Formersnag,

Regarding "capitalism with a heart".

Tom Hodgkinson wrote on the Industrial Revolution:
"God was ruthlessly brought in by the capitalists to control the minds of the masses. Crucially, the new joyless creed of Methodism was preached to the labouring poor in church on Sunday. At church they were bombarded with the idea that they were sinful, that all pleasure was wrong, and that the path to salvation lay in quiet suffering on earth. God was reinvented as a sort to Big Brother figure, and it was His will that you worked hard... The founder of Methodism, John Wesley, was particularly keen on terrifying and controlling small children. "Break their wills betimes," he wrote. "let a child from a year old be taught to fear the rod and and to cry softly"....children were assaulted by terrifying images of the burning flames of hell. These images were burnt into the imagination of the small child and would help to forge the cowed, obedient mindset of the later adult."

Yabby's right that it is empathy that furnishes man with morality and "heart"....religion is not a repository of either. It is representative of human behaviour, which is why at times it is employed nefariously by its adherents.

Just one clarification of the above.

Craig's arguments that I was referring to are: 1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, 2. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument and 3. The Fine Tuning Argument. These arguments aim to show that there is a Creator, Sustainer and Cause of the Universe.

In contrast, his other arguments- Moral, Resurrection, Personal Experience- are designed to show that the Creator of the Universe is the Christian God.

So the first three are the three that discuss the existence and explanation for the Universe. Keep in mind the 4 options for the universe when reading those. ie: 1.1 Something external caused it to come into existence, 1.2 It popped into being out of literally nothing. 2.1 It has existed eternally but has an explanation, 2.2 It has existed eternally without explanation. Regardless of whether the arguments are undoubtedly workable as definitive proofs as God's Existence, I think many of the points raised by Craig can serve to, at the very least, show that God's existence is very much a plausible option when explaining the universe. Many say Craig wins debates because he is all style and no substance, but I suggest a fair reading of his books and journal articles will show that to be untrue.

WM Trevor- Yes, Craig has debated Shabir Ally and other Muslim scholars, not sure about Jews. I know he's debated on the Resurrection and also the Nature of God. Go here http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2703927. Or here for a link to an iTunes/Feedreader feed http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/08/william-lane-craig-audio-debate-feed.html

It’s just as well you add the “given our current knowledge” bit a little later, Trav. Given what we once currently knew, the Earth was flat, the sun revolved around the Earth and lightning had to come from Gods.

When discussing any possibilities about what came before the big bang, however, I’m a little more cautious than you considering they may turn out to be nothing more than false dichotomies in the future. But a fine example of the God of the Gaps argument, nevertheless.

<<…everyone should read some of Craig. Find out if he really is as much of a "snake oil salesman" as the internet atheists would have you think- you might be surprised.>>

Well, I’ve never actually referred to Craig as a “snake oil salesman”, but I fail to see what difference reading any of his stuff would make. I mean, it’s not like we were simply asserting anything on this thread. Or do these fallacies magically disappear when you read his books?
Shall I then dissect more of what Craig says in that debate? Because he next touches on one of my favourite arguments, “fine tuning” and it’s certainly not what Craig would have us believe.

It’s actually a term in physics that describes a situation where one or more parameters in a model must be very precise when the model itself doesn’t offer mechanisms to constrain their values. So-called “fine tuning problems” are not problems because they cannot be solved naturally; they are problems because they indicate that the given model is incomplete.

A better term for this “fine tuning” that we see in our universe is “precision” and in his opening, Craig assumes that physical constants are mutable and eventually moves on to probability by comparing the precision of our universe with the infinite number of other possible universes that could have supposedly existed.

What Craig doesn’t realise, however, is the meaninglessness of measuring probability with a sample size of 1. If we had any other universes - even just one - to compare ours to, then we could start talking probabilities.

Until then…

Another angle on the shortcomings of the new atheists...

MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION
By Jonathan Haidt, Associate Professor of Psychology.

"I just want to make one point, however, that should give contractualists pause: surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.

... Might religious communities offer us insights into human flourishing? Can they teach us lessons that would improve wellbeing even in a primarily contractualist society.

You can't use the New Atheists as your guide to these lessons. The new atheists conduct biased reviews of the literature and conclude that there is no good evidence on any benefits except the health benefits of religion...

My conclusion is not that secular liberal societies should be made more religious and conservative in a utilitarian bid to increase happiness, charity, longevity, and social capital. Too many valuable rights would be at risk, too many people would be excluded, and societies are so complex that it's impossible to do such social engineering and get only what you bargained for. My point is just that every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing.

But because of the four principles of moral psychology it is extremely difficult for people, even scientists, to find that wisdom once hostilities erupt. A militant form of atheism that claims the backing of science and encourages "brights" to take up arms may perhaps advance atheism. But it may also backfire, polluting the scientific study of religion with moralistic dogma and damaging the prestige of science in the process."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html

Thank you Pericles.

Firstly, I must confess I am not a student of the bible, or of any other religious texts, and focus my attention on the here and now, science and the natural world. Admittedly, from early years I absorbed a set of mores from the story of Jesus, but more or less consider this a vehicle, rather than a dogma, and have never been too concerned with the detail, but rather the message. I also accept that non-religion-based mechanisms are available to convey the same lessons, and without the potentially divisive connotations. In truth I have come to a conclusion that the bible, Khoran, Torah, etc have been misused and abused (as well as containing a lot of conjecture and mysticism), and should now only be of historical interest rather than living texts.

Regarding your following:

"Would it not be true to say that those who have convinced themselves that it was God who put all this into motion, must by definition be doubt-free. Otherwise, what might they be searching for?"

Julius Sumner Miller used to say "Why is it so?" Now our concern is "why, how, and what does it all mean?" I believe for all serious people the search is for truth, understanding and wisdom. Why are some ethical and compassionate, and others the opposite? How do we make a better world? What is our destiny?

Yes, our tiny sun will eventually die, and us with it. Will we relocate? Is there other life in the universe? Sentient? Carbon based? Will we achieve communication? Friendly?

Time. I suspect the matter/energy of the universe has always existed, in some form. Infinite? Most likely.

I have a suspicion that the universe may have existed in different forms many times, and ours may only be the latest in a long line of failed experiments - with ourselves the latest set of guinea pigs?

How far can our imagination stretch? We should focus on making the world the best we can, and let the future unfold. Otherwise we will have failed. But, if we succeed, what then may be possible?

Well, there's a surprise.

On many occasions, on this very Forum, I have been forced to say a word or two to Christians who quote selectively from their own scripture, and equally selectively from the scripture of other religions.

They constantly pick and choose the verses that suit their individual bias - "we" are shown by our Bible to be good, clean, upright and moral, while "they" are nothing more than a war-mongering, power-hungry, bloodthirsty blight on humanity, and a clear and present danger to us all to boot.

Now, finally, I have written support from a fervent enemy of what he calls "the new atheism" (what's new about it, I wonder?), who reassures me that:

"The new atheists assume that believers, particularly fundamentalists, take their sacred texts literally. Yet ethnographies of fundamentalist communities (such as James Ault's Spirit and Flesh) show that even when people claim to be biblical literalists, they are in fact quite flexible, drawing on the bible selectively — or ignoring it — to justify humane and often quite modern responses to complex social situations."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html

Well hooray. An admission at last, that these fundamentalists are busily selecting here, ignoring there, just like I said.

But hold on a moment; to justify...what?

In the OLO forum, this selectivity is almost universally employed as a "whackamozzie" weapon. Which could well be described as a "modern response to a complex social situation", I suppose, if viewed from a purely academic standpoint.

But "humane", it ain't.