If these bishops were even remotely in touch with the society in which they claim leadership status, they might have seen in advance that such comments would create a PR disaster. A pox on them and their ilk for their insulting accusations. Many atheists who previously were quite happy to let them get on with their ridiculous work, as long as they didn't interfere with our lives, have now been galvanised into action, swearing to actively oppose them at every possible opportunity.

Quite a rational article. Hardly a crusading one.
It does no more than point out the fundamentals of the old-old-story: that it is not one of "peace on you whatever your belief", but the antediluvian diehards' dictum of "Peece on you for not having my belief" .

If the author can't see evolution is indoctrination of pseudo science then he is either blind or ignorant. Frauds, twisted observances and even deceit surpass that of climategate and that is saying something. Wait for all the zealots here to defend their 'faith' and you will get the drift.

Oh runner, good on you. I think you have just well supported the article's argument. Thank you.

If 'evidence' is required, then surely there can be no atheists: rather, we must all be agnostic!

Yes, Gorufus, most of us are agnostics.

Agnosticism is to knowledge as atheism and theism are to belief. Which is why labeling one’s self as an “agnostic” is most unhelpful and says very little really.

Either way, the onus is on the believers to provide the evidence. Non-believers are not obliged to look for evidence to disprove gods or religions as it is the religious making a claim, not atheists. Atheism is simply a response to the claim.

Yes, I was surprised at the attacks by Pell and Jensen over Easter. A time I would have thought of tolerance and goodwill. Christian colleagues have also voiced concerns at the unnecessary and counter-productive attacks.

The statements about atheists "hating God" is odd and particularly points to either disingenuity or ignorance about what it means to be an atheist. As the author writes, atheists simply believes there is no evidence for a God. How can you hate that which does not exist?

It is different from Agnostic. You cannot provide evidence that something does not exist (if it is not visible) - it is on the claimant to provide the evidence that it does exist.

I think the Church has misspoke on this issue and will probably regret it in terms of the potential for hatred and continued division it will create between theists and non-theists.

The comments have gone relatively unnoticed by the media, imagine the outrage if it was a Muslim cleric spouting the same dogma.

Hate speech does not mend it only further divides.

David – you say that atheism’s firm foundation is a desire for evidence, not belief.

But where is the evidence for how nothing became everything, i.e. before the big bang – “nothing”, after the big bang – “everything”?

Where is the evidence for how lifeless matter became living things?

Where is the evidence for how unconscious matter became conscious?

Where is the evidence for how non-intelligent matter became intelligent?

Where is the evidence for how totally determined physical matter attained the ability to be free agents?

There is no hard scientific evidence as to how any of these things actually happened. Certainly there is plenty of speculation but that does not equate to science. Atheists simply take it on faith that all these things happened randomly by themselves without any direction or rational input.

Theists may believe in miracles but undeniably so do atheists.

JP: << Atheists simply take it on faith that all these things happened randomly by themselves without any direction or rational input. >>

Sigh... no, that's not true. Some atheists might think that, while others might have different explanations. What we have in common is that we acknowledge that these events occurred, but because of insufficient evidence we reject the belief that god/s were responsible for them.

<< Theists may believe in miracles but undeniably so do atheists. >>

Rubbish, if you're talking about religious miracles. I'm an atheist and I deny that they exist.

I agree that some religious leaders have made ridiculous, offensive and even plain wrong statements. And I’m all for the equality, compassion and respect for other individuals that the writer seems to espouse.

However I suggest that David Swanton should be more self-critical. In his fourth paragraph he does many times exactly what, in his fifth paragraph, he condemns the Catholic bishop for doing – i.e. “incorrectly asserting that what is true of one person of a group is true of the whole group”.

In that fourth paragraph he tells us that all religions are perpetrators of mass murder while also spurning females, homosexuals and certain races. The evidence he offers in support of the claim is carefully selected from certain sub-sets of religion but is not true of many other sub-sets.

For example, females can be bishops (or the equivalent) in some churches, and the trend is strengthening. Many Christians do not even believe in “hell”, let alone believe that non-Christians are going there. A great many Christians are convinced that biblical exegesis actually supports, rather than forbids, equality of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Through history religious adherents have opposed wars and slaughter which others of their religion have supported.

For a number of reasons Archbishop Jensen and Cardinal Pell get a dominant slice of media time while not representing the views of the majority of the people in their churches. Beware of seizing on their particular sub-sets as examples of the much wider set. This mistake – or is it strategy? – is made by many people on both sides of the public atheism/science-vs.- religion/belief debate.

JP you have hit the nail on the head. I think it is the key difference. It is true the we really don't understand how life arose....

The Atheist say's let's investigate the mystery using science.

The Religious make up a story and then enforce belief in the story, often by killing people.

The theories you speak of, are a work in progress, a search for answers. Science will move forward but it has to have working ideas. Religions believe they have the answers already.

Runner personnel belief doesn't count as proof, even in your head, remember that one about lying.

Well said David, an informed article and a pleasure to read.
I do take issue with JP- your logic posits that if there is no explanation for something, it means this is evidence of God. It could mean scientists have not yet developed a testable theory for the data.
There are new theories developed and knowledge increases every day! Old theories are discarded if they dont fit in with current knowledge, and new discoveries increase our understanding.
In the Dark Ages, before scientific knowledge vastly increased out understanding of the earth an its place in the universe, God was used as an explanation for the unknown.
As we know a lot more now, what is unknown is a lot less! This makes God less significant if you attempt to place him in the unknown scientific data. God has no place in science, just as rationalism has no place in organised religion.
Go to church and find Him there!

CJ Morgan – you say there is insufficient evidence for God to have done those things but you fail to provide any evidence that proves how they naturally occurred. That is because no scientifically valid explanation for them has been produced. So, despite your protestations, you do believe in miracles, in the sense of believing that incredible things have happened without being able to give any explanation for how they could have happened.

Kenny – you acknowledge that atheists have no explanation for how these things can happen, yet you are certain that they all did happen purely spontaneously. You have remarkable faith in molecules.

LizG – you put words in my mouth that I did not say. I am simply pointing out to atheists, and for all you know, I may be an atheist too, that the atheist holds their position by faith just as much as does the theist. Indeed, the atheist has to have more faith than the theist. The theist at least claims that something greater than nature is responsible for all these remarkable things whereas the atheist has to say that literally nothing is responsible for everything. That is a faith claim.

You also acknowledge you have no scientific evidence for your beliefs: you simply hope that some day the evidence will be forthcoming. It hardly seems reasonable for you to knock theists for having faith when you do too.

JP
You are using religious analogy to try and explain what atheists do or do not believe.

"The theist at least claims that something greater than nature is responsible for all these remarkable things whereas the atheist has to say that literally nothing is responsible for everything. That is a faith claim."

Why would you say "at least" as though that in itself is good enough. What if the theist is wrong?

The atheist does not say that "literally nothing is responsible for everything". The difference is the atheist just does not make stuff up just for the convenience of an explanation.

Why is nature not good enough an explanation. Using your reasoning the theist must still be forever asking who made God? And then who made the thing that made God...and so it goes on.

The atheist is merely denying the existence of any supernatural entity without evidence and won't take anything purely on faith.

If faith was the only guage of truth then anyone could just make up a story about being created by aliens or finding God's word in a book discovered in a forest and start an all-powerful sect but...hang on someone else has already beaten us to it.

JP,

Science is closing on these questions you pose. If everyone simply assumed that if because there was no explanation yet for something that god did it, there would no scientific inquiry.

Atheists have no need to ascribe everything that is not understood yet to a super natural event.

The comments made by Pell, et al, at Easter are as abhorrent as they are unwarranted. Such claims about any other group of people be they black, white, male, female, Buddhist, Jewish or African or European - whatever group, would have been met with massive protest and media outcry. Apparently vilification is acceptable if the people being discriminated against do not believe in a religion - particularly if the religion is Christian.

So much for tolerance, acceptance and inclusiveness - not a part of Christianity. Well I stopped believing in this most hypocritical dogma when I was ten years old - probably the wisest decision I ever made in my entire life. I am definitely a more compassionate, caring person than when I was younger - must be due to taking responsibility for myself, my actions, my own well-being and that of others.

Did indeed Peter Jensen and George Pell speak less favourably about atheists when celebrating THEIR event, Easter 2010, than Richard Dawkins about Christians when “celebrating” HIS event, The 2010 Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne?

All three were first of all addressing THEIR congregations - in spite of the publicity given to their speaches - and so does apparently also David Swanton.

Pelican – I said “at least” because the theist is putting forward a proposal – the existence of a being that is greater than nature - that is theoretically capable of creating the natural world with all these attributes, whereas the atheist has to rely on nothing to bring about these things. And with the big bang theory being generally accepted as a correct account for the origin of the universe, the atheist does say that "literally nothing is responsible for everything". According to that theory there was nothing prior to the big bang.

Shadow Minister – I do not agree with you that “Science is closing on these questions”. We have zero idea how to make something from nothing. We have not come close to generating life from non-life. We don’t have a clue as to how to make non-conscious matter conscious or non-intelligent matter intelligent. And we certainly have no ideas about how to make genuine free agents.

Research into AI, far from producing the fantastic promises of intelligent, conscious robots that are free agents, only confirms the above. An interview in New Scientist, 29 August 2009, with Noel Sharkey, Professor of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield supports this. He stated that “there is no evidence that machines will ever overtake us or gain sentience.”

But even if scientists were able to create life, that would not prove that life had ever arisen spontaneously from the slime. Rather it would only go to show that high–level intelligence was needed to create life – something that was completely absent from the primeval soup.

While we don't know the specifics of creating life that doesn't mean we never will.

Manned flight was considered impossible about a century ago and in that comparatively short time we have sent men to the moon and back. Human knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate.

Explaining away everything that is yet unknown on the basis of obscure writings and myths from before the Iron Age is no answer.

Quoth PJ, "[atheists] fail to provide any evidence that proves how [unexplained phenomena] naturally occurred".

This seems to speciously require atheists to either instantly give conclusive explanations for every natural phenomenon from the dawn of time onwards OR otherwise accept, on the basis of nothing more than ignorance and complexity, that God must exist.

In other words, "right now we don't know why or how these things happened, so until you can prove what actually happened, we'll just say God did it". This is illogical and nonsense.

As for "[atheists] do believe in miracles", this wrongly conflates the generic meaning of "miracle" -- an extraordinary unexplained thing -- with the religious meaning -- an extraordinary thing that PRESUMES a supernatural or divine cause. Context is key.

Relatedly, I find it ironic how religion apologists try to bag atheism by equating it to religion. It doesn't say much for religion, using it as a basis for comparative ridicule.

Principles never change. Man has free will to believe any thing he wants to and that is why we have so many belief systems ie religion, atheism, evolution, humanism, animalism, tree worship, reincarnation, and anything man can imagine with a fertile imagination. United we stand, divided we fall for where there is unity God commands the blessing. Man has freewill it is our choice what we believe. The truth you know personally sets you free. Until you experience anything for your self you are only believing another's word. Arguments about words is foolishness and does not produce unity. Pride comes before a fall. All men are falliable none are perfect. The same evidence atheists use to disprove God proves his existance depending on the perspective you see life through. Life is about choices and wrong choices lead to wrong destinations. If your life compass is out you do not reach your chosen destination. To fear God is the beginning of wisdom. All principles work for good or evil ie unity brings blessing division brings strife. Choose carefully who you follow for fools jump in where wise men fear to tread.

Richie 10: "The same evidence atheists use to disprove God proves his existance depending on the perspective you see life through."

The evidence I use to disprove God consists of the fact that I have never encountered any empirical evidence whatsoever of God's existence. Would you care to explain how this evidence can be used to prove God exists? Other than to a madman, of course.

Dear Jon,
First everything reproduces after its own kind. Even our bodies are so complex that it has to take intelligent design to put together definitely not random chance. If you study a leaf it is a wonderous complex thing, a freak of nature or a wonderful complex thing of intelligent design. Look at your watch, did it have a creator or was it just a random chance happening. If the world is thousands of millions of years old where are the bones. Your mind, will, and emotions called your soul are set by what you see, hear, feel, taste and so on and are limited to your personal experience all else has to be taken by faith. You still have to chose whether you believe Jesus words or modern philosophers words. Man twists Gods word to control the soul (mind) of others, read ESCAPE by Carolyn Jessop as even in this modern hytech world people still believe the words of men and are still deceived. Penguin books. Jesus came to set the captives free and very few chose freedom so what has changed. He came to his own chosen people and they killed him. Knowledge is power what motivates the one in power determines the result.

JP. I'd like to tackle your assertion that science cannot discover the source of life. The two main theories are: 1) God did it, 2) Life emerged and then evolved via purely natural (i. Cause and effect) processes.
The God theory is notorious for not producing any useful predictions at all: none. By contrast the natural theory has produced literally thousands of testable predictions...every one of which has been confirmed. (Not one piece of evidence has contradicted evolution, despite the assertions of the ignorant).
By studying the details of nature at very detailed levels we have discovered quite a lot about how it works...and no sane person would attribute life to an "intelligent" designer! If there was a "designer" then they are clearly insane or incompetent. (or horribly cruel)
As for the ultimate "starting point". Yes, we know how that could be done. Trouble is we know of too many possibilities, so the hunt continues for the evidence that could pin down which is most likely. "Proof" only exists in mathematics, science proceeds by problem solving and putting theories up for competition and to see if they survive evidence gained from experiment or research.
The maintenance of the "intelligent designer" theory requires one to ignore all the evidence that modern science has obtained, hence the accusation that religious folks are "ignorant". This is not a name calling exercise, nor political branding, just a factual description of the mindset required to maintain obscure 2000 year old dogmas.
I'd give religion a break if they a) Stopped indoctrinating children to hate other worldviews. b) Stopped campaigning to undermine solid science like evolution using tactics that Big Tobacco used. c) Stopped being patsies for the war mongers who play on "we are holy, they are evil" to justify economic warfare. d) Held their leaders to account. If you want to pretend to represent the Most Holy, then one should at least expect a basic sense of morality to be applied. Protecting paedophilia for decades (centuries) in a world-wide systematic way is ignorance taken *way* too far!

It is a little extraordinary that there are still, in the twentyfirst century, educated people who are also Creationists.

My puzzlement has nothing to do with religion, which is a social force that has been with us ever since the cavepeople started to wonder "why are we here", and speculate whether the sun was perhaps, on the evidence available, the ultimate giver-of-life.

But to insist, against all the available data, that the only plausible explanation for our existence is a specific, named supernatural being, is something else again.

To be sure, the two concepts necessarily overlap. Once you have chosen the attributes of a particular deity, and given that deity both omniscience and omnipotence, it must be important not to leave any event unexplained.

Which to the rest of us mortals represents a reversal of our normal thinking processes, which start with the effect - birds have wings - and proceed to the determination of the cause.

The events of Easter described in the article here make me start to wonder, whether we in the developed nations are about to embark upon another major re-think about religion's position in society. A Second Enlightenment, if you will, where the focus is on the conduct of religious factions, as opposed to the nature or existence of God.

While no-one (that I know) wants to prevent anyone from believing anything they like - even Creationism, Intelligent Design etc. - events like these must inevitably erode the status that organized religion occupies in our social structures.

And there will be consequences.

All along I have been addressing David Swanton’s contention that atheism’s firm foundation is a desire for evidence, not belief.

In view of that contention I have simply asked David or anyone else for the evidence that scientifically demonstrates that everything did come from nothing; that non-living matter can spontaneously produce life; that non-conscious matter can spontaneously produce consciousnes; that non-intelligent matter can spontaneously produce intelligence; that totally determined physical matter can spontaneously produce free agency.

But so far neither David nor anyone else has presented a single piece of actual evidence to show that any of these things can naturally, spontaneously occur. Therefore in the absence of any evidence, those who hold that these things have naturally occurred, must hold this position solely on the basis of faith. Not faith in God of course, but faith in the nature of nothingness, presumably, because it is generally claimed that there was nothing - no matter, no time, no space - before the big bang.

It is not unreasonable to ask atheists who claim to have evidence-based beliefs to reveal the evidence.

Atheists want to criticise theists for taking things by faith. My point is that atheists also take things by faith – and faith in nothingness seems to be a pretty weird sort of faith.

Please note that I have not once contended that the absence of evidence for a naturalistic explanation for the above things is therefore evidence for God. It is other posters on this site who have drawn that conclusion and who have then attributed that to me.

SD. You omit the fact that religion assumes that God appeared from nothing, yet feel no need to explain that.
It is much less of a stretch to assume that a mechanistic universe "is, was , and always shall be" than a supernatural, insane clockmaker spontaneously appeared.
Your "faith" in nothingness is no less than ours...you just jump to a much bigger, and frankly unreasonable conclusion.

Sorry, JP, not SD!

JP,

Your entire contention is one big strawman. Considering no one believes what you have presumed atheists to believe, why on Earth would anyone give you any evidence?

No one believes that everything came from nothing;
No one believes that non-living matter spontaneously produced life;
No one believes that consciousness spontaneously appeared from non-consciousness;
No one believes that non-intelligent matter spontaneously produced intelligence.

If you were genuinely wanting answers to these questions, then you’d do what every atheist and open-minded theist does and look them up.

But you don’t want to.

Instead, you’re quite happy wallow in your ignorance and plonk a god into the gaps of your knowledge while presuming to know what others believe based on a narrow and simplistic understanding of the world that results in you inventing the false dichotomy that if someone doesn’t want to be lazy and fill the unknowns with a magic man, then that must mean they believe it all just spontaneously happened.

Go and educate yourself, JP. There are a lot of credible answers and theories to the "unknowns" that you're filling with magic.

It all depends on whether or not you want to find them.

JP,

I think you really need to understand the difference between a belief and a hypothesis.

JP,

Your god is a god of the gaps in human knowledge. Considering that 400 yrs ago man thought the sun revolved around the earth, 200 years ago evolution was just considered as a concept, about 60 years ago there were no computers and DNA had not been discovered. 30+ years ago, it was shown that amino acids (building blocks of DNA and protein) could arisen from primordial conditions, etc.

When I was at school the pastor said that computers would never surpass the computing power of the human brain. That threshold has already been passed. Artificial intelligence is advancing every day, and while sentience is still a long way off, when it comes it is likely to be very different to what we expect from Scifi movies.

I took notice of your caveat that even if man created life that it would not prove that life arose by itself. This is a major cop out, and is basically saying "it doesn't matter what evidence you have, I choose to ignore it."

AJ Philips – you say that no one believes that everything came from nothing. Here are a few scientists, including Richard Dawkins, who disagree.

"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." Richard Dawkins, "The Ancestor's Tale"

"Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific." Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University

"It is now becoming clear that everything can – and probably did – come from nothing." Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University, England.

You also claim that “No one believes that non-living matter spontaneously produced life” etc, but if that is not how it happened how do you believe life did come about?

Shadow Minister – what does the fact that intelligent scientists, using sophisticated lab equipment, under precise conditions, were able to make amino acids, have to do with living creatures spontaneously arising from lifeless matter?

You acknowledge sentience has not been able to be created by highly intelligent scientists, but you believe that, somehow, sentience arose purely by chance processes. You express faith that one day scientists will be able to create sentience and also artificial intelligence – and they are faith claims you are making.

You say I am copping out by saying that there is a fundamental difference between intelligent beings working to bring about a very complex end and that same end occurring simply as a consequence of chance, spontaneous events. If a watch can’t arise by chance it is absurd to suggest that the enormously more complex single living cell somehow just arose from lifeless matter. When you say you believe it did, and have no evidence to show how it did, that is a statement of faith.

JP

Your patience is admirable.You have exposed the blind faith of atheism so well. Many atheist like Dawkins deny their own words. I suppose when you are used to changing your story so many times it is not surprising. It is so funny the way they take the 'high' ground trying to convince the gullible that atheism is rational.

"There is no element of indoctrinated belief about atheism."

In my youth I was an evangelical atheist who used to preach to others that any rational person could see that God was a construct.

One day it dawned on me that I was an atheist for much the same reasons that others were catholics. I grew up with atheistic parents - as did my children, and they are all atheists as well.

Was I indoctrinated into atheism? I didn't think so - it was part of my belief system. Does a catholic think he/she has been indoctrinated into Catholicism? I doubt it.

Atheism really is a belief system. I cannot prove god does not exist. I firmly believe it but I cannot prove it.

Would my belief have been different if I had grown up in a catholic household? I'll never know but I would be very cautious about insisting that I had not been influenced by my upbringing or that I wasn't indoctrinated.

Good article, David. One wonders what the overwhelmingly good people in the pews thought over Easter.

runner, evolution is such a well established concept, backed up by the good work of German-Austrian monk Gegor Mendel and his "Mendelian genetics" using peas - published in 1865 & 1866, yet forgotten until rediscovered in 1900 - that he used to create (i) the Law of Segregation and (ii) the Law of Independent Assortment. Subsequently, the discovery of DNA structure, and its function, has opened up a whole new world that continues to verify evolution and its mechanisms; as has population studies in the wild, and knowledge from artificial breeding.

JP, abiogenesis is wonderful frontier for science and humanity; as is cosmogenesis, and elaborating functions of the mind. One of the foremost current reserachers into abiogenesis is one of the 2009 Nobel medicine laureates Jack Szostak. An audio interview is here

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D3OwSARYTK7w

Nobody these days takes any science "on faith". Speculating and theorising are the first steps in science, yet change as new information and theories becomes available.

JP,

When scientists say “nothing” in this respect, they don’t necessarily mean “nothing” in the same sense that we do, or that you were implying with your continual mentioning of spontaneity. A good video that explains it much better than I could can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxNbXjBbzEo&NR=1.

Then there’s also the hypothesis that the universe (or even multiverse) is an infinite series of expansions and collapses.

<<You also claim that “No one believes that non-living matter spontaneously produced life” etc, but if that is not how it happened how do you believe life did come about?>>

Me personally? I believe I don’t know.

That’s right: I don’t know - three very simple words you fundamentalists seem to have so much difficulty with.

But there are some good theories and scientists get closer and closer everyday to finding the answer to that question. The most credible theory I’ve heard, is that nucleotides (which have been found to form quite easily in montmorillonite clay - a clay that would have been in abundance in Earth’s primordial state) naturally link together to form polynucleotides; polynucleotides naturally link together to form RNA; the RNA then links together to form DNA. Lipids have been found to easily form a shell around DNA, which would have acted as a protective coating for the DNA, and there you have the first primitive cell.

Some of these stages of abiogenesis have been repeated in laboratories too.

The idea spread around by Creationists that scientists believe complex cells - like the ones we know today - just popped into existence, is just one of the many examples of the continual and pathological deceit of Creationists.

So much for the supposed exposé, eh Runner?

Martin N,

There may have been a stage in your life where you didn’t have a religious belief, but I don’t think you were ever a serious, or ‘thinking’ atheist. Otherwise, you would understand that it is theists who are making the claim, not atheists. Atheism is simply a response to that claim.

<<Was I indoctrinated into atheism? I didn't think so - it was part of my belief system.>>

Of course you weren’t indoctrinated into atheism, because atheism doesn’t have a doctrine to be indoctrinated into. I’m glad you added the “part of” in “it was part of my belief system” though. Most theists are actually silly enough to think that atheism is a belief system, would you believe?!

<<Atheism really is a belief system.>>

Oh...

Well, in that case, I’ll ask you the same question I ask everyone who makes this ridiculous claim...

If atheism is a belief system, then name for me one other universal tenet of atheism other than the lack of belief in gods.

Pericles,
I often (certainly not always) disagree with you, sometimes I can learn from you, and I somehow came to think you were a historian (apologies if I am wrong). So could you please spell out for me what, apparently unprecedented, “events of Easter … inevitably erode the status that organized religion occupies in our social structures” and what “consequences” are they supposed to lead to?

Every week church-leaders such as Pell, Jenson and others preach their interpretation of their religion; every week. At Christian dates of import they are given full media attention and frequently comment on non-religious or other religions to the public at large.

Australia held a single atheist convention a few weeks ago: in all I have read and heard from the speakers there was an abundance of discussion of philosophy and science. The range of topics, while publicised was never given the level of attention by mainstream media that Pell receives all-the-time. You need to seek out the ABC for transcripts and videos for considered comment on the convention.

Consider, similar sentiments of denigration expressed by a leading Muslim Iman about Christians; how would do Christians feel about that? And remember that Muslims receive more air-time than atheists but still far less than the likes of Pell.

Would not such negative sentiments "inevitably erode the status that organized religion occupies in our social structures", as Pericles pointed out? I think so.

The claim that atheism is a belief system, apart from the obvious which has already been pointed out: no doctrine, dogma, ritual, superstition, holy-days or other religious rite of passage. Please consider that:

1. Many atheists are born into religious families or attend religious schools; somehow these people work out that bibles are full of contradictions, impossibilities and no evidence for any claims about a supreme deity it contains.

2. Santa Claus; like many I was brought to believe in this childhood fantasy. Not believing in Santa is no more a "system of faith" than not believing in deities.

Finally, the Easter Attacks on innocent people who go about their lives without causing harm to anyone is a sad indictment of religious leaders in particular and religion in general; where were the congregations protesting their leaders' unsubstantiated claims? Not a single religious poster at OLO has had the guts to say that the Pells of religion consistently harm others by their proclamations about non-believers.

All we (atheists) hear is more obfuscation, sophistry and excuses.

AJ Philips – I watched the video you recommended. It started off with this: “Let’s assert that some kind space-time quantum foam sort of something existed before our own universe began, before our own big bang.”

Yes, well, I have to say that that didn’t inspire much confidence in the scientific rigor of the video.

You don’t seem to like my saying that in a godless world things simply happen spontaneously. But if there is no intelligent cause giving any direction to what happens in the universe, then things must just happen spontaneously i.e. without any intention or purpose., as in “spontaneous combustion”. I don’t see what your problem can be with that.

On your preferred theory of abiogenesis involving clay, this is what John Horgan, Scientific American’s senior writer from 1986 to 1997, had to say: “A. G. Cairns-Smith … proposes that life arose on a solid substrate that occurs in vents and almost everywhere else, but he prefers crystalline clays to pyrite … Unlike some origin-of-life theorists, Cairns-Smith cheerfully admits the failings of his pet hypothesis: no one has been able to coax clay into something resembling evolution in a laboratory; nor has anyone found anything resembling a clay-based organism in nature. Yet he argues that no theory requiring organic compounds to organize and replicate without assistance is likely to fare any better. ‘Organic molecules are too wiggly to work’, he says …”

And “‘The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened’, says Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee …”

And “RNA might be the first self-replicating molecule … But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge … Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of help from the scientist, says Joyce of the Scripps Clinic, an RNA specialist. ‘It is an inept molecule’ …” “In the Beginning … ,” Scientific American 264: 116–125, Feb. 1991

Severin,

Very well said!

I was trying to put together a response for the excuses made for Pell and Jensen in this thread, but couldn’t quite formulate one that I thought would prevent me getting bogged down in sophistry and obfuscation, so I gave up trying.

JP,

<<I have to say that that didn’t inspire much confidence in the scientific rigor of the video.>>

Firstly, scientists don’t know and will possibly never know for sure what existed before the big bang and none of them deny this. That being said, there is nothing unscientific about making assumptions to start building a hypothesis on. That's how science works.

What scientific rigor is there is saying it was all just magiked into existence?

Secondly, it is a red herring to highlight the uncertainty of the video or anything scientists say on this matter as I was responding to your implication that atheists believed similar to the spontaneous generation.

And thirdly, it’s a bit rich for someone who not only plonks a god in the in the unknowns, but presumes to know who that god is, to be commenting on the “scientific rigor” of anything. It is more scientific to assume quantum foam than believe in a god.

<<You don’t seem to like my saying that in a godless world things simply happen spontaneously ... I don’t see what your problem can be with that.>>

My problem with that is that there is actually a cause to things like consciousness, intelligence and abiogenesis. The big bang? Well that’s an unknown and may always be unknown. We don’t even know if there was a cause to begin with. But anyone who cares about their beliefs being true would sooner say, “I don’t know”, than assume that an invisible magician did it.

Speaking of the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy...

Continued...

...Continued

<<On your preferred theory of abiogenesis involving clay, this is what John Horgan, Scientific American’s senior writer from 1986 to 1997, had to say...>>

Firstly, considering abiogenesis is still in its infancy, pointing out problems in the theory is hardly going to win anyone a Nobel prize. At this point, the fact that it has not proved to be impossible is of more significance.

Secondly, even if you could conclusively disprove abiogenesis, it still wouldn’t prove that a god did it all - to think so would be a false dichotomy. Nor would it disprove evolution for that matter.

And thirdly, this too is a red herring as I was, again, responding to your implication that atheists believed similar to the spontaneous generation.

<<And “‘The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened’, says Harold P. Klein of Santa Clara University, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee …”>>

Yes, I agree - “almost” and “imagine” being the operative words there too, by the way.

But like I said before, the first living cells would have been far more basic and primitive than the complex cells we know today. So much so in fact, that the more complex single-celled life forms today would simply devour them before they had a chance to form or replicate enough for any of us to see them.

Anyway, JP, we can continue this ‘til the cows come home but the fact remains that atheists don’t have a faith, and if everyone simply gave up by answering the tough questions with, “God musta dun it”, then we'd still be in the Dark Ages burning heretics.

You owe a lot to the inquiring minds of those who, unlike yourself, aren’t content to just take the lazy route by filling the mysteries of the universe with non-existent beings.

Just remember that the next time you want to mock them.

I couldn't get past the 4th or 5th paragraph of this article without baulking at the nonsense and unintended hilarity of the piece.

Christianity is "racist"?

Is he actually being serious? People make all kinds of ridiculous accusations about Christianity all the time, and people have criticised Christianity for everything you can think of, but I'd have to say I haven't heard that one before. That statement is beyond absurd. Christianity is the opposite of racist. Suggesting otherwise reduces the author's credibility beyond repair. If this guy wasn't grinding such an obvious ax in this article, I'd think he was literally making a joke for comedic effect (not that it'd actually be funny). Instead, his seriousness in making the comment means the joke's on him.

He also criticises Christianity for being guilty of being "religist". Ie: Christianity is guilty of saying that the teachings of Christianity are true, and other religions teachings aren't. Well, boo hoo.

It's an absolute indictment on our current culture that the inherent irrationality of such complaints aren't pointed out more often, and more forcefully. When it comes to any issues relating to religion, we now live in a world where it's unfashionable to argue that someone else is wrong- unless you're arguing that someone else is wrong for teaching that someone else is wrong. In that case, all the more power to you.

PS: After scrolling through the comments I'm disheartened that more people aren't criticising this piece of trash article. There hardly seems to be many critical comments at all! Admittedly, I was nitpicking on minor points of his in my above post, but I simply couldn't see the article through.

Oh..just one more thing.... The New Atheist movement is culturalist, sexist, elitist and intellectualist! Almost all of the champions of the New Atheist movement are highly educated white males- Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Myers, Dennett, Hitchens etc!

Hi George.

>>could you please spell out for me what, apparently unprecedented, “events of Easter … inevitably erode the status that organized religion occupies in our social structures” and what “consequences” are they supposed to lead to?<<

First of all, I don't believe that I said they were "unprecedented". There have been many attempts by religious folk - as we clearly see in this thread - to bracket atheists with "other faiths", and dump on them via a litany of assumed crimes.

But the observation I did make on this occasion was the appalling timing of the attack on atheism, at a moment in history where one of the "mother churches" is under substantial scrutiny.

It may be that in some instances, attack is the best form of defence. Usually, however, that is confined to sporting arenas, rather than institutions that are being closely examined for a series of acts that appear inconsistent with their espoused values.

This "inconsistency" cuts to the very quick of the basis for religious observance. Note, I am separating this categorically from any belief in God, but focussing instead on the earthly messengers.

I used the Enlightenment as a kicking-off point because it is essentially where it became permissible to use reason and science alongside belief. On reflection though, I think a better parallel would be Martin Luther and the Reformation.

So, back to your question.

The "events" were the vocal attacks on atheists and atheism, from various pulpits. This at a time when the conduct of the church hierarchy was being closely examined, essentially for hypocrisy and deceit.

Luther's ninetyfive theses concentrated on such dubious activities as the purchasing of indulgencies and the use of "relics" to avoid purgatory. Today's media focus on the chasm between the words and deeds of establish religious orders.

The consequences?

Not sure, but most likely a further fragmentation of the Christian churches, as individuals become uncomfortable with the actions of their spiritual leaders.

But they will almost certainly adversely affect the churches who are presently trying to divert attention from themselves and their conduct by slagging off atheists.

Hi Pericles,
Thanks for your response. Please note I was not objecting to what you wrote, I was just asking a question (actually two). The article is about something that Pell and Jensen said, without providing links to the exact text of their pronouncements, only a link to an article that by its title did not look like having been authorized by Jensen or Pell. Now I looked at it again, and I see that the article contains quotes from the sermons by Jensen, Pell (as well as from the President of The Atheist Foundation of Australia). So maybe that is all that one can get at from here, and I should not have asked you for an exact quote or even link. Apologies.

I knew you did not use the term “unprecedented” therefore I qualified it with “apparently”: What is objected to are sermons in churches, aimed at closed congregations (who e.g. are supposed to believe in God, so no need to explain that “assault on God” makes sense only if you believe in God). The fact that every Sunday, and especially at Easter, preachers reassure their audience how good it is to be a Christian and how bad not to be one, is hardly newsworthy; the same like others feel obliged (e.g. on this OLO) to “preach” how good (rational, logical, moral etc) it is to be an atheist and how bad not to be one. So I presume this on its own cannot be the “events of Easter” that made you “start to wonder”. (ctd)

(ctd)
However, I agree that one can promote one’s own world-view without derogating the alternative, and that this is a feature of civilised discourse that is often sinned against not only by some atheist spokespersons but also by some Christian preachers. Apparently this happened this Easter more than at other occasions - the trigger being either the Atheist Convention in Melbourne or the pedophile scandals, probably both, although “assualt on God” is obviously a reaction to the former - but I think that this has been happening from both sides. Hence my rhetorical question in a previous post, whether the two bishops were indeed using more derogative words than Dawkins. Of, course, there is no point in comparing piece by piece the “derogatory intensity” of their utterances.

As to the consequences that you are unsure about, so am I, although I think they would lead to internal purification. At least this is what happened many times in the Catholic Church when reacting to an external impulse. Well, you are the historian, not I.

What Joyce *also* has to say about RNA catalysis...

Research Focus
Directed Evolution of RNA and DNA Enzymes

My research concerns the biochemistry of RNA and the development of novel RNA and DNA enzymes through in vitro evolution. Like their protein counterparts, nucleic acid enzymes assume a well-defined structure that is responsible for their catalytic activity. Unlike proteins, however, nucleic acids are genetic molecules that can be amplified and mutated in the test tube. The members of my laboratory and I have learned to exploit the dual role of nucleic acids as both catalyst and genetic molecule to develop RNA- and DNA-based evolving systems that operate entirely in vitro. At best, we can carry out 100 "generations" of test-tube evolution in a day, employing a population of one hundred trillion nucleic acid molecules. This allows us to evolve nucleic acid enzymes far more rapidly than whole organisms evolve in nature.

Our studies of RNA-based evolution are relevant to understanding the early history of life on Earth. It is believed that an RNA-based genetic system, termed the "RNA world", preceded the DNA and protein-based genetic system that has existed for the past 3.5 billion years. Our research aims to recapitulate the biochemistry of the RNA world in the laboratory. We are using in vitro evolution to explore the catalytic potential of RNA, and especially to search for RNA enzymes that have the ability to catalyze their own replication.

Selected References
Joyce, G.F. The antiquity of RNA-based evolution. Nature 418:214, 2002.

Paul, N. , Joyce, G.F. A self-replicating ligase ribozyme. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:12733, 2002.

Paul, N., Springsteen, G. & Joyce, G.F. Conversion of a ribozyme to a deoxyribozyme through in vitro evolution. Chem. Biol. 13:329, 2006.

Joyce *really* doesn't think RNA is a good model of early catalyst/replicators?

Deliberately using old quotes is so very telling of the fundamental honesty of the creationist. Having supposedly gone and looked up such a quote, you'd think they'd have the decency to just check what Joyce has said recently....... or would you?

Just another quote miner, JP?

That's an interesting angle, George.

>>What is objected to are sermons in churches, aimed at closed congregations (who e.g. are supposed to believe in God, so no need to explain that “assault on God” makes sense only if you believe in God). The fact that every Sunday, and especially at Easter, preachers reassure their audience how good it is to be a Christian and how bad not to be one, is hardly newsworthy<<

Do you feel the same way about the sermons of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali? Were his remarks in his Ramadan sermon in 2006, where (presumably) he was reassuring his audience how good it is to be a Muslim, and how bad not to be one, "hardly newsworthy"?

>>So I presume this on its own cannot be the “events of Easter” that made you “start to wonder”<<

Well, yes it was. I suspect that a number Muslims felt distinctly uncomfortable when Hilaly told them that "When it comes to adultery, it’s 90 percent the woman’s responsibility". To me, preachers who take such anti-social positions risk losing their audience. Especially those who live in a free society, as we do.

I also "started to wonder" when Hilaly put his clerical foot in it three and a half years ago, whether it would strengthen or weaken the hold of his religion's hierarchy over their "flock".

Same with our Christian brothers' less temperate outbursts against atheists and atheism.

>>As to the consequences that you are unsure about, so am I, although I think they would lead to internal purification<<

You may well be right. If you are, it will be fascinating to see what form the "purification" takes.

Incidentally, I apologize if I come across as a "historian". I don't mean to.

George.

<<The fact that every Sunday, and especially at Easter, preachers reassure their audience how good it is to be a Christian and how bad not to be one, is hardly newsworthy; the same like others feel obliged (e.g. on this OLO) to “preach” how good (rational, logical, moral etc) it is to be an atheist and how bad not to be one.>>

Remember that theism and atheism are not just two equally opposing “world-views”. One is a faith-based assertion, and the other is a reason-based response to that assertion.

Your failure to acknowledge this very important distinction leaves your superficially correct but fundamentally flawed analogies and comparisons (such as the one above), seriously lacking, and renders them misleading - whether that be intentionally or unintentionally.

Rusty,

Thanks for that. I figured JP’s quotes would have simply been a classic case of Creationist quote mining deceit, but just didn’t have the motivation to go looking into it.

After years of debating them, I think I’m finally starting to tire of Creationists. One can only debunk the same argument so many times before one starts to become concerned about the point that Mark Twain made about debating fools.

Pericles,
>>Do you feel the same way about the sermons of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali?<<
The sermons by Jensen and Pell were objected to by those here who call themselves atheists (and Dawkins is seen by many as a fair representative of them) not Muslims. So Sheik al-Hilali (or, as a matter of fact, any other preacher or speaker) is irrelevant to what I asked you.

Let me repeat:
I was just trying to find out what made you “start to wonder”, and apologised for not having looked closer at the link provided in the article. I thought the regular Easter sermons cannot be that (or do every year’s Easter sermons make you “start to wonder”?) so I concluded it was the unusually harsh - or whatever word you prefer - words in this year’s sermons, and speculated what could have been the reason for that. This brought me to Dawkins’ lectures (“sermons”) during the Atheist Convention in Melbourne, and I admitted that there was no point in comparing piece by piece the “derogatory intensity” of what the three said in their sermons, because the conclusion about who has more reasons to be upset will depend on what side you were on from the beginning.

I still think this is pointless, and even more pointless is to make comparisons with the offensiveness and/or dangerousness of the pronouncements of some extremist Sheik al-Hilali.

>>I apologize if I come across as a "historian". I don't mean to.<<
Does this mean that I was mistaken when I thought your qualifications were in history?

AJ Philips,
I never claimed that theism or atheism on their own were world-views. For the rest of your post, I am well aware - since you told me so many times - that I provide “superficially correct but fundamentally flawed analogies and comparisons” that are lacking and misleading. I suppose you simply mean they do not convince you, and I just have to live with that.

This non-believer took his family along to experience the 'Walk of the Cross” this Easter in Melbourne. I had it up there with other 'Big City' events I wanted my girls to experience.

In many ways it reminded me of the dawn service at the shrine. What started with a couple of hundred people swelled to a couple of thousand within the hour and I found it quite moving.

The walk is conducted in the CBD and moves around 10 churches of different denominations taking about 3 hours. At each 'station' there is a marble slab with a bronze sculpture depicting part of the passion story. It is accompanied by police who close the various intersections off as we passed.

I understand that many traditional churches have the stations of the cross inside but this attempts to, in a small way, recreate the commemorative walk the Crusaders did in Jerusalem each Easter.

Being a part of such a large gathering conducting themselves with quiet dignity and devotion was a privilege and gives some sense of what a religious faith is capable of.

I was inclined to question my motives though.

Was I there just as a consumer of experiences? Well it certainly was cheap, just a small donation which would have barely covered the cost of the free water and hot cross buns that my daughters consumed at the end.

Was it akin to going to a museum, or an indigenous ceremony, to understand in some superficial way faded glories of once powerful movements? The architecture was indeed stunning and held the attention probably disproportionally. Plus I'm one of those strange people who find the old Mechanics Institutes fascinating places.

Ultimately it was something I felt valuable enough for me to ensure my kids experienced the occasion, it is just that I find it difficult to definitively explain why. Certainly the interdenominational aspect was appealing however perhaps it was the chance for them to acknowledge and respect a belief system that some in our community hold very dear to themselves and is a vital part of their identity.

If that was supposed to be an answer, George, I'm afraid it fell way short of being a satisfactory one.

>>The sermons by Jensen and Pell were objected to by those here who call themselves atheists (and Dawkins is seen by many as a fair representative of them) not Muslims. So Sheik al-Hilali (or, as a matter of fact, any other preacher or speaker) is irrelevant to what I asked you.<<

It most certainly is relevant.

You claimed for Pell and Jensen a certain privilege. That because they were speaking "in churches, aimed at closed congregations", that their pronouncements should not be newsworthy.

I merely asked whether you extend the same courtesy to remarks made by Sheik al-Hilali, in the same circumstances: namely, in a mosque, to a closed congregation.

That's all.

The answer could be an equally simple "yes" or "no", or it could bear a rationale why the two should be treated differently.

But irrelevant? Certainly not.

Pericles,
I never spoke of privileges, but if you like, of course, Jensen, Pell, Dawkins and Sheik al-Hilali, or whoever, have the same right to talk to their congregations in reassuring words as long as what they say cannot be deemed as inciting violence or hatred, or unlawful in some other way, which is not for me to judge (as I said, different things upset different people), but for people better knowledgeable about the Australian legal system.

George,

<<I never claimed that theism or atheism on their own were world-views.>>

You didn’t have to. You continuously use the term as if they were world-views on their own. But if you don’t think they are, then how do you go from...

“All three were first of all addressing THEIR congregations - in spite of the publicity given to their speeches...”

to...

“However, I agree that one can promote one’s own world-view without derogating the alternative...”?

I can only assume your use of the term “world-view” is an attempt to downplay the wackiness of religious belief.

If you don’t think that atheism and theism are world-views on their own, then you need to put a qualifier by adding something like, “part of”.

Either way, my point still stands, so this is merely a red herring and I suspect an attempt to bog me down in semantics in order to distract me from my main point. This is a tactic you often employ. You’ve done it again in your address to Pericles...

<<I never spoke of privileges...>>

Whether or not you spoke of privileges is largely beside the point.

<<For the rest of your post, I am well aware - since you told me so many times - that I provide “superficially correct but fundamentally flawed analogies and comparisons” that are lacking and misleading.>>

Then why do you keep doing it?

<<I suppose you simply mean they do not convince you, and I just have to live with that.>>

No, I really do mean they are flawed and misleading.

AJ Philips,
There are many Christian, theist, atheist etc world-views (one of them Jensen subscribes to, another one of them Pell, and yet another is that professed by Dawkins), but there is no THE Christian, theist or atheist world-view. Just look up the definition of world view in your dictionary or Wikipedia: my world-view differs from that of e.g. runner, although they are both based on Christianity, and there are atheists whose world-view differs from that of e.g. Dawkins. However, we have already been through this a number of times.

>>I really do mean they are flawed and misleading<<
Well, that is your prerogative, and, as I said, I have to live with it, even if I would not attach such adjectives to your attempts to communicate your point of view.

George, I hope that you are not hiding behind words here. It does you no credit.

>>I never spoke of privileges<<

You did not use that precise word, I grant you. But surely, you recognize that when you state "What is objected to are sermons in churches, aimed at closed congregations", conclusions will be drawn?

And the obvious - the only, in fact - conclusion that can be drawn is that you claim "privilege" for those sermons. The word is used in the same sense as "parliamentary privilege", in that they are deemed to have a different power and value inside their closed environment.

>>Let me repeat: I was just trying to find out what made you “start to wonder”... I concluded it was the unusually harsh - or whatever word you prefer - words in this year’s sermons, and speculated what could have been the reason for that.<<

I did not suggest anywhere that the sermons were "unusually harsh".

I did mention what I consider to be the "appalling timing of the attack on atheism", given the attention currently being paid to the Catholic church's involvement in covering up crimes.

I did call them "vocal attacks on atheists and atheism, from various pulpits", which I believe to be factually accurate.

The closest I came to being judgmental was when I referred to the priests' "less temperate outbursts against atheists and atheism".
If you think of "intemperate" as being an antonym of "measured", you may see where I was coming from.

Look at it from a slightly different angle for a moment.

Do you consider that Jensen and Pell's well-publicised attacks on atheism at Easter will:

a) strengthen the faith of the respective congregations

b) cause the faithful to wonder why their church's hierarchy is making such a fuss

c) attract any new members to the congregation

d) convert any atheists to Christianity?

That is the question I posed myself that made me "start to wonder".

Since the dawn of time leaders of tribes have invented Gods and religions to control and manipulate. The leader is the only one that can hear or speak to the invented God. When the leader gos off to spread his religion by slaughtering all who oppose his religion, he appoints priests to do his bidding, they write rules with the punishment of death for disobedience. The few religions we have left today have simply slaughtered all others, in inter religious genocide, an estimated 2500 of them.
Every religious Christian apologist that has commented on this blog if born in another country to another culture, would have a different religion and be fiercely anti Christian, such is the absolute irrefutable truth of the stupidity of religious beliefs.
JP and others, if born in New Guinea would probably be a member of a cargo cult, in Saudi Arabia a Muslim, in India a Hindu would have been forcibly indoctrinated from childhood, that is all religious belief or faith is.
As for Pell and Jensen, anyone that waits each year for the spring equinox full moons following Friday and Sunday to declare an Easter holy days is just a snake oil charlatan that belongs to a cult that has ripped off some pagan astrotheologic cult from pre history which archaeology and historically is an irrefutable fact!
PS; Do you mean Adolph Hitler the (religious fanatic atheist) that had Gott Mitt Uns, (God With Us) on the Nazi army belt buckles and introduced taxes for the Vatican, The Vatican State that the catholic fascist Mussolini created in 1929, the first state to recognise Hitler's new German Nazi fascist govt?

George,

<<There are many Christian, theist, atheist etc world-views (one of them Jensen subscribes to, another one of them Pell, and yet another is that professed by Dawkins), but there is no THE Christian, theist or atheist world-view.>>

I fully agree. Hence my point about adding a qualifier like “part of [one’s world-view]”, or “aspect of”.

But I’m not sure why you keep focusing on this point. I’m only using the term “world-view” in the same way you do when referring to atheism and theism, and it doesn’t change my point either.

Here, I’ll paraphrase myself to show you what I mean...

"Remember that theism and atheism are not just two equally opposing ASPECTS OF a world-view. One is a faith-based assertion, and the other is a reason-based response to that assertion."

You see? What I’ve said still retains it’s meaning.

<<However, we have already been through this a number of times.>>

Oh, I know. And like last time, you appear to be using this as way of diverting attention away from my main point...

My statement:
“We’re not just talking about any old world-view. Religion is in a league of its own.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83821)

Your response:
“Do you mean to say that religion is a world-view? This is rather strange.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495#83834)

...which, as I’ve demonstrated, isn’t affected by whether or not atheism and theism are world-views in themselves or simply a part thereof.

<<Well, that is your prerogative, and, as I said, I have to live with it, even if I would not attach such adjectives to your attempts to communicate your point of view.>>

If the methods I used to communicate my point of view were flawed and misleading, then I would certainly hope you’d use such adjectives to describe them. Not doing so would be counterproductive to the discussion and hinder my growth and learning.

Excellent and articulate contribution David. Frankly, I feel amazed and amused that we have to have this debate at all. To think we're in the year 2010 and we're still debating existence of gods and the like....all too weird, considering we've sent people to the moon etc. However, the fact remains that a goodly proportion of the population insists on indulging in deity worship and are exploiting and indoctrinating others into the bargain. I saw a documentary on the growing practise of exorcism in Italy the other night showing a town of men basically running everyone's lives - that's the way they like it of course. It is always very scary to see people driven by extremes of superstition. I for one am very afraid of religion.

Views like hypatia's (comment above this) are worryingly common. Religion supposedly gives us something to be afraid of, so we should look to reduce it's influence on the world. Or so it's said.

Like my comments above about exclusivism, a criticism of our culture is again in order. People simply don't have much knowledge of history these days. I personally am embarrassed by the lack of historical knowledge I acquired in my schooling days when my parents and grandparents show me their wares. However, I am slowly remedying this by educating myself as I get older.

It is a concern that people like hypatia have views like this. Afraid of religion? If the 20th century taught us anything about religion and it's value in society, it was that a society without religion gives us much more to be afraid of than a relatively religious one. Do the names Mao Zedong and Stalin mean anything to you, Hypatia? What about the word Communism?

Pericles,
Sorry if I upset you, but please just reread my last brief post (actually a long sentence containing “if you like”) So, again, if you like, you can replace there the word “right” with “privilege”. [Yes it is about words, but I would not know how to communicate with you without using words, even if I do not know how to hide behind them ;-))]. This at least does not leave me open to a question whether I accept “the right to offend” as part of what makes our society free/open (I do not, as I made it clear some time ago when discussing the Mohammed caricatures).

>>I did not suggest anywhere that the sermons were "unusually harsh"<<
Neither did I claim you did, since I explicitly added “or whatever word you prefer” to describe what I thought triggered your reaction.

I also expressed a preference for "less temperate outbursts against atheists and atheism" when I wrote “I agree that one can promote one’s own world-view without derogating the alternative, and that this is a feature of civilised discourse that is often sinned against both by some atheist spokespersons and some Christian preachers” (perhaps replace here “world-view” with “position” to make AJP happy).

However this is all general, I could not get the exact text of Jensen’s or Pell’s sermon, only the bids and pieces quoted in the article linked to by Swanton, which I am sure was not an unbiased report about what has been said. The only link to an Easter sermon by Pell, authorised by him, was http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/homilies/2010//201044_1424.shtml (I did not try Jensen). Admittedly incomprehensible or meaningless to an atheist, but there is no mention there of the word “atheist”.

As I said, I do not see any point in comparing the utterances of Jensen or Pell and e.g. those of Dawkins or Swanton as to their capacity to upset, but if you insist, please quote a paragraph or claim you object to and I shall attempt a comparison and also try to understand you. (ctd)

(ctd)
As to your questions,
a) this is obviously the purpose of any sermon, but of course, I cannot tell whether at this time it was more successful than at other times;
b) I do not know either; from my own experience there are always people in the pews who get the message of the sermon, and others who wonder why he is making such a fuss about this or that;
c) and d) I do not think this was the intention; it never is, when “preaching to the converted”, i.e. to a closed congregation.

Hypatia--love your choice of names,the name and the character should be more widely known.

A J Philips,
>> One is a faith-based assertion, and the other is a reason-based response to that assertion."<<
I do not know what assertion you exactly have in mind, but if you mean that religious faith is incompatible with a reason-based response (to the questions of human existence?) then this is what you have already stated many times. So I should not have to restate, that there are many people - from the “little old lady in the pew” to renowned philosophers and scientists - who will disagree with you. Of course, not all philosophers and scientists. That is one fact. Another fact is that no kind of reasoning can lead to your (or their) conversion, because faith or lack of it is a state of mind, not a conclusion you can arrive at through a purely rational process.

If I nevertheless keep on responding in detail to your posts I am doing it to (hopefully) clear ambiguities (brought up by you or me or somebody else) not to convert you or anybody or hinder somebody's “growth and learning”. Also, please remember that I grew up in an atheist country, so I have known most of these “reason-based responses” since my school years, and had to find answers to them for myself (and to a large extent also by myself).

I am not forcing these answers on you, and I apologise if it appeared to you as if I were. As they say, life is more complicated than mathematics with its only right, wrong or meaningless answers.

I do not share the outlook of hypatia, but I can understand her when she feels “amazed and amused that we have to have this debate” again.

What on earth makes you think you upset me, George?

>>Sorry if I upset you, but please just reread my last brief post<<

You asked me a question earlier, which I answered. Your subsequent posts appear to be determined to misunderstand that answer, by introducing verbal red herrings.

This does not upset me. It simply makes me very curious. What was it about the question that causes you to make such strenuous efforts to avoid the answer?

Perhaps we should go back to the beginning and start again.

You asked:

>>So could you please spell out for me what, apparently unprecedented, “events of Easter … inevitably erode the status that organized religion occupies in our social structures” and what “consequences” are they supposed to lead to?<<

(We can ignore your interpolation of "unprecedented" as being an unnecessary embellishment.)

My suggestion is that when these priests chose to shift the emphasis of their sermon from reassurance to their faithful, to an outright and direct attack on the faithless, they undermined their position of moral authority over their flock. Coming, as it did, in the middle of an examination of the church's role in some very unsavoury incidents - for which even the Pope himself expressed "shame and sorrow" - it struck me as significantly damaging the relationship between priest and congregation.

In every gradual process there is a tipping point, where the status quo changes permanently from one state to another. In my view, the bare-chested bravado shown by these priests - "c'mon atheists, make my day" - could well prove to be the event that finally pushes organized religion down the slippery slope to irrelevance.

Nothing to do with God(s), or Christianity, or religious beliefs. Just an observation that the idea that ordinary people have some kind of delegated power from a deity, might just be coming to an end.

The consequences? Directly, not much in the short term, I suspect. But in terms of history's longer narrative, I think it is another, quite significant, nail in the coffin of a concept that has long since passed its use-by date.

Pericles: << You asked me a question earlier, which I answered. Your subsequent posts appear to be determined to misunderstand that answer, by introducing verbal red herrings. >>

Careful, Pericles. George gets very sensitive if you point out his sophistry.

George,

I think a lot of what you’ve responded to me with, was described very accurately by Pericles when he said: “Your subsequent posts appear to be determined to misunderstand that answer, by introducing verbal red herrings.”

You’ve always made out as though you are attempting to understand where your opponents are coming from, but I’m starting to suspect that it’s more of a case of you poking and prodding in an attempt to find a chink in your opponents armour, or confuse an issue that is really quite clear. You’re not dense...

<<I do not know what assertion you exactly have in mind, but if you mean that religious faith is incompatible with a reason-based response (to the questions of human existence?) then this is what you have already stated many times.>>

What I mean by “assertion”, is not only the claim that a god of some sort exists, but that we can actually know who that god is and/or attribute the Bible or the Koran or whatever to it.

The assertion certainly is incompatible with its reason-based response in that it is not reasonable.

<<So I should not have to restate, that there are many people - from the “little old lady in the pew” to renowned philosophers and scientists - who will disagree with you.>>

These scientists you speak of also state that they keep their work entirely separate from their religious beliefs, so I’m not sure why you would specifically mention scientists as if that meant something.

As for philosophers, well I’ve heard most, if not all of the philosophical arguments for the existence of god and they all fall flat on their faces at the premise.

Either way, I think it’s important to remember here, that it doesn’t matter who they are, or what they believe, only why they believe it - and faith is a bad reason to believe.

<<...no kind of reasoning can lead to your (or their) conversion, because faith or lack of it is a state of mind, not a conclusion you can arrive at through a purely rational process.>>

Continued...

...Continued

Faith is a state-of-mind, but it is also the conclusion as it essentially means, “belief in something for no good reason”. No amount of spin or ‘wordsmithing’ will change that.

The assertion that a god has revealed it’s self to one’s self without any evidence reliable enough to be used by others to form the same belief, is not a good reason to believe.

<<Also, please remember that I grew up in an atheist country...>>

No, you grew up in a country that had a political system that rejected religion as one part of its many tenets. There’s a big difference.

<<...so I have known most of these “reason-based responses” since my school years, and had to find answers to them for myself (and to a large extent also by myself).>>

You may have heard a lot of reason-based responses to the assertions of the religious, but what’s important to remember, is that none of the responses to those responses are reasonable or can be given without obfuscation.

Believe me, I’ve heard them all.

<<I am not forcing these answers on you, and I apologise if it appeared to you as if I were. As they say, life is more complicated than mathematics with its only right, wrong or meaningless answers.>>

Life? Yes. The question of whether or not a god exists? No, it’s very mathematical, or should I say ‘Boolean’ - the answer is a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’, ‘true’ or ‘false’.

<<I do not share the outlook of hypatia, but I can understand her when she feels “amazed and amused that we have to have this debate” again.>>

The reason we apparently have to have this debate again, is because you had made a comparison that displayed a glaring over-sight that I felt the need to point out, and will probably continue to point out in the future as I believe it’s important that it at least be on the record so as to not cause any confusion about the difference between atheism and theism.

They are not merely equally opposing views.

Sorry, George. I misread this part...

<<Another fact is that no kind of reasoning can lead to your (or their) conversion, because faith or lack of it is a state of mind, not a conclusion you can arrive at through a purely rational process.>>

I didn’t take into account the “...you can arrive at through a purely rational process” in my response.

To paraphrase, I would say that faith is a conclusion, but not a conclusion that can be arrived through a rational process at all.

Therefore, it is a conclusion that is arrived at through an irrational process.

JP, don't presume to speak on my behalf. I'm an atheist who neither knows nor cares how life originated. As far as I'm concerned, it exists, and will continue to exist whether I "believe" in it or not. When you assume that atheists are all about evidence, you are wrong. I'm all about indifference.

Trav @ "If the 20th century taught us anything about religion and it's value in society, it was that a society without religion gives us much more to be afraid of than a relatively religious one. Do the names Mao Zedong and Stalin mean anything to you, Hypatia? What about the word Communism?"

What about it? What about the names Franco? de Oliveira Salazar? Pinochet? The Greek Colonels? And so on. For every society you claim was without religion, I can suggest a number that were very religious, and very scarey.

QUOTE:
Atheists simply accept that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural—no more, no less. There is no element of indoctrinated belief about atheism. Atheism is founded on the concept of evidence.

Atheism’s firm foundation on a desire for evidence, and not belief, is consistent with rational thinking and plain common sense. We use evidence as the basis for our scientific, medical and legal work.
UNQUOTE

Approaching this sort of claim from a Muslim's perspective, i have found the atheist discourse is so flawed that it is anything but motivated by the desire for rational discourse.

Several examples:

A speaker at the recent Melbourne conference of atheists, John Perkins, presented a paper titled: "The Cost of Religious Delusion: Islam and terrorism". The paper was long on steotypes but short on evidence. For example it claimed the Qur'aan upholds a geocentric view of the universe based on verses such as the following:
for example, in Surah 36,verse 40, Allah says:" The sun must not catch up the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
Anyone with the inclination can discover for themselves that the Qu'raan refers to the sun following an orbit: and indeed it does, along with our whole solar system, it orbits the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way at a speed of about 220 kilometres per second (792,000 kilometres per hour). (http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=12622&CATE=1).

John Perkins made no reference to support his interpretation. In fact his whole essay is devoid of any authorative reference to support his claims, obviously reflecting the fact that he knew he would be standing before an uncritical audience. So much for adhering to principles of rational discourse.

1/2 cont...

Pericles,
I am glad you returned to the original question I asked. Thank you for the detailed explanation of your reaction to the sermons by Jensen and Pell.

So I take your post as a confirmation that there does not exist an authentic transcription of their sermons freely available on the internet. That would have immediately answered my original question, that I am now sorry for having asked at all. [My only excuse is that I think had I reacted with the same zeal to something e.g. Dawkins said or implied, you would naturally want a link or other reference to see what exactly he said, so that you could judge for yourself.]

AJ Philips,
I certainly do not see Pericles or you as opponents in whose “armour” I would be “poking and prodding to find a chink”, since I do not see exchange of opinions on this OLO as a debating competition where one is after scoring points. Apologies, if I caused this misunderstanding. However, you cannot expect me to apologise also for thinking I know better than you what constitutes my faith, what are my reasons for it, as well as for being more familiar with the political system I grew up in.

I asked Pericles a question, he answered with questions of his own, which I tried to answer to the best of my knowledge; then you entered into the debate, and I tried to clarify things that I thought needed clarification. You did not think they needed clarification, OK.

So I think we should indeed heed hypatia’s advise and stop this verbal ping-pong, red herring or not.

2/2 cont

A second example:

Ibn Warraq, described by Richard Dawkins as a "true scholar" (or something to that effect), critiqued Islam as being based on anthropomorphic descriptions of God. This of course is inconsistent with the very nature of God. He failed to clearly indicate (except in a vague footnote) that he is in fact critiquing not Islam of the Prophet but the Wahhabi sect that emerged some 3 centuries back. Nor did he site (as a true scholar would have) the Muslims scholars who had, with far more eloquence and erudition, refuted this deviation from mainstream Islam many centuries before (eg. http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/inthesky.htm or http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm).

On a more positive note, within the Qur'aan there is the claim that it will not be corrupted.
"Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it." Q15:9

Here we have a claim which can be put to the test. If the claim can be refuted "beyond a reasonable doubt" then this obviously castes serious doubt over the claim that the Qur'aan is the word of God.

On the other hand, if such evidence cannot be provided then we have to consider what is the likelihood of such a text being passed down for over 1400 years and there being no substantive evidence of it being corrupted. Recall the "Chinese whispers" game.

So here is an exercise for atheists: find evidence that indeed the Qur'aan has been corrupted, relying on serious scholarship. I have found atheists will shy away from this sort of challenge. Again so much for relying on the evidence.

I think the truth is most atheist extrapolate from their experience with Christianity and do not spend the time (indeed lifetime!) required to examine Islam seriously.

In short I dispute the idea that, at least insofar as Islam is concerned, that atheists "use evidence as the basis for our scientific, medical and legal work"

Curiouser and curiouser, George.

How on earth do you get from here, your actual question, verbatim:

>>So could you please spell out for me what, apparently unprecedented, “events of Easter … inevitably erode the status that organized religion occupies in our social structures” and what “consequences” are they supposed to lead to?<<

To here?

>>So I take your post as a confirmation that there does not exist an authentic transcription of their sermons freely available on the internet.That would have immediately answered my original question, that I am now sorry for having asked at all.<<

Where in your "original question" did you mention transcriptions, authentic or otherwise?

My musings on the issue were confined exclusively to what I, and all the people who did not attend the services in question, read in the press. My reaction to it was based therefore on the same material that was seen by the vast majority of the Christians in Australia.

I was not relying on detailed analysis of the actual words spoken, nor, I suspect, was anyone else. So, when you said

>>My only excuse is that I think had I reacted with the same zeal to something e.g. Dawkins said or implied, you would naturally want a link or other reference to see what exactly he said, so that you could judge for yourself<<

... you miss the point again.

I was not "judging" the sermons, or their content.

I was speculating on the impact of the reports of those sermons on the faithful, given they had the same information on what was said as I did.

Incidentally, this reference of yours was a little misleading

>>The only link to an Easter sermon by Pell, authorised by him, was http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/homilies/2010//201044_1424.shtml<<

Even an atheist can tell, at a glance, that this was not a sermon.

<<On a more positive note, within the Qur'aan there is the claim that it will not be corrupted. "Verily, we have sent down the Reminder, and, verily, we will guard it." Q15:9>>

Verily, is that what the Qur'aan claims? When you quote a paragraph with no context it can mean anything you want it to.

<<we have to consider what is the likelihood of such a text being passed down for over 1400 years and there being no substantive evidence of it being corrupted.>>

So? If in 1400 years time the text of Harry Potter shows no signs of being "corrupted", will that mean that wizards are real?

<<So here is an exercise for atheists: find evidence that indeed the Qur'aan has been corrupted, relying on serious scholarship. I have found atheists will shy away from this sort of challenge.>>

As they should. You've set a challenge that you know no-one will take up.

<<I think the truth is most atheist extrapolate from their experience with Christianity and do not spend the time (indeed lifetime!) required to examine Islam seriously.>>

Yes, I suspect that most atheists recognise from their experience with Christianity that Islam is just more of the same nonsense. As for spending a lifetime examining Islam seriously, why would anyone bother?

George,

<<...since I do not see exchange of opinions on this OLO as a debating competition where one is after scoring points.>>

That’s a good point, but I can then, unfortunately, only assume that it was the latter of my two theories.

<<However, you cannot expect me to apologise also for thinking I know better than you what constitutes my faith, what are my reasons for it...>>

Oh, absolutely.

You certainly do know better than I about what constitutes your faith. That’s why I would never dream of assuming to know the reasons for why you believe.

But the fact that you use the word “faith” to describe your belief gives me sufficient knowledge to know that those reasons are not good reasons. At least not when you take into account just how much of an affect religious belief can have on a person - whether that be good or bad.

<<...as well as for being more familiar with the political system I grew up in.>>

I don’t claim to be more familiar with the political system you grew up with, but one could argue that you were unable to view the situation in a more measured and objective way having been a theist in amongst what would have felt like a full-blown attack on your beliefs. The atheistic aspect of the ideology may have been a little more pronounced to you than what it was in reality.

Either way, I do think it’s a bit below the belt and misleading to refer to Stalinist countries as “atheist” when there was so much more to the ideology. Remember religion was a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

<<...then you entered into the debate, and I tried to clarify things that I thought needed clarification. You did not think they needed clarification, OK.>>

No, I didn’t think the fact that atheism and theism are not world-views in themselves needed clarification because I agreed.

Continued...

...Continued

But we’ve progressed from there, so I’m not sure what the above is if not an attempt to cut this off before I really start revealing the fact that religious belief is based on nothing rational. Which would be quite a feat considering I only entered the conversation to remind you that atheism and theism are not two equally opposing views.

<<So I think we should indeed heed hypatia’s advise and stop this verbal ping-pong, red herring or not.>>

I’m happy to leave it there, but unfortunately I’m not confident that your over-sight won’t be repeated in the future.

We’ll see anyway.

Grateful,

In your quote, I suspect the author was talking about the desire for evidence specifically in regards to religious claims and said, “we use evidence as the basis for our scientific, medical and legal work” as in “all of us in general”.

But if not, then the author was wrong as atheists are individual thinkers, who may be motivated by the desire for rational discourse in regards to religious claims, but aren’t necessarily rational about other things as atheism isn’t a belief system with multiple tenets to be adhered to in a dogmatic way.

There are a few atheists here on OLO that I find to be very irrational on other topics.

<<Approaching this sort of claim from a Muslim's perspective, i have found the atheist discourse is so flawed that it is anything but motivated by the desire for rational discourse.>>

So what about requiring evidence for gods before believing in them is not rational? I don’t know that you’ll have an answer for that, but it sure does expose how irrelevant your examples are.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Here we have a claim which can be put to the test. If the claim can be refuted "beyond a reasonable doubt" then this obviously castes serious doubt over the claim that the Qur'aan is the word of God.>>

What a nice little piece of circular reasoning.

The only way disproving this would cast doubt that it is the word of god, is if you assume that it is the word of god to begin with.

I love it!

<<So here is an exercise for atheists: find evidence that indeed the Qur'aan has been corrupted, relying on serious scholarship. I have found atheists will shy away from this sort of challenge. Again so much for relying on the evidence.>>

Firstly, the onus of proof is on the believer to find evidence as is they are the ones who are making the claim. This is something that theists on OLO are reminded of continuously, so you should be aware of it by now.

Secondly, if atheists couldn’t find evidence that the Qur’an had been corrupted then that would prove nothing other than the fact that there is no evidence that the Qur’an has been corrupted.

If there is any shying away done by atheists, it would have nothing to do with a fear of what they might find, but more to do with the pointlessness of the exercise to begin with.

AJ Phillips, you write:
QUOTE
<<Here we have a claim which can be put to the test. If the claim can be refuted "beyond a reasonable doubt" then this obviously castes serious doubt over the claim that the Qur'aan is the word of God.>>

What a nice little piece of circular reasoning.

The only way disproving this would cast doubt that it is the word of god, is if you assume that it is the word of god to begin with.
UNQUOTE

Circular reasoning? Here is an example of circular reasoning:
“God exists because God exists”

Perhaps I should have been more explicit and started by stating what i thought would have been understood, namely:

"God does not make mistakes."

So if it is found that the Qur’an has been corrupted then obviously the claim that it would not be corrupted could not have been made by God. So there is no circular reasoning here.

Nor did i say that not finding the evidence would prove the existence of God. However, i did say that we know from common experience (eg the game of Chinese whispers) that it is very hard for a message to be passed on from one person to another (not to mention one generation to another over centuries) without the message becoming distorted in some way and, significantly, without leaving evidence of such.

Now unless you want to argue that the experience of Chinese whispers is an exception and not the rule, you would have to agree that the probability of the message being passed on for over 1400 years without evidence of it becoming corrupted would be very small. Surely this would count as evidence in support of God (without claiming it to be conclusive evidence).

Can you now see that this is not circular reasoning but a reasonable point?

1/2 cont...

2/2 cont..
AJ Phillips, returning to an earlier remark you made:
QUOTE
<<Approaching this sort of claim from a Muslim's perspective, i have found the atheist discourse is so flawed that it is anything but motivated by the desire for rational discourse.>>

So what about requiring evidence for gods before believing in them is not rational? I don’t know that you’ll have an answer for that, but it sure does expose how irrelevant your examples are.
UNQUOTE

It is rational to require evidence for God before believing in Him.

Yet, you describe as “irrelevant” the example of Sun’s orbit being consistent with (recent) science. Is it irrelevant that the Quran is consistent with what we know of the universe?

I'm sure if you found a passage in the the Qur’aan that stated the Sun actually orbited the earth, you would consider this to be highly relevent.

It seems you have this mindset that all evidence that does not support atheism is “irrelevant” while evidence that does support atheism is deemed “relevant”.

Your argument can be put as follows:

All evidence that God exists is irrelevant, therefore there is no evidence that God exists

Can you now see the circularity in your own reasoning?

Finally, i note you have nothing to say about my remarks about ibn Warraq or John Perkins. Is this a tacit acceptance that there are serious flaws in their respective approaches.

Pericles,
Thank you for further expanding on your reaction to Jensen’s and Pell’s reaction to the Atheist Convention (judging from the short quotes in the article linked to by Swanton, the sermons reacted to this rather than to the revelation about the scandals, although I cannot be sure, not having seen the original).

>>Where in your "original question" did you mention transcriptions, authentic or otherwise?<<
Nowhere, because I thought it was obviously implicit. If I was after unfavourable reports by Swanton and others, I would not have asked you (assuming you were more objective).

However, I repeat, I am sorry I asked, since obviously I could have found out for myself that there were no other reports to be found on the internet about the actual content of the sermons than a priori unfauvorable, even hostile, ones.

This was not necessary in the case of the Atheist Convention since AJ Philip provided me with the link to an online TV program featuring Dawkins at that Convention. So I did not have to rely on second-hand, favourable or unfavourable (in this case there were both) reports on internet before forming my own opinion (OK, not “judge” if you like).

So let me express for the third time that I am sorry I asked, and please leave it at that.

AJ Philips,
>>I’m happy to leave it there, <<
And I am happy that you are also happy to heed hypatia’s advice

>>I’m not confident that your over-sight won’t be repeated in the future.<<
If this means you do not wish me to react again to your posts, you have my promise I won't.

Weighing in on this rather late but...

Grateful -

"Yet, you describe as “irrelevant” the example of Sun’s orbit being consistent with (recent) science. Is it irrelevant that the Quran is consistent with what we know of the universe?

I'm sure if you found a passage in the the Qur’aan that stated the Sun actually orbited the earth, you would consider this to be highly relevent".

While irrelevant is arguably a little extreme, this is a long way from a proof of a god. The use of the scientific method was far from unheard of at the time the Qur'aan was written. If the Qur'aan gave Pythagoras' Theorem (for eg.) it would be staggeringly more likely that it had spread to the area from where it was discovered, rather than that it was handed to Mohammed by a god. Perhaps a little science was used to determine it? If I wrote a book now, I could include all kinds of facts taken from scientific discoveries in it - should people in 1400 years time see that as proof of everything I write in the same book?

Cont...

Grateful -

"Now unless you want to argue that the experience of Chinese whispers is an exception and not the rule, you would have to agree that the probability of the message being passed on for over 1400 years without evidence of it becoming corrupted would be very small. Surely this would count as evidence in support of God (without claiming it to be conclusive evidence)".

Even if this is the only example of the flawless transfer of a document over 1400 years (I doubt it - I'm sure it's rare but...) it only proves the document was held to be significant enough to ensure it was reproduced faithfully over time - not that a god is protecting it from corruption. I don't think anyone is disputing that a lot of people over the last 1400 years held the Qur'aan in high enough regard to ensure its faithful reproduction. It COULD count as evidence in support of a god but only if you discount other infinitely more likely explanations first.

Ockham's razor...

Grateful,

There are two points that discredit your arguments on this thread...

Firstly, in regards to the Qur’an - or the Bible for that matter - there are two possibilities: -

1. It is the divinely inspired word of God;
2. They are merely the musings of ignorant sand dwellers.

With the practical knowledge that we acquire from day-to-day living (or “common experience” as you had put it) we can safely say that it’s the latter. We have no reason to believe that any of the holy books are divinely inspired and this is why your “test” is fallacious and doesn’t work.

And secondly, you’re assuming that a god - if it indeed exists - necessarily has something to do with the religions of the world. There is nothing to suggest that this is the case. On the contrary, considering how ridiculous the religions of the world show themselves to be, and the continual flaws and inconsistencies in their doctrines, I’d say the exact opposite is the case.

This goes back to your point that atheists focus on Christianity and largely ignore Islam. As someone who used to be a Christian, I know Christianity back-to-front and in-side-out. That’s why I can counter the arguments of Christians so easily: I often know what they’re going to say in advance and simply sit back and wait for it.

I don’t know Islam or the Qur’an very well, but I don’t need to know them very well to know that it’s still a load of nonsense - just as I don’t need to know about the Greek gods to know that they are all nonsense. One does not have to study all religions to rationally form the belief that gods do not exist.

As for “Chinese whispers”, there’s a big difference between word of mouth (whispering) and tangible texts. Especially when those texts are held as sacred by entire cultures.

Your analogy there was flawed.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I'm sure if you found a passage in the the Qur’aan that stated the Sun actually orbited the earth, you would consider this to be highly relevent.>>

Holy books say a lot of things. The fact that some of the things said are going to, at least co-incidentally, be correct is nothing special. From what we can know - not just believe - it is more rational to conclude that it is simply a co-incidence rather than assume that it’s right because a god inspired it.

We know the Qur’an’s creation story didn’t really happen. Is that evidence that god doesn’t exist?

Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

<<i note you have nothing to say about my remarks about ibn Warraq or John Perkins.>>

I did. I said they were irrelevant.

The topic here is that atheists rely on evidence to determine whether or not they believe a god exists - not whether or not they employ rigorous enough research when critiquing religions.

As I’ve said above, even if a god does exist, there is nothing to suggest that it has anything to do with the religions of the world, so your points about Ibn Warraq and John Perkins are a merely red herrings.

George,

Why do you insist on misinterpreting me?

<<If this means you do not wish me to react again to your posts, you have my promise I won't.>>

I was referring to your over-sight and I believe I made that quite clear.

I’ll give you another example of the over-sight in case you’re still not sure about what I’m referring to...

You often express a desire to understand atheists. As admirable a notion as this is, it’s a little strange considering that implicit atheism is simply a lack of belief and explicit atheism is simply disbelief due to the total lack of evidence.

Your apparent desire to understand where atheists are coming from is a nice thought, but by assuming that there is anything more to understand other than a disbelief due to a lack of proof, you show that you mistakenly think that theism and atheism are equally opposing views when they’re not.

Now, atheists understanding theists - that’s a different story. That could take a lifetime and even then, it’s unlikely an understanding would ever be attained due to the complexity and subjectiveness of the belief and the variety of beliefs out there.

Hence my point that they are not equally opposing views. One is a claim, one is merely a response to that claim.

Orange Donkey you write:
QUOTE:
While irrelevant is arguably a little extreme, this is a long way from a proof of a god. The use of the scientific method was far from unheard of at the time the Qur'aan was written. If the Qur'aan gave Pythagoras' Theorem (for eg.) it would be staggeringly more likely that it had spread to the area from where it was discovered, rather than that it was handed to Mohammed by a god. Perhaps a little science was used to determine it? If I wrote a book now, I could include all kinds of facts taken from scientific discoveries in it - should people in 1400 years time see that as proof of everything I write in the same book?
UNQUOTE

O.K., the following verse should meet your objection. It describes the state of the unbeliever by way of analogy with a person looking up from the depths of the ocean:
“Or like darkness in the deep sea — there covers him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud — (layers of) darkness one above another — when he holds out his hand, he is almost unable to see it. And to whom Allah gives not light, he has no light.” (Qur’an 24:39-40, tp://www.ahmadiyya.org/english-quran/quran.htm)

The second part of the description describes layers of darkness. One could argue that this could easily have been deduced by observation. Fair enough.

However, consider the first part. It does NOT describe a person beneath the ocean covered by a wave and then a cloud BUT a person beneath the ocean covered by a wave, above which is a wave and then a cloud. We can infer the second wave is a surface wave, but how do we interpret the first wave? Is this evidence of error in the Qur’an?

1/2 cont...

2/2 cont
No. The description turns out to be consistent with what scientists have discovered about “internal waves”. Here is a description from the Artic Region supercomputing Centre:

QUOTE
The ocean’s interior has its own weather and climate, much like some of the Earth’s highest mountain peaks. The weather of the ocean results from fluctuating currents (wind) and from waves similar to the waves on the surface of the ocean.

The rhythmic movement of the ocean, caused by the tidal cycle, creates internal waves. One important type of internal wave is called an internal tide. As the ocean sloshes back and forth, it flows over geographic variations in the bottom depths, such as seamounts. As a result, waves that are excited in the interior of the ocean radiate away. When these waves are generated by the tides, they are called internal tides. Internal tides fill the ocean’s interior with waves carrying energy from one part of the ocean to another. (http://www.arsc.edu/challenges/2004/oceans.html, ref from Wikipaedia: “Internal Tide”)
UNQUOTE

So Orange Monkey, how would Occam’s Razer be applied in this instance? It cannot be said that Muhammad, peace be upon him, or anyone else at the time, could have known about internal waves. Does this not constitute a piece of evidence in support of his claim that indeed he was a Prophet of God?

NOTE: I have deliberately taken an old translation of the Qur'an, that of Maulana Muhammad Ali (1874–1951) translated in 1917, to avoid any possibility that an 'extra wave' could have been inserted to conform to what we now know about the oceans. You’ll find similar translations in Marmaduke Pickthall, (1875 – 1936) translated 1930 or Yusuf Ali (1872 – 1953) translated 1934.

AJPhillips: I don’t see how you can say you KNOW the claims of Islam are wrong when you do not know the claims of Islam and you are simply assuming they are wrong. Also, can I ask how you “know” God did not create everything, including the laws that manifest themselves in the form of ‘causes' and 'effects’. Another assumption?

Grateful,

<<I don’t see how you can say you KNOW the claims of Islam are wrong...>>

Which claims are you referring to specifically? You're being deliberately vague here to create a false impression of what I was saying.

What a actually said was, that like the Greek gods, one doesn’t need to know Islam or the Qur’an very well to know that it is all nonsense, (or more specifically, that all the supernatural claims are nonsense) and that’s because there is no reliable evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god.

Reason tells us that the supernatural claims in the Qur’an are better explained by more rational means.

<<Also, can I ask how you “know” God did not create everything, including the laws that manifest themselves in the form of ‘causes' and 'effects’.>>

I don’t “know” that. No one - including yourself, mind you - can “know” either way. But we can reach high levels of certainty, and that’s what I’ve done. If you use a god to explain “the laws that manifest themselves in the form of ‘causes' and 'effects’”, then that is simply a way of giving up. You are - for no rational reason at all - simply plonking a god in the unknowns of the universe.

Again though, Grateful, you are forgetting that the burden of proof is on the believer, not the sceptic. It is up to you and your fellow believers to provide the proof, and so far you have come up with precisely zip.

Grateful - that is an interesting example.

"...how would Occam’s Razer be applied in this instance? It cannot be said that Muhammad, peace be upon him, or anyone else at the time, could have known about internal waves."

'Cannot be said'- why not? I think Ockham's razor still applies - it may seem unlikely, but that they did know (or guessed at it) or that this is a piece of poetry that just happened to match later observation (to name the two most likely possibilities IMO) is still astronomically more likely than your alternative.

"Does this not constitute a piece of evidence in support of his claim that indeed he was a Prophet of God?"

Ok, yes, it COULD, if you ignore some much simpler possibilities. but the stretch to such an extreme supernatural explanation only makes sense if you've already accepted the existence of a god.

One more for Occams razor.

From Maulana Muhammas Ali’s (1874–1951) translation of 1917:

78:6 Have We not made the earth an expanse
78:7 And the mountains as pegs?

A later translation by Yusuf Ali (1872 – 1953) in 1934 also refers to pegs, while the translation by Marmaduke Pickthall, (1875 – 1936) in 1930 refers to “bulwarks”.

Consider now this scientific description (from http://www.search.com/reference/Mountain#Geology)
QUOTE
The compressional forces in continental collisions may cause the compressed region to thicken, so the upper surface is forced upwards. In order to balance the weight of the earth suface, much of the compressed rock is forced downwards, producing deep "mountain roots"[see the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page.413]. These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, a mountain have a shape like peg [See Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleus page.220]. Mountains therefore form downwards as well as upwards (see isostasy). However, in some continental collisions part of one continent may simply override part of the others, crumpling in the process.

UNQUOTE

Furthermore, a somewhat longer description from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (on CD). The last 2 sentences bear direct comparison with the description in the Qur’an:
1/2 Cont..

2/2 cont..

QUOTE
Two properties of rocks contribute to the support of mountains, mountain belts, and plateaus, namely strength and density. If rocks had no strength, mountains would simply flow away. At a subtler level, the strength of the material beneath mountains can affect the scale of the topography.
In terms of strength, the lithosphere, the thickness of which varies over the face of the Earth from a few to more than 200 kilometres, is much stronger than the underlying layer, the asthenosphere (see plate tectonics). The strength of the lithosphere is derived from its temperature; thick lithosphere exists because the outer part of the Earth is relatively cold. Cold, thick, and therefore strong lithosphere can support higher mountain ranges than can thin lithosphere, just as thick ice on a lake or river is better able to support larger people than thin ice.
In terms of chemical composition, and therefore density, the Earth's crust is lighter than the underlying mantle. Beneath the oceans, the typical thickness of the crust is only six to seven kilometres. Beneath the continental regions, the average thickness is about 35 kilometres, but it can reach 60 or 70 kilometres beneath high mountain ranges and plateaus. Thus, most ranges and plateaus are buoyed up by thick crustal roots. To some extent the light crust floats on the heavier mantle, as icebergs float on the oceans.
QUOTE

Note the reference to "thick crustal roots", which the first quote referred to as "mountain roots" giving the mountain the appearance of a "peg".

Orange Donkey, you assigned a low probably ("it may seem unlikely") to someone accurately describing internal waves below the ocean surface over 1400 years ago. Presumably you would also assign a low probably to someone being able to accurately describe the structure of mountains beneath the earth.

That makes the JOINT probably VERY much lower, does it not? And there is more, not necessarily related to science...

...so how would Occam's razor be now applied?

You're clutching at straws, Grateful.

If the Koran is the literal word of God, and the verses you've quoted contain factual information about the nature of the world, why are they expressed in such an obscure way? Why rely on riddles, aphorisms and metaphors when a simple exposition would answer all our questions? And provide unambiguous evidence for the existence of God?

Once again, Occam's Razor provides the answer.

Because its about CHOOSING to follow Him. How would we be able to choose if we knew with absolute certainty.

You've lost me. Why would "absolute certainty" prevent anyone from making a choice?

Grateful:

>> How would we be able to choose if we knew with absolute certainty. <<

That is one of the most stupid, ignorant comments from any OLO poster I have ever read. No wonder religious faith belongs in the Dark Ages.

How do you ever make ANY decisions without information? Do you toss a coin, close your eyes and stick a pin in the car classifieds, not peruse a menu at a restaurant? All these actions can be verified to a great extent. Not a single claim about god can be proven - not one.

I should have taken more care to observe who i was replying to. I thought it was Orange Donkey and was surprised he would have used an expression such as "you're clutching at straws" and ignored the question i posed relating to the joint probablity of two verses accurately describing physical phenomenon without any possibility of this knowledge being available at the time if indeed it was pure chance(and not through divine intervention)

so i'm pleased to find out that it was NOT Orange Donkey but one of those who has a habit of responding with derision. My rule with such people is to ignore them. If Orange Donkey thinks the question posed by this dull-person is relevent then i'll respond to it, but i'd like to get back to the main thread.

Yes, grateful, you should pay more attention to whom you're replying. I haven't derided you. I reckon the reason you didn't answer my question is that you can't.

As for your claim that the two verses you quoted accurately describe physical phenomena, they don't. That's merely wishful thinking on your part.