Questions asked with respect

'Damn it all! does earth plug a hole in heaven,
Or heaven plug a hole in earth - how wonderful to be so profound,
when everything you are is dying underground.'

I never feel qualified to enter these discussions, and I never dare to be an atheist, out of superstition, but I sometimes wonder if humanity needs to believe in a greater being, otherwise what's the point? It's surely our mortality we are trying to understand.

That's it, I just sunk without trace....

A tinderbox, threads even mentioning religion. I own copies of the Bible and Koran, but they sit side by side on my bookshelf with Lord of the Rings - all similar, but the latter is my favorite.

I'm happy for folk to believe whatever they wish, but find it personally very sad that in this day and age people still believe in dragons, fairies and such like.

Whilst the 'detail' of various religions varies across cultures (and ages) I would say the essence of most faiths are very similar (central deity, adherence through discipline, attaining a personal gain in another life or after death). That could be argued as evidence for a single deity with different cultural interpretations or of a psychological 'need' that is filled by relatively similar belief systems.

Bruce

Dear All,

I wonder if for many the belief in a better life after death and ones reward in heaven is because their life here is crappy and unfulfilled.

If the after life is so good why do we waste our time here and not depart this mortal coil and dive head first into the next life at the earliest opportunity?

If one accepts that this is it then perhaps we will endeavour to make the most of this world now. And not dream of a better after life.

I still consider that most belief systems are there to control populations behaviour.

So for those of a NAIM persuasion just go out and get that full house 500 system.

regards david

quote:

Dear All,

I wonder if for many the belief in a better life after death and ones reward in heaven is because their life here is crappy and unfulfilled.

If the after life is so good why do we waste our time here and not depart this mortal coil and dive head first into the next life at the earliest opportunity?

If one accepts that this is it then perhaps we will endeavour to make the most of this world now. And not dream of a better after life.

I still consider that most belief systems are there to control populations behaviour.

So for those of a NAIM persuasion just go out and get that full house 500 system.

regards david

Very well put, David!!

Jon

Jon,

As usual, there is the confusion (IMHO) between there being a "god" and there being "religion"

Is there a "god" ? I don't know. But I personally believe there is. I think this might be called "faith".

Is religion purely man-made, or is it definitely the "devine word of god" ?. I don't know. But for sure, lots of people and lots of groups of people, make their own interpretations of the written words in the bible and the koran and other texts. Which is fine by me, so long as none of those groups try to ram their interpretation or beliefs down my throat - and that includes the group(s) of non-believers.

Demonstrating that the texts of these books doesn't accord with our current scientific knowledge, doesn't (IMHO) demonstrate the absence of a "god". It simply demonstrates mankinds' current limits of understanding of both science and "god".

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Demonstrating that the texts of these books doesn't accord with our current scientific knowledge, doesn't (IMHO) demonstrate the absence of a "god".

Theists, and Atheists asking with respect, wishing to engage seriously with the relationship between Darwin's theory and faith would enjoy watching on BBC iPlayer Did Darwin Kill God?

Synopsis (from BBC website):

There are some who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution has weakened religion, fuelled in part by Richard Dawkins' publishing phenomenon The God Delusion. Conor Cunningham [Assistant Director, The Centre of Theology and Philiosophy, The University of Nottingham]argues that nothing could be further from the truth.

Cunningham is a firm believer in the theory of evolution, but he is also a Christian. He believes that the clash between Darwin and God has been hijacked by extremists - fundamentalist believers who reject evolution on one side, and fundamentalist atheists on the other. Cunningham attempts to overturn what he believes are widely held but mistaken assumptions in the debate between religion and evolution.

He travels to the Middle East where he shows that from the very outset, Christianity warned against literal readings of the biblical story of creation. In Britain, he reveals that, at the time, Darwin's theory of evolution was welcomed by the Anglican and Catholic Churches. Instead, he argues that the conflict between Darwin and God was manufactured by American creationists in the 20th century for reasons that had very little to do with science and religion and a great deal to do with politics and morality.

Finally, he comes face to face with some of the most eminent evolutionary biologists, geneticists and philosophers of our time to examine whether the very latest advances in evolutionary theory do in fact kill God.

Conor Cunningham CV (University of Nottingahm website):

He was born in Belfast and only left that idyll to study Law at the University of Kent. There, he came under the influence of the Catholic Marxist, David Mclellan who, despite holding the Chair in Political Theory, decided to also read for a Law degree. Following graduation, Conor moved to the University of Dundee to study for an M. Phil., in Philosophy under the supervision of the Jean-François Lyotard and Giles Deleuze scholar, James Williams. On completing his M. Phil. with distinction, Conor went to the University of Cambridge to read for the Diploma in Theology. Upon completion of this, he was awarded a British Academy Studentship to study for a Ph.D. Initially doing so under the supervision of John Milbank, but when he took up a Chair at the University of Virginia, Professor Graham Ward took over the mantle. After writing a book on nihilism (Genealogy of Nihilism), which is being translated into Spanish, Conor is now finishing a book entitled Evolution, to be published in a new series, by Eerdmans, called Interventions. This book offers a critique of Ultra-Darwinism, and ontological naturalism, whilst at the same providing a positive reading of Darwin’s theory of evolution. After the project on evolution, he is developing some previous work into a book on the philosopher Alain Badiou, which bears the polemical title: Badiou: A Very Critical Introduction. In addition to being series editor of Interventions, along with Peter Candler, he is also the editor of the series Veritas, published by SCM. Conor’s research interests include metaphysics, philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, and phenomenology. As well as lecturing in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, he is also assistant-director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham. http://www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/

I see no reason why evolution shouldn't be God's plan.

Ohh, good one.

James,

Thank you for drawing our attention to the "Did Darwin Kill God" programme. I watched this, which preceded the Alan Davies Horizon programme about mathematics and found both to be delighfully watchable.

I felt Cunningham presented his case in a very measured, but engaging way, and would agree that anybody interested in the subject of God and evolution would probably find it a very worthwhile programme.

Cheers

Don

quote:

James,

Thank you for drawing our attention to the "Did Darwin Kill God" programme. I watched this, which preceded the Alan Davies Horizon programme about mathematics and found both to be delighfully watchable.

I felt Cunningham presented his case in a very measured, but engaging way, and would agree that anybody interested in the subject of God and evolution would probably find it a very worthwhile programme.

Cheers

Don

James and Don,

I had to respond to both your posts regarding the programme "Did Darwin Kill God" as I also watched it.

Now, for a start the presenter, Cunningham, was a Christian already so the whole attitude put across was biased. Now I'm glad he showed the interview with Dan Dennett - a professor who my hat goes off to, and mentioned points that Dawkins says, but then he went on to Francis Collins who is a Christian who also happened to be the director of the Genome project. I tell you there was not an even balance because following Francis Collins was a barrage of Christian sentiments presented about God's will.

This was totally biased and no there was no more commentary by Dennett, who has previously been in debates with Francis Collins, alongside Dawkins (please see Dawkins Foundation website).

A couple of weeks ago I went to a Dan Dennett lecture in London and his lecture was on the evolution of religion by natural selection, in particular through 'memes' (this term for those who are unfamiliar is liked to genes but refers to items of knowledge that get passed on via natural selection). At the lecture was Susan Blackmore, one of the other speakers on the "Did Darwin Kill God" programme, who was sat in the row in front of me and is a professor of neuropsychology I believe.

A few seats to the right of Susan Blackmore was Michael Aspel, who I believe is an agnostic turned atheist.

(I was one of the volunteers who asked Dennett a question at the end.)

So the "Did Darwin Kill God" programme had 'something' to it, but was far too biased especially at the time it was broadcast and the typical audience. I find that frustrating as the Dawkins programme on the 'Genius of Charles Darwin' was broadcast at 2 A.M. in Wales, where I was briefly on holiday....

To me that shows where the TV editors place their priorities.

Regards,

Jon

Jon,

Jon, define "biased"

Cheers

Don

quote:

To me that shows where the TV editors place their priorities.

Regards,

Jon

Jon, you have got to be kidding. Dawkins has had plenty of prime time coverage to argue the case against his conveniently simplistic version of religious faith. To be frank, I find him a thoroughly obnoxious character, and a very poor advert for your cause - unlike Dennett, who always comes across as a decent, reasonable human being.

To answer your original question, all religions are, of course, all too human (to use Nietsche's phrase), but the ultimate reality to which they gesture is not. It seems likely to me that the only way to experience this ultimate reality is through some form of religious practice (prayer, meditation, whatever), which is why the argument between believers and atheists is so often barren.

As you mention Susan Blackmore, I'll take the opportunity to recommend her latest book, "Ten Zen Questions" to you. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like a really interesting attempt to apply the insights she's gained from years of meditation to the study of consciousness.

Regards
Nigel

It's not what he wants to hear, so Jon cries 'foul'. There's a surprise then...

Jon, the premise of the programme was a Christian speaking from a Christian point of view. The 'balance. is that there have been plenty other programmes, including other programmes in the 'Darwin season', presented from an atheist standpoint. To be fair, and with respect, I didn't hear you cry 'bias' then.

Good wishes,
James

By chance, a friend just sent me a link to Facebook

The author is an atheist, but he is critical of Dawkins' evangelism. I'm sure that most contributors to this thread will find it interesting. I particularly like these paragraphs:

quote:

I also think the new atheism tends to get religion wrong. The focus is always on the out-dated metaphysics of religion, its belief in personal creator gods, miracles, souls and so forth. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the religious do indeed believe in such things. Indeed, I’m on the record as accusing liberal theologians of hiding behind their less literalist interpretations, and pretending that matters of creed don’t really matter at all.

However, there is much more to religion to the metaphysics. To give a non-exhaustive list, religion is also about trying to live sub specie aeternitatis; orienting oneself to the transcendent rather than the immanent; living in a moral community of shared practice or as part of a valuable tradition; cultivating certain attitudes, such as gratitude and humility; and so on. To say, as Sam Harris does, that “religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time” misses all this. The practices of religion may be more important then the narratives, even if people believe those narratives to be true.

It's good to see an atheist acknowledging that there's more to religion than "chlldish science".

Regards
Nigel

....I really don't understand this "I hate Dawkins" rhetoric which so many posters on here and other forums espouse.

...A self publicist granted but surely that's part of his attempt to show "religion" as the obvious con job it is to a mass audience?

Despite evidence of 1000's of years of religion fuelled hatred, some people still get their knickers in a twist about a rather eccentric (but peace loving) academic who has done more to unmask the odious "god" culture than any of his contempories.

Here's the article I tried to link to in my previous post, cleaned up so as to be acceptable (I hope) to forum rules:

The New Atheism

Hope that's OK, Adam.

quote:

Originally posted by Jet Johnson:
Despite evidence of 1000's of years of religion fuelled hatred, some people still get their knickers in a twist about a rather eccentric (but peace loving) academic who has done more to unmask the odious "god" culture than any of his contempories.

Well said Jet. He's not out to win popularity contests...but he makes sense to me.

quote:

quote:
To me that shows where the TV editors place their priorities.

Regards,

Jon

Jon, you have got to be kidding. Dawkins has had plenty of prime time coverage to argue the case against his conveniently simplistic version of religious faith. To be frank, I find him a thoroughly obnoxious character, and a very poor advert for your cause - unlike Dennett, who always comes across as a decent, reasonable human being.

To answer your original question, all religions are, of course, all too human (to use Nietsche's phrase), but the ultimate reality to which they gesture is not. It seems likely to me that the only way to experience this ultimate reality is through some form of religious practice (prayer, meditation, whatever), which is why the argument between believers and atheists is so often barren.

As you mention Susan Blackmore, I'll take the opportunity to recommend her latest book, "Ten Zen Questions" to you. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like a really interesting attempt to apply the insights she's gained from years of meditation to the study of consciousness.

Regards
Nigel
Posts: 1214 | Location: Sheffield, UK | Registered: Sat 10 February 2007

Ignored post by droodzilla posted Sat 04 April 2009 20:23 Show Post

JWM
Senior Member
Posted Sat 04 April 2009 20:42 Hide Post
It's not what he wants to hear, so Jon cries 'foul'. There's a surprise then...

Jon, the premise of the programme was a Christian speaking from a Christian point of view. The 'balance. is that there have been plenty other programmes, including other programmes in the 'Darwin season', presented from an atheist standpoint. To be fair, and with respect, I didn't hear you cry 'bias' then.

Good wishes,
James

Thanks for your posts!

Well, how do I respond?!! For a start, any material presented by critical thinkers such as Dawkins rocks the comfort boat that pervades through the majority of citizens. As the old saying goes, 'never discuss religion or politics' if you wish to not potentially offend. For that reason, a lot of Dawkins' stuff has been edited by e.g. Channel 4 with a view to safeguard against a reaction.

If I were to respectfully ask you which group is most likely to react if something is presented on TV... 'offending' them, I am sure your answer wouldn't require much thought. I also doubt it would be the 'atheist/agnostic' group.

Aside from this, and churning over what has been said on this thread, I ask this question:

Why, if there is a God, did he make the whole 'religion' thing so messy, different, convoluted, illogical and conflicting? Since all religions share the Adoration and Obedience theme, why did He not make it easier for all people to have one version of Him and for his
existence to be really obvious?

I look forward to your replies!!

Jon

quote:

Why, if there is a God, did he make the whole 'religion' thing so messy, different, convoluted, illogical and conflicting? Since all religions share the Adoration and Obedience theme, why did He not make it easier for all people to have one version of Him and for his
existence to be really obvious?

I don't know - and I rather suspect, nobody else does either, even though they might be willing to offer various possibilities.

Are you having trouble defining "biased" ?

cheers

Don

Thanks for the reminder, Don, and I must say that I can see rationality in the points you make. What I mean, is that I can see that your approach appears almost well considered and you do not appear to be a believer who doesn't understand what it entails. You don't appear to suffer fools gladly.

The point I'm trying to get at here is that there are MANY believers who accept ther irrationality - or they are blind/ignorant to it - yet their beliefs are steadfast.

This is a compliment of sorts to you, but please don't think I am in agreement; I respect your views but do not possess that 'thing' to make me believe. For example, I miss my Granddad very much as I was very close to him, and so no matter how much I would love it for him to be able to see me now, I cannot see it as remotely possible. And because I miss him so much, that is a true statement to myself that I am an atheist as who am I trying to deceieve?

In the context I use 'biased', I refer to the fact that the presenter, Cunningham, was Christian himself so gave an 'acknowledgement' of Dennett's view, but focused more on Francis Collins and all the speakers subsequent who argued within the framework of the 'God hypothesis' (for want of a better term).

Kind regards,

Jon

faith is a funny thing, hard to describe but you know it when you see it.

for myself, i find it to be such a beautiful human quality, that i feel humble and refreshed in its presence :-)

i would no more inspect it closely than think about radishes when out and about on a beautiful spring day ...

Dear John,

I feel that God is female and that is why there is such diversity.

If God were male then there would be only one version.

So female it is then.

I rather feel that the reason is that mankind throughout history has sought means to control populations so Gods are presented in a manner that best suits the needs of the govt and population.

Also is a great way to get people to kill each other with Gusto and Fervour when their actions have the support of their Deity.

regards David

quote:

Originally posted by Nobbyright:
If god was omnipotent he would be able to create a large rock that even he/she couldn't move; then he/she wouldn't be an omnipotent god anymore.

and an even bigger stick to hit it with, that could also not be lifted.

Jono