accounts, Hitler practised his religion.

So: Was Hittler an exemple of what Christianity is all about?

No, he is an example of a complete arsehole. Who just happens to be a Christian.

If you mean Mother Teresa, although she did some good work, she doesn’t have a completely clean record.

Could it be by any chance that Hittler (not only him, but all evil dictators..) was acting out of
his own greedy motives, or to benefit his country, to obtain power – and not because he wanted to revenge Jesus???

It’s a possibilty, of course.

What CHINA does to Tibet, IS THAT ALSO in name of religion? Not that Budhism is considered a religion, but i just though i ask since attrocities are happening in that country and somehow RELIGION must be in the core of it,
according to Mr. Dawkins.. Isn t that so?

China is officially an athiest country. Not secular, there is a big difference. What is going on in Tibet is a complicated situtation, with repression of religion one of a number of causes.

And that the Americans did to the Red Indians, MAYAS, Incas, and what the French did in North Africa, and the English in Australia – all that in the name of GOD? But which GOD?

Many attrocities, including some of those you mention have been carried out in the name of some god or other.

What CHINA does to Tibet, IS THAT ALSO in name of religion? Not that Budhism is considered a religion, but i just though i ask since attrocities are happening in that country and somehow RELIGION must be in the core of it,
according to Mr. Dawkins.. Isn t that so? And that the Americans did to the Red Indians, MAYAS, Incas, and what the French did in North Africa, and the English in Australia – all that in the name of GOD? But which GOD?

would be glad if someone could answer me.

I am just mentioning Pascal because he had some stronger arguments pro-religion than the chap that
said: “it takes religion to make good people…ete etc”