ink blot,

You’re probably right about the chip on my shoulder. I have a chip on my shoulder about anything that creates more problems than it solves. But I’m happy to acknowledge any shoulder chips since - as I believe my reasoning has demonstrated here - it doesn’t cloud my vision, nor does it take anything away from the points that I’ve made.

<<You have been a Christian in the past and I can only assume for you it was not a good experience.>>

Actually, it was an amazing time of my life. There is nothing more elating than being convinced that an eternity of heavenly bliss awaits you.

The only negatives are the things that I can now see in retrospect, such as not doing all I could have to ensure that there was some truth to my beliefs; opting for what made me feel good rather what was more likely.

<<Christianity is not a disease, and if we can't agree on that one, then I don't think we are going to get very far on the other points.>>

Could you give some reasoning for your claim? I presented a very strong case as to why Christianity is very much like a disease. We’ll never be able to come to any agreement if you’re only every going to assert otherwise without providing any justification for what you’re arguing.

<<People behaving badly is no evidence that there is not a God...>>

I agree. I only used that line of reasoning to demonstrate why the opposite (that good deeds done in the name of god is proof of his existence) is fallacious.

<<[People behaving badly] is evidence that men and women have free will.>>

But we don’t have free will - not if god exists.

An omnipotent and all-seeing god would know in advance exactly what was going to happen. Therefore, everything that has happened and that will happen; everything we do, was already predetermined and so we never really had any free will to begin with.

According to Christian theology, nothing happens that isn’t a part of god’s will.

Continued...

...Continued

Therefore, god had already determined what we were going to do in advance.

That’s not free will.

<<If they behave well, it is for a reason; if they behave badly it is also for a reason. We need to look deeper into the motivations for people's behaviour, but you can't turn your eye away from the fact that many of the greatest people that lived were deeply religious people.>>

I’m not sure which part of what I said gave you the impression that I had. I’m also not sure what the relevance of the fact that they were deeply religious is.

Many of the greatest people that lived also lived in superstitious times where religious belief was the norm.

<<It is far too one-sided to focus solely on those that are not good ambassadors for faith.>>

I wholeheartedly agree. This is why I focus on all believers; even the average moderate since they unwittingly provide cover for the extremists who find legitimacy in their passive support.

<<It is totally ignorant, prejudiced and offensive for you to say that the majority of the world is religious because "the great majority of the world’s population are also from relatively uneducated regions too">>

I’m sorry that you were offended by that, especially since you seem like a very nice person. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that it needed to be mentioned in order to hold your point up into a more accurate light.

How is my mentioning of this ignorant? On the contrary, I would say that holding your putting your point into context shows the very opposite of ignorance.

<<You must live in a shell.>>

Could you explain why you think this? Personally, I think I’ve demonstrated a very detailed understanding of religion.

It’s not that I haven’t considered your arguments before, or that I am unable to see the other side of the argument; quite the opposite actually. Understanding the arguments - even using them all myself at one point - is what helped me to understand that none of them were sound.

A history lesson: Richard Bourke, Governor of the NSW Colony 1831-1836, apart from introducing civil (rather than military) trails by jury to the colony, attempted to introduce a secular state-funded education system, which would have allowed "scriptural extracts.. to be read daily, and once a week visiting clergy were to give religious instruction to their flocks.." (see http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A010120b.htm?hilite=bourke)
The opposition of the Anglican church in particular, meant this concept was canned - for nearly another half century. The NSW Public Instruction Act of 1880, which had a stormy passage through the colonial legislature, again due to the opposition of churches, established a secular, compulsory, low cost public education system and, significantly, withdrew all government aid to denominational schools (note; aid to religious schools was reinstated much much later).
The public school system then established was similar to that proposed by Bourke in 1836 and allowed teaching of all religious denominations (not just the Anglicans) in public schools within a prescribed period.
Had Governor Richard Bourke got his way, we would never have had a large number of religious schools established in the first place, which now absorb a large amount of taxpayer's money.
The allowing of scripture in public schools was a sop to the religious lobbyists in the first place and ever since. It has a long history, however, and as long as it is inclusive of all religions that are willing to offer a scripture teacher (of which there is a long list), and there is an out (and preferably ethics classes) for those children who do not want scripture, it should be considered acceptable.
However, the last thing we need, particular in view of the large variety of state subsidised religious schools available for those who want them, is to allow further incursions of religion into public schools. I object on the same basis that I would object to McDonalds or Coca Cola sponsoring buildings or equipment in state schools, and in particular given the history of religious opposition to the establishment of the public education system in the first place.

AJ

Thanks for the response. I take back the shell bit!

Our discussion on the two articles comes down to essentially the same debate. I'd like to talk further about religion and existence of God, as we share a common background of a Christian faith. Your explanation against the wager is interesting, but I think there is a certain 'distrust' of God in your reasoning.

For a Christian, there is only one God. God is a personal God; the God of the Gospels is a Father who is not out to punish, but to welcome back and show mercy. For a Christian considering the existence of God and getting caught up wondering if they are worshipping the wrong God is a bit of a contradiction in terms. A belief in God implies an equal belief that there are no other Gods. (i.e. the first commandment - I the Lord am your God, you shall have no other Gods besides me) This commandment, incidentally, discourages turning other things into 'Gods', such as material possessions, money, our ambitions etc.

The other thing is the free will argument. I seriously think you are mistaken if you hold that human beings do not have free will. Perhaps you mean that for believers in God, free will is not possible? But even then, I would argue that free will is essential for belief in a Christian God. The evidence is clear - that you and I get up out of bed in the morning is free will (it may have outside influences such as having to be at work, or to take kids to school, but ultimately, we can do what we like right? We can sleep in and pretend we are sick if we really want to!)

cont...

The issue with your reasoning is this: you say that God sees all and so if he sees what we are doing in 20 years' time, we must be predetermined in our actions. This is a common misconception. God is not in time. Time governs all life in the world. But if created by God, then God is logically outside the world he created. He is outside time. God is eternal (no beginning or end), and eternity can be most simply described as a 'constant instant'. So all times are 'present' to God. He sees everything in an instant.

So, it is not as if God, right now, is watching us acting in 20 years’ time. No, but when we act in 20 years’ time, it will be as ‘present’ to God as right now is ‘present’ to God, as he exists in an eternal instant.

Our actions are not predetermined. It explains why humans often do not act according to our nature. Animals are predictable and act on instinct. But a man can act like an animal (and it can be funny if he acts like a chicken, sad if he acts like a beast and kills / mistreats someone). We can act the way we want, because we have free will. If we didn’t then logically we shouldn’t have to take responsibility for our actions.

OK, I am willing to agree that Christianity is like a ‘disease’ in this way: It can come upon you in some way that is somewhat uninvited; it can be got rid of if you want to get rid of it; it can grow and develop if you let it. I suppose that’s where the analogy fits, although I think analogies simplify things too much. For instance, many diseases can’t be got rid of. Although, in my understanding of religion, the analogy would fit, as even though we may think we have got rid of the ‘disease’ it is always there somewhere, in a latent way. If you allow me, I could propose that maybe this is the case with you!

cont...

Is it really pointless to try to speculate about what we do not know? Are unprovable speculations really indistinguishable from that which does not exist? I think again that you are overemphasising the known and underestimating the ‘what might be known in the future’. What do you think inspired the early scientists to make projections about the solar system? Sure there were signs, but much of the ‘knowledge’ they had was nothing like the reality as we now know it. What inspired them to think that there may be other planets? Or other worlds? Other land masses to be discovered? Sometimes it was just instinct, or simply adventure that drove them to discovering it. Certainly, the unknown is not equal to the non-existent. Whether we know something exists or not, does not change the fact of its existence. To deny that is to fall into the man/mind-centric outlook on reality – a major mistake of the enlightenment school

Finally, in terms of people that existed over 2000 years ago, there has never been as much sources from the time and since the time, as with Jesus Christ. The amazing thing about the Christian religion is not that so much has been written, but that most of it is not read, but ignored due to prejudice. What are the 4 gospels if not first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus Christ? They are biographies written at the time. The latest was John, writing at the end of an old life, so perhaps at the end of the first century. Luke’s first chapter lists all the levels of rulers in Palestine at the time, which correlate perfectly with the civic documents of the time. You may as well set out to disprove that Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and Julius Caesar did not exist if you are going to argue against the figure of Jesus Christ. A healthy debate needs a good dose of reasonableness as well, don’t you think?