>> "What is the origin of the universe?"
* There are a number of theories that centre around
1. the sum of all matter - Matter, Dark matter and anti-Matter - is near zero; and
2. the quantum mechanics concept of quarks.

It is likely there have been, or are, other universes.

>> "Why is there something and not nothing?"
* There's both. That's reality.

>> What is the origin of life? >>How do you get life from non-life?
* Biological life is a function of organic chemistry and the flexibility of the 6 key atoms and their ability to form complex functional molecules. Biological life is self-perpetuating through evolved physiology and evolved biochemistry.

Amino acids - the basic units of life, particularly DNA - have been found in meteorites, such as Australia's Murchison meteorite, and have been shown to be extra-terrestrial by isotope testing

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=murchison-meteorite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite

>> What is the origin of mind?
* Neurophysiology evolving and re-evolving over millions of years

>> How does a living being become a self conscious being?
* Neurochemistry & neurophysiology developing post-partum.

>> And is there any purpose in life?
* Life is what one makes it, individually & collectively.
* The chances of an afterLife are minimal. The brain dies too.

Good article. Covered a lot of ground in a short space, so no doubt every atheist will see one thing (or many!) that raises their ire.

Like the author, the thing that really interests me, almost from a sociological perspective, is the idea that religion and religious belief is a force for evil in the world overall. That argument appears to be the distinguishing mark of the "New Atheists", and indeed the distinguishing mark of the secular modern world's attitude to religion. Witness, for example, the poll results on Monday Night's Q and A between Pell and Dawkins.

The confidence that the New Atheists have in this modern idea goes far beyond any evidence that they can assemble to support it. This in itself is good proof that atheists aren't always the rational creatures that they think they are.

I can understand thoughtful non-believers. People who appear to be well-meaning (as far as I can tell) but who just do not believe in God. There are plenty of people like that, especially in a place like Australia. I disagree with them but I don't think they're always irrational, or "bad people" or anything. But the second horn of the New Atheist bull- all the stuff about religious belief being bad for the world- this is what really makes them lose any credibility in my eyes.

>> "".. the thing that really interests me, almost from a sociological perspective, is the idea that religion and religious belief is a force for evil in the world overall. That argument appears to be the distinguishing mark of the "New Atheists", and indeed the distinguishing mark of the secular modern world's attitude to religion.

" ... the second horn of the New Atheist bull- all the stuff about religious belief being bad for the world- this is what really makes them lose any credibility in my eyes."" <<
Posted by Trav, Friday, 13 April 2012 9:25:45 AM

I generally agree with that, Trav, though feel the religious need to take some responsibility for adversary, too. Especially when it comes to aspects of logical philosophy and science.

The discourse is undermined by unnecessary generalisations such as these - "This in itself is good proof that atheists aren't always the rational creatures that they think they are."

"I can understand thoughtful non-believers. People who appear to be well-meaning (as far as I can tell) but who just do not believe in God." The "as far as I can tell" is 'faint praise'.

I'm afraid that you are in for a bitter disappointment, Mr Palmer.

If what you say is accurate, you are attending for all the wrong reasons.

"I'm attending to see whether the giants of New Atheism... can wean me away from 50 years of faith."

You need to ask yourself, why you feel the need to be "weaned away" in the first place.

Are you dissatisfied with your faith? Does it not meet the requirements that you place upon it? From the tenor of the bulk of your article, it would seem that you are most contented with your choice.

"Christianity has solid answers to these questions that have satisfied its adherents for more than two millennia."

So, be honest with yourself. You are not attending for the purpose you describe, are you?

You are simply spending some spare change on the opportunity to sneer and jeer at these simpletons, who believe that they can get by without the faith in the supernatural that you have.

"...to believe in such matters is clearly a faith position but it is not a faith without evidence"

That is a fairly rickety platform from which to throw stones, I'm afraid. Especially as you immediately qualify it with...

"No, not evidence that we can investigate today with our own eyes, hands and ears..."

...which is a fairly self-serving definition of evidence, I'm sure you agree.

But the fact that you can write this at all is actually a problem. You have happily followed the path that has been laid out for you by the Convention, which is the self-classification of atheism as "Atheism - the Movement".

By setting themselves up as some sort of alternate belief system, these silly people have turned a perfectly respectable moral stance - "I don't believe there is a God" - into some form of anti-religious roadshow.

Which, in my view, is an own-goal of the most monumental kind.

"Will I see evidence during the Convention of social concern finding practical outcomes? Christians start schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities, run soup kitchens..... Will I be hearing about similar initiatives run by atheists......"

Not if the Christian-run executive of this charity has its way. It's excluding secular partner organisations from participating because they are not Christian.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-12/rift-threatens-to-tear-africa-charity-apart/3947072

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying there about the religious taking responsibility, McReal. Are you saying that because some Christians teach illogical scientific things (6 day creation) and that this makes the world a worse place?

I'm not trying to undermine any discourse either, McReal. I respect atheists who are thoughtful, respectful people.

I do not respect atheists who claim the high ground- "We are rational! Look how rational we are! You need to be rational like me!" and then go forth arguing positions that are complete nonsense by going way beyond the evidence, and completely ignoring evidence in the other direction!

On this topic, check out the Reason for Faith festival www.reasonforfaith.org.au in Melbourne next week.

So much material in one article… Thank you David. I've no doubt much of it will be explored during the life of this thread.

I'm sorry you feel so affronted by atheists, new or otherwise – but I have to tell you the tone of your article was not so much turn-the-other-cheek, as unctiously cheeky. Don't panic. God is big enough to cope… unless you doubt this.

I'm genuinely impressed at your christian confidence – it speaks volumes about theism. Plus, it will put those nasty Zoroastrians in their place… Splitters!

But I'm confident that we can deal with a number of the issues you raise in the article if you could offer a time slice of human history. That is, anywhere any time, any place there was this happy confluence of your religious ideals. I'm assuming this will be before the 1960s.

Enjoy the conference. Say hello to david f for us.

Well David I don't think your intellect will be challenged by the same old dogmas rapped up in pseudo science. The text books will keep changing but the deceit won't. No one interested in truth will be lost to this religion. Also comparing the morality of the Lord Jesus Christ with the High priests and priestess who will be speaking will be no contest. I wonder what vileness Deveny will produce this time round. And yes I think Mohammed will be safe.

Well here goes - I was raised as a Catholic -
I have my own private beliefs - and I'm
looking forward to the Atheist Convention -
for no other reason then to learn how other
people think and why. I have read Richard
Dawkins's, "The God Delusion," and enjoyed it.
I watched "Q and A," on Monday evening with
Mr Dawkins and Cardinal Pell - and found it
interesting. And I firmly believe that everyone
is entitled to believe whatever they want (provided
it doesn't hurt others). I have no wish to convert
anyone - and "live and let live," is my ethos.

A Daniel in the lion's den? Not me. Merely a quiet
observer - with an open and tolerant mind.

It's great that religious people are going along to this event. Please take plenty of video and happy snaps and upload to youtube for those that can't make it in person.

^^^^
To the extent the organisers are cool with recording things.

I wasn't raised a Catholic but in the C of E.
Nevertheless, I'm with you Lexi

I believe that many people need a crutch in times of absolute despair such as those times as we see the consequences of American Christian actions in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

Charles Darwin's Origin of Species through natural selection pointed me in the direction of Atheism as an alternative to Creationism.

I sincerely hope others have the opportunity to learn of alternatives as I had when I could not muster faith to counter my own logic

Dear maracas1,

Many people accept the basic principles of evolution within
the framework of their religious beliefs. For example,
some Biblical scholars interpret the story of the
Creation as a symbolic, rather than literal, account
of the origin of human beings and other living things.
They do not find this symbolic interpretation incompatible
with the findings of evolutionary biologists.

For many people, the idea that human beings evolved from
lower forms of life does not diminish the uniqueness of
human capabilities and the accomplishments of human
civilisations.

I was raised an Anglican, consequently went to Sunday School. In my late teens met a great girl, a Catholic. Thus, in order to develop this relationship fully, and at her parents insistence, I was baptised into the Catholic Church, at the tender age of nineteen.

A year or so later, and after my Catholic girl ditched me, I met a brilliant Seventh Day Adventist lady. Again, into the 'font' I went, though completely underwater on this occasion.

By this time the Military decided to send me to Malaya, and then on to South Vietnam. Returning home a year later.

At the expiration of my period of enlistment, I went for hols. overseas. And, on my return to Oz, I missed the uniform too much, and I decided to join the coppers. Staying in the job until my retirement.

The question is:- Atheism Vs. Christinity ? I reckon I know the answer ? Finding the solution(s) in Vietnam and later, during my long period working in the coppers.

Life's a bitch, and then you die ! An old urbane, throwaway line to be sure, but so very very true ! Just look closely at the face of a few cadaver's. There's absolutely NO life after death. I'm sorry.

*Christians start schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities, run soup kitchens, and provide shelter for the homeless.*

Err what about those mega Capitalists, Gates and Buffett, giving their
billions to worthy causes?

Schools and hospitals are great money spinners for institutions like
the Catholic Church. More true believers are brainwashed, more oldies
without kids, hoping for a ticket to heaven, bequest their real estate
to the Catholic Church. No wonder they are the world's largest owner
of real estate and the Vatican Bank is not exactly short of billions.
What else would they do with the money?

Congratulations on your courage in attending the Atheists gab-fest. In posing the question as to whether the Atheists will propose setting up schools well, they already control those. As for hospitals or hospices for terminal folk, that would directly contradict their ethical beliefs, so no joy for the dying here either. After all, survival of the fittest, euthanasia or infanticide are all part of the Eugenics strain in the Atheistic, so no joy for these folk either. As to whether God did actually create the Universe and all that is in it, I really think I might prefer Dawkin's confused mumble about pan-spermia to be incredibly enlightening, don't you? That solves the vexed question of irreducible complexity among many other claims.

When one readers naive stuff like this one wonders whether the 20th Century even happened.
Or the fact that comprehensive critical scholarship into the fabrications origins of the Bible even happened. Critical scholarship raised by the title of the book/essay by Albert Schweitzer titled The Search For the Historical Jesus. Or whether the entire branch of critical scholarship titled hermeneutics exists too.

All of which proves that ALL of the pre twentieth century stories and/or descriptions of the life and teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee were fabrications. Fabrications created to enforce the worldly power of the then in power ecclesiastical establishment in all times and places, including the now-time of the 21st century.

Plus the obvious fact that the naive Christian story about the mommy-daddy good luck "creator"-God, and the presumed "resurrection" of Jesus do not even begin to take into account the overwhelming fact that death really does rules to here.

*As for hospitals or hospices for terminal folk, that would directly contradict their ethical beliefs, so no joy for the dying here either.*

Ps Stevo, there are of course plenty of non religious hospitals. They
charge about the same as the religious ones. Just let me know when
a hospital like St John of God in Murdoch, is doing discounts.

There is hardly a joy for the dying, with the religious system.
They lose all control about their own lives, as we stick them into
palliative care and force them to continue until their last breath,
wether they want to or not.Meantime the Catholic palliative care
system is cashing in all the way.

No wonder that thousands of oldies are spending their time figuring
out how to smuggle in their stash of Nembutal into Australia, so that
they actually have a say about their lives, should they land up like
poor Mr Rossiter of Perth, who was given only one choice, he'd just
have to starve to death.

Next you will be telling me that Christians are compassionate.
Pffffffft. Hypocrites in the name of religious dogma, is more like
it.

Palmer: Christianity has solid answers to these questions.
Does it? or, does Christianity just quote a somewhat suspect book writen by a primitive peoples.

A fair enough statement. I'm glad that he covered it with a a Caviat: "that have satisfied its adherents for more than two millennia."

Palmer: Christians start schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities, run soup kitchens, and provide shelter for the homeless.
Are you saying that,'Only Christians do this?' Do you claim that no other religion or non-religious organizations are charitable? And,just what has that got to do with believing in a "Christian" God only.

Palmer: Christians, regardless of whether wealthy or poor, understand that giving a tenth of their income is a reasonable goal in their support of religious and charitable work.
Certain Christian Sects demand this thith from their followers. Not all Christian Sects demand this however. It's left up to the individual if they can afford it.
Palmer: does atheism stand for moral recovery, and does it have a firm identifiable basis for moral values. Cont.

cont.
Are you saying that 'Only Christians have Morals," Are you saying that no Athiests have Morals at all? Are you saying that adherants of other faiths have no Morals either?

Palmer: Sound moral values appear to be a strength of Christianity,

See above.

grounding morality in the character of God as revealed in his creation but more especially in the Bible,

Is this the same God that told the King Oblidah to mastabate in the Desert for seven years. Told an Army to kill all the inhabitants of a city except for the girl children under 4 years old & take them as wives. I could go on here but there isn't enough space.

Is this the original One God, as melded by the early inhabitants of Gaza & the Lower Nile in Egypt into their own primitave Monotheistic beliefs, 'Amun,' or as is said at the end of a prayer 'Thanks to Amen,' or just, 'Amen." Amun & Amen are interchangeable, or the new one, Joshua, AKA, Jesus.

This is not meant to be aggressive. I just wish for some clarification, that's all.

Palmer: These customs or rules were seen as building a strong, decent, law-abiding society in which families and individuals would flourish.

Even primitive peoples in the middle of the jungle have societial rules which build strong, decent, law-abiding families, even though they are.'NAKED.' So this is not just. 'a Christian thing." Going back over the past 2000 years I wouldn't call what various Christian groups did, or forced their followers to do, 'good or decent.' Christians do not believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Athiests don't either. Duh...

Palmer: They believe what the Bible has to say about God creating the universe out of nothing simply for the pleasure of it,

I do find it strange that the account of what happened in the Bible does mirror the Big Bang & what happened after. Although not in exactly the laid down order of events & not in 6 days but about 6 sequences. The Bible is alogorical in that sense.

Consider that when a Sun collapses it implodes down to a spec then goes Bang & the Solar system cycle starts over again, as it did with the Black Hole in a Galaxtic System, as it did with whatever the Galaxys are revolving around. AKA The Big Bang. All the matter in our, so called, Universe, condenses down to a spec then goes Bang again. & away we go again. Maybe we are just fleas on a particle revolving around a neutron.

Catholic priest's again in the firing line, with interfering with kids.
How can you justifiably put any kind of faith in this mob. By returning to the church you are condoning their actions.
Religion is a myth, that should have had it's day many years ago.
It goes against the grain of modern society, to be realistic.

579: Catholic priest's again in the firing line, with interfering with kids.

Why is it always the Catholic Preists that get a mention. There have been just as many Angligian Priests, but somehow they rarely get a mention. Other Christian Sects Preachers get lots of mentions as well, but of course when THEY get a mention, suddenly they are not Christians. Strange that. We won't mention the Boy Scouts & Cubs etc, now will we.

Yabby: Schools and hospitals are great money spinners for institutions like the Catholic Church. More true believers are brainwashed, bequest their real estate to the Catholic Church. No wonder they are the world's largest owner of real estate and the Vatican Bank is not exactly short of billions. What else would they do with the money?

You are right Yabby, but remember they have been at it for 1700 years. Not like the new upstarts (Baptist, SDA's & JH's, etc.) They've only been around for an average of 200 years. Not enough time to assemble a vast Real Estate Empire.

These Christian groups collect money to help the poor then spend the money on Church Buildings, not feeding the poor. They tell me that they are catering for their 'Spiritual Needs" not their 'bodily needs'
When they all die off they take the lands. Well they won't need it, they're dead, arn't they. That's what I've been told by the Christian Missioneries.

Sorry guys, love to interact with you, back Monday after the Convention.

Cheers

David Palmer

Religion as a source for morality? Seriously?
This brand of morality not only endorsed but encouraged such things as slavery, the torture and murder of non-believers and even witch burning.

Disembowelling adultresses and having them eaten alive by pigs was a common practice carried out by Christians in Alexandria, as well as the frequent murder and harassment of non-believers.

The promotion of education by religions is a relatively recent phenomenon but now comes with provisos about what may or may not be taught.

These were not short-term aberrations but lasted for decades and even centuries in some cases. Given the religiously bloodthirsty history of the last 2000 years, we are probably living in an aberrant period right now but there are some who refuse to let it go.

Morality is not something that is "handed down from on-high" - it's a social agreement between people on what is mutually acceptable and changes and evolves as circumstances change. The claim that society would collapse without these iron age doctrines is as false as the warm-and-fuzzy Sunday School version of history that it wraps itself in.

The concept of a universal creator is as impossible for the human mind to grasp as the scope of the universe itself and it takes a special kind of arrogance to dream up a scenario where one not only knows what God wants but what He did, how He did it, why He did it, what He wants and even what He looks like. All this is based on a random collection of ancient documents and selective fragments of several other religions by people who thought the earth was flat and inhabited by unicorns.

How unbelievably convenient.

It's one thing to surrender responsibility for your own life and personal decisions to somebody else but that does not give you the right to impose that choice on others.

Lexi: "For many people, the idea that human beings evolved from lower forms of life does not diminish the uniqueness of human capabilities and the accomplishments of human civilisations."
No, but it makes rather a mess of the foundation beliefs of Christians. With no Adam and Eve, or anyone else, suddenly materialising as completely formed modern day humans, who committed the original/inherited sin from which we all had to be saved? With no original sin, why was a saviour necessary? With no need for a saviour, what was Jesus really trying to achieve by getting himself killed and rising again — if he really did? Given the number of books in the bible that biblical scholars now agree are forgeries, its claim to be the inerrant word of God is looking shakier and shakier. Of course, scholars who are committed believers cannot afford to call them "forgeries"; they call them pseudoepigraphical works.
And who was the first person to be equipped with a soul? Given that everyone (except Runner) now accepts that our species evolved from much lower forms, and given that Christians believe that the lower forms do not have eternal souls (only we do), there must have been a first person — a girl, I reckon — to have evolved enough to be worth fitting up with an eternal soul. That person's parents couldn't have had a soul if their daughter was the first to have one. So what will God say to their daughter on the Day of General Judgment when she looks round in vain for her loving mum and dad? It would have to be something like, "There's good news and bad news about your missing mum and dad. The bad news is that they just failed the ready-for-a-soul test and so won't be joining you in eternal bliss. Do try to be happy about this as we don't like sadness in Heaven — it lowers the tone of the place. The good news is that you needn't worry that they might be in hell. Same reason — no soul. They are actually… nowhere."

Despite Cardinal Pell delivering a series of clangers, and revealing himself as rather ignorant in the debate on Q & A, Dawkins utterly failed to show any humanity. He failed to say or do anything to attract you to his commited atheism.

I came away from the debate thinking that these two dingbats are showing us the two extreme positions that no 'life-loving' person would want to back themselves into. Much better to be agnostic, or a moderate broadminded religious person who just gets on with life, doing good things and enjoying it all.

There's no such thing as an unbeliever, atheism is a faith and it's rapidly developing into a religion, the Reason Rally in the U.S recently gathered 25,000 people, they have their own music, writers, artists etc.
This is all too hilarious as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as an Atheist or a "secular" movement, the Church Of Reason is one of the most active and aggressive evangelical groups in the world.

Dear GlenC,

You're taking Adam and Eve literally by the sound of
your post. I have always assumed that they represented
"everyman" so to speak. The Bible also should not
be taken literally - but symbolically. And it to is
open to interpretation - afterall it was written by men -
a long, long time ago - words, change their meaning
over time as we all know.

As for arguing with you about religion. As I stated earlier -
religion is personal. And I wouldn't dream of forcing it
onto anyone else.

Secularises organised religions have
become in many cases, as calcified as other institutions
that form the structure of our modern world. Our religious
institutions have far too often become handmaidens of the
status quo, while genuine religious experience is anything
but that. I have come to see that true religion is internal,
not external. The spirit within cannot be blamed for the
blasphemies carried out in its name. What some have done in the
name of religion; projecting their neuroses even penetrating evil
on the world, does not make religion as a mystical phenomenon
invalid.

Religious institutions as such, are not the only arbiters
of religious experience. They do not own the Truth. For the
Truth cannot be owned. Nor should they think they hold some
francise on our spiritual life. They are consultants and
frameworks, but they are not God Himself. We should not
confuse the path with the destination.

Lexi,
Science is also God's work, reason is another one of God's gifts to man, through science and scientific reasoning we can better understand the machinations of the divine.

Dear Jay,

For many years, it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations
for the mysteries of the universe, religion
would have less and less of a role to play and would
eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing more than
superstition. But there are still gaps in our
understanding that science can never fill. On the
ultimate questions - of the meaning and purpose of
life and the nature of morality - science is silent
and, by its very natire, always will be.

Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies
beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in
this fundamental sense religion is probably here to
stay.

Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
Lexi,
I fully agree with you on that one. As long as we don't really know what's going on we have
to give every opinion the benefit of doubt.
Where the problem arises is the interference of religion hijacking faith. The Bible bashers & other fanatics demanding that their superstition be accepted as Gospel whilst others of a more sober mind aren't afforded the right believing in their superstition. There is no difference between Faith & Superstition in the absence of irrefutable proof.

As an atheist I feel like I have just been mauled by lions in another attack on atheists.

Humans by nature are mostly good. Without that foundation there is no basis for an ethical framework religious or otherwise.

There are many atheists and Christians who quietly go about working for their communities. It is not a competition but a shared human goal that can be achieved without the threat of Godly vengeance.

One of the problems I personally have with religion is the negativity about sin and punishment and efforts put into worship are not always translated into compassion or charity, but into obedience. In the Third World efforts of conversion and disrespect for local culture sometimes overshadow the good.

And forgive me but this paragraph is just verging on silly.

"When Nero wanted a scapegoat for the fires of Rome, he covered Christians in the skins of wild beasts, set the dogs on them then opened his gardens for the people to watch. ...there will be angry lions salivating at the prospect of tearing apart religion yet again at the upcoming Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne."

It could easily be re-written along the following lines:

When the Church wanted to make an example of the non-believer or those with enquiring free minds - there were the Inquisitions and the 'witch' burnings. No doubt there will be angry lions salivating at the prospect of tearing apart atheists yet again in the backdrop of the Atheist Convention in Melbourne.

Yes that would be silly too. But aren't we all getting a bit tired of this tit for tat, my belief is better than your belief. Yes atheists have beliefs and values too, many shared by Christians. Read Alain de Botton's 'Religion for Atheists' - a much more considered approach.

A great quote by Richard Rayner about the book:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/08/entertainment/la-ca-richard-rayner-20120408

"He removes the terrors and wonders of God from the equation (the parts many of us cling to, actually) and examines what might be plucked from the smorgasbord of Christianity, Judaism and Zen in order to fulfill our "soul-related needs."

>>I'll be there. A Christian, I've paid my $270 to sit among the lions.<<

At $270 a ticket? Are you crazy? Who pays $270 to go to some boring talk-fest? Don't these atheists have better things to do with their money? David: don't you have some needy to help? I hear $270 goes a long way in Africa. Jesus would be disappointed.

Cheers,

Tony

"Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies
beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in
this fundamental sense religion is probably here to
stay."

Lexi, I don't 'deny the possibility', just as I don't 'deny the possibility. What I DO deny is that there is any evidence for it, and hence any reason to consider for a microsecond that it might actually be true.

If this is all it requires to satisfy your 'fundamental sense' of religion, then you have set the bar pretty low.

Lost something in translation there... here's what I meant to say:

"Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies
beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in
this fundamental sense religion is probably here to
stay."

Lexi, I don't 'deny the possibility', just as I don't 'deny the possibility' that invisible pink unicorns are responsible for ingrown toenails. What I DO deny is that there is any evidence for it, and hence any reason to consider for a microsecond that it might actually be true.

If this is all it requires to satisfy your 'fundamental sense' of religion, then you have set the bar pretty low.

Dear Jon,

I was speaking from a general perspective.
However - you of course are entitled to make
judgements about me from your own. We have seen
that people in different walks of life may
interpret the same phenomenon - whether it is
a prime minister's policies, or a religious doctrine, -
in very different ways. In other words, people tend
to see the world from a viewpoint of subjectivity -
an interpretation based on personal values and
experiences. Even scientists themselves can
adopt varying perspectives on the same problem and
can come to different and even contradictory
conclusions as a result. This fact raises a very
important issue. Is it possible to understand
lets say - society - from a viewpoint of objectivity -
an interpretation that eliminates the influence of
personal values and experiences?

If the world consisted simply of some self evident
reality that everyone perceived in exactly the same
way, there might be no disagreement among observers.
But the truth of the matter is that what we see
in the world is shpaed by what our past experience has
prepared us to see and by what we consciously or
unconsciusly want to see. Knowledge and belief
do not exist in a vacuum; they are social products
whose content depends on the context in which they
are produced.

A fundamentalist preacher will tend to view pornography
in one way; the owner of a strip-club, in another way.
Each is inclined to perceive facts selectively and to
interpret them accordingly.

We are therefore all guilty of some measure of bias -
the tendency, often unconscious, to interpret facts
according to our own values.

Well said Lexi I agree.

Now I hope you have kept a copy of your post. Just to remind yourself of what you have said when you get in another huff about someones different point of view. Ouch!

Dear Jay,

Definitely. And you do the same. ;-)

Dear Lexi
My apologies for only just know stealing a moment to see if you had responded to my post. I should have responded earlier. It will serve me right if you never return to read this.
At the risk of sounding patronising, may I thank you for your good posting manners. Not all posters display them. But you missed the point when you responded, "You're taking Adam and Eve literally by the sound of your post. I have always assumed that they represented "everyman". Recall that I said, "With no Adam and Eve, OR ANYONE ELSE, suddenly materialising as completely formed modern day humans,…". Did you miss the words I've capitalised?
Here's the argument I was making. It's based on what was drummed into me in my twelve years in Catholic schools. Every human has an eternal soul but lower animals don't and humans have always been exactly as we are now because God made the first ones (whether it was Adam and Eve OR ANYONE ELSE is immaterial) and that's how he made them, soul included — in his own image, in fact. Evolution blows that out of the water because we now know that humans have NOT always been as we are now. In fact, we developed from lower forms that did not have souls. So where did our souls come from? If you argue that every animal that qualifies as a human has a soul, then, as evolution rang its is painfully slow changes on what species were like, there must have been a creature who was the first to qualify as a human and that creature, that first human, must have had parents who did not qualify. And that creature, that human, must have got a soul from somewhere. Presumably God issued one. So there must have been a human who had a soul but whose parents didn't.
Continued…

… The reason I played the good news and bad news game with how God could explain to that human why her parents weren't about on the day of general judgment was to highlight how evolution has made highly improbable the whole Christian belief about eternal souls and life everlasting. Of course, my argument does not prove that there is no God but it is another in the huge and growing list of reasons that open minded people have for concluding that while they can't prove there is no god, the probability that there isn't one is compelling. And that's got a lot to do with why non- believers really resent it when Christians AND OTHER believers claim a special status for themselves including the right to have huge slabs of taxpayer money diverted to help them propagate their highly implausible and utterly non-verifiable beliefs and the right to dominate the decisions governments make in the moral domain that, once enacted in law, force non-believers to behave according to rules make no moral or logical sense.

On re-reading my last post, I'm reminded that in the Pell v Dawkins Q&A debate, Cardinal Pell actually agreed that all animals have souls. He made this concession to get himself out of a logical bind he could see was about to envelop him. It would be interesting to know if he changed his mind back the next day when the immediate danger had passed. Imagine what heaven would be like if every animal that ever lived is going to be there, pointing to its blameless immortal soul when challenged by St Peter. Well, they must be blameless because, as the church says, things with souls cannot sin until they have reached the age of reason and most lower animals cannot reason. Or can they?
Another of Cardinal Pell's errors in that debate was claiming that evolution by natural selection is an instance of determination by random chance. His making this error (again) was especially interesting given that he was publicly and privately corrected for making the same false claim in his opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald on October 30, 2007. Is he a very slow learner or just somebody prepared to say whatever it takes to win a given instant? Surely he has not turned his back on the Vatican and thrown in his lot with Runner in declaring that evolution is a myth.

Dear GlenC,

You've gone to a great deal of trouble to explain
your position to me and I appreciate it greatly.
Thank You.

From my perspective - I find that life without
a conscious awareness of God is
difficult. But that's just my feelings. I don't want to convert
anyone or impose my personal feelings onto anyone else.
I believe in the ethos of "live and let live."
To each his/her own (as long as it doesn't harm anyone else).

I certainly don't have the answers to the big questions
in life. I'm still on my own road to discovery. I am no
pundit. I have only my own life experience to go on.
And the obstacles I have overcome in life have been, in my
way, difficult. However I have been given great gifts by
many of the people that I have encountered on my journey
through life. They have helped shape me into the person I
have become and still hope to be. I think that humans are
the most extraordinary creatures, and a big part of me
still wants to reach an even greater understanding about who
we are. Not because I need to know more, necessarily,
but because I am drawn to the process of discovery.

It is the spirit of the human being that can fill me with
more joy than anything else. And that's what I am learning
from my journey, that my spirit is uplifted by these
encounters. I've met some amazing souls along the way.
Again Thank You for sharing your views.

Ahhh… souls – and haven't we met some amazing ones courtesy of OLO Lexi?

(My excuse for this post is having just watched an Onion News Network clip showing scientists teaching a gorilla sign language so it could learn about its mortality and the futility of existence which it did before falling into a terminal depression… laughed so hard I then felt embarrassed for not feeling sorry for the gorilla)

Dear WmTrevor,

I fully understand. I have the same reaction
listening to some of our pollies (won't
mention any names - I'm sure you know who)
watching them speak on television. ;-)

Am I alone in looking forward to the author's follow-up article.

What happened to him at the convention?

Was he pilloried and spat upon? Was he bored out of his skull? Did he escape with his religious credentials intact? Or has that tiny seed of doubt that he took with him, taken root?

Can't wait.

"Am I alone in looking forward to the author's follow-up article.
What happened to him at the convention?"

But this could be asked of more than one author, Pericles…

Maybe the Davids, Palmer and Nicholls haven't had the chance yet to compare notes and decide who goes first.

Dear Lexi
I'd love to be able to buy you a coffee somewhere gentle. I suspect knowing you would be a plus. And wouldn't we have some good stuff to disagree about — though probably less than we might fear?
Thanks for your posts.

Dear GlenC,

Have you ever had one of those days when
you receive more smiles from people on the
street than usual, when you're delighted to drop
a few coins into the busker's bowl, when you notice
the beauty around you and nothing seems too much
trouble? I think of this as something like a state
of grace. And your kindness has given that to me
today.

Thank You for your kind words.

Dear Lexi
As the Americans say (they don't get everything wrong) you're welcome.
I guess this is over and out.

Vaya con Dios dear Glen.