Excellent TR that you’ve gone right for the jugular. Both religions claim to be historical religions and so stand or fall by their historical veracity.

For the last two hundred years critical scholars have dissected Biblical Christianity. At the end of the three ‘quests’ for the historical Jesus, quite unexpectedly, the historical-critical method has strengthened the historical foundations of Christianity.

http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/146 ‘Resurrection: Fact or Fiction’ (mp3)
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/articles.html ‘Transcript’

Now Islam has not been scrutinised in this way. Scholars willing to use the same tools on Islam are subjected to death threats. Archaeologists and textual critics have limited to no access to the manuscripts and sites that would allow this kind of research.

Biblical faith (Greek ‘pistis’) means loyalty based on past events. In other words the Bible has God saying ‘see what I have done – now be loyal - have faith in me’. Blind faith is putting one's trust in something for no reason. Biblical faith is a reasoned positive disposition toward revealed truth.

I’m proud that my Judeo-Christian civilisation was the only one that led to the generation of modern science. It is a wonderful tool within its circumscribed limits namely the physical universe. I myself am a qualified scientist. We cannot do science on quintessentially human things – in other words no matter how much you exalt the scientific method as a way of knowing you cannot deny that no one lives their life by the scientific method. You exclude all possibility of human relationship if you’re consistent in its use as your epistemology.

"I do not think there is a *demonstrative* proof (like Euclid) of
Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will & honesty
of my best & oldest friends. I think all three are (except the second) far
more probable than the alternatives. The case for Xtianity is well given by
Chesterton [in *The Everlasting Man*]; and I tried to do something in my
*Broadcast Talks*. As to *why* God doesn't make it demonstratively clear:
are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which wd. be a
compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are *we* interested in it
in personal matters? I demand from my friend a trust in my good faith which
is *certain* without demonstrative proof. It wouldn't be confidence at all
if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody
the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona's innocence when it was proved: but
that was too late. Lear believed in Cordelia's love when it was proved: but
that was too late. 'His praise is lost who stays till all commend.' The
magnanimity, the generosity wh. will trust on a reasonable probability, is
required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why,
then you wd. have paid the universe a compliment it doesn't deserve. Your
error wd. even be so more interesting & important than the reality. And yet
how cd. that be? How cd. an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose
mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?"
CS Lewis

My advice is to avoid Dennett if you really want to understand Christianity, or at least balance your reading with author's who possess a living faith and have no axe to grind.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5394&var_recherche=hart+snark+dennett

Material things are compulsorily present, spiritual things to be present have to want to be seen.

Take two steps toward God and He comes running.

An interesting slant on "faith", almost worthy of a thread on its own.

Martin quotes C S Lewis:

"I demand from my friend a trust in my good faith which is *certain* without demonstrative proof. It wouldn't be confidence at all if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona's innocence when it was proved: but that was too late..."

There is something inherently circular - and therefore in my eyes deeply suspicious - about arguments that define faith in this manner.

"Trust" from a "friend" is surely earned, not given freely and blindly? To equate this to religious belief is to suggest that we trust anyone who has not been proven untrustworthy. Very noble, very high-minded, but totally impractical.

Lewis deliberately skates over the point at which trust occurs, suggesting instead a negative - that to wait for rigorous proof defies the whole concept of trust.

But let's have a look at the parable he digs up to illustrate his point. It is entirely contradictory.

Othello is a naturally jealous/suspicious character. He is fed misinformation by someone he trusts (!!). He then kills another person - apparently equally trustworthy - on the basis of information from his trusted source.

The irony does not need to be underlined. It was not a matter of a shortfall of faith that caused Desdemona's death, merely a misplacement of faith.

What Lewis fails to realize is that it is a near-perfect parable on the futility of believing one incredible story over another. Which has, of course, been the entire history of competing religions since they were invented.

If only Othello had relied on science, or logic. If only he had taken some time to test the hypothesis, rather than take Iago's word.

(Mind you, the whole nasty business could have been avoided, if Desdemona had simply said "Oh. That hanky? It's in the wash.")

When will we see this 'science' for what it is - scientific adventurism funded by taxpayers on behalf of pharmaceutical giants who will licence back the vanity based profitable by-products found while searching for 'cures'

The current research regime has been active in the UK, China et al for up to a decade and still no results. Meanwhile adult stem cells find cures...

Even if it's not bad science, its bad business / public benefit per dollar invested.

Anyway, the line in the sand will keep moving as people rejecting IVF 30 years ago flagged, but, why should we worry about 'humanness' when the author and his ilk will have us looking like the Borg http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/aliens/article/70558.html

"Resistance is futile: you WILL BE assimilated..."

'Both religions claim to be historical religions and so stand or fall by their historical veracity.'

Yes, perfectly put Martin.

Indeed, there is absolutely NO reason to believe in angels with miraculous recitations, Virgin Births or resurrections when the history is not water-tight. In order to believe in the intrinsically ridicluous the relevant history must be water-tight. And it is far from that to any inquiring mind.

'If that statement was half true then evolution would of been thrown on the scrap heap decades ago.

Runner, I'm sorry you feel that way. Biological evolution is one of the most exciting disciplines in science to study.

To grasp the basic ideas of Natural Selection I thoroughly recommend Mark Ridley's fabulous work, 'Evolution'.

If you want something less textual then 'Almost like a Whale' by Steve Jones is highly entertaining. It is a modern re-writing of 'Origin of Species'.

I've just finished reading Matt Ridley's 'Genome' which is gob-smackingly good. You will never view yourself the same way again. Inspirational!

Of course, Richard Dawkins work 'The Selfish Gene' has just turned 30 and it goes without saying that everyone should read it. It hasn't aged at all and remains a masterpiece. It is one of those very rare pieces of scientific literature that it is written for the reading pleasure of the lay person but is really aimed at professional biologists and PhD students. Dawkins walks this literary tight-rope beautifully. He really is one of the great biologists of the 20th-21st centuries irrespective of his views on religion.

Blah blah blah....

OK I am not a biological scientist and so much of your debate goes over my head, so to say. As a “constitutionalist” however I wonder what has it to do with the Federal Government? After all “CIVIL RIGHTS” remained within the legislative powers of the States!
As to my personal views, I just have to reflect back how recently scientist were making known that the Hawk government ordered them to stop research in nuclear issues and they secretly continued for some three years on. Excuse me, they did their own thing regardless of being told to stop!
They were using taxpayers monies for what they held was more important then to follow legal demands to stop!

Now, cloning Saddam Hussein might be used as an example to turn of people but rest assure cloning John Howard would neither be attractive, considering his human rights and other abuses!
Hitler had also his good and his bad, I know as 96 members of my family were on special orders of Hitler traced and murdered and so neither particularly someone I can draw an example about, however it doesn’t matter if you refer to the Nazi’s, a religion or some welfare program where Aboriginals are injected with some stuff to discover how they react to it for testing purposes, it all to me is disgusting and could not be approved.
Born with Jewish blood and baptised Lutheren I gave away religion as I held people are equal. If I am dead I am dead!
My issue is however that the point when a life is deemed to be a life is debatable. Some are willing to abort any foetus holding that unless it lives on its own it is not a life whereas other accept life to exist from fertilising an egg.
People are already being killed for their body parts. Where will it stop?
Prevention is better then the cure, before some mad scientist goes overboard.