"if we understand science to be a form of knowledge or consistent practice that brings tangible results. Jesus' healings, as recorded, were certainly consistent and tangible."

You are missing a few key words in your understanding of science that may alter this viewpoint. So let's add:
"testable explanations"
"reliable predictions"
and just for fun:
"formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"

Now lets look at the second part of this sentence:
"consistent - always acting or behaving in the same way"
"tangible - definite; not vague or elusive"

I'm not sure even the most faithful believers of Jesus would argue that the recorded accounts of his "healings" fits this definition.

In summary, what a load of BS!

It is much more likely that Kent Brantly survived due to the better standard of care provided to him due to his personal (relative) wealth and that of his country.

Perhaps also because he received a blood transfusion from a 14-year old boy who survived an Ebola virus infection followed by treatment with ZMapp. However, this is simply a hypothesis that needs to be tested before we can make reliable predictions. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure god is the one responsible for ebola in the first place!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature13777.html
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/179/Supplement_1/S18.long

The problem with you Stezza, is that you can't distinguish an article of "science" from one which is "poetic" in nature. :-) A lovely piece by Monica which should be read in the spirit in which it is written.

And, there will be lots of readers who will appreciate the poetic (call it "theological" or "metaphysical" if you wish) stance in which she deals with one man's survival from a brutal and deadly killer. No need to put the boot in, mate... just enjoy the elevated experience that some call "faith" as they deal with the harshness of life's realities. Cheers! :-)

Have to agree with Stezza, and can only add; maybe God and science are one and the same thing?
Clearly we didn't invent ourselves, or many of the advances made by so called science.
All of which, first made their presence felt as an invisible/untouchable idea, in this or that head!
And if there were a God, how else would he/she communicate with man, except through the unconscious thought process!?
It seems some of our very best ideas, mysteriously come to us in our dreams, or while in deep meditation!
Or put another way, our best breakthrough advances often come to us while the "rational" conscious mind is sleeping!
And it has been so since the dawn of time!
Not for nothing is it writ large, what the mind of man, can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve!
Rhrosty.

There's a gaping hole in the middle of this little piece, where such rational concepts as thinking, learning from experience, mathematics etc. ought to sit.

Thinking: Dr Brantly was flown from Liberia to intensive care in the US. This is likely to have had a significant effect on his chances of recovery. This factor was not mentioned.

Learning from experience: the experience of the US medical community provided him with a new drug, ZMapp. This is likely to have had a significant effect on his chances of recovery. This factor was not mentioned.

Mathematics: of the 2,500 deaths so far, none has been a) flown to the USA for treatment and b) given ZMapp. There is therefore an extremely strong correlation between getting rapid, skilful and courageous medical attention, and the survival rate.

Only a mind totally detached from reality, and preferring - for whatever reason - to believe in the power of abstract concepts, can dedicate his survival to prayer.

Intriguingly, Mr Brantly is not one of them:

"'Thank you for bringing me home when I was sick,' Brantly said, going on to describe the intense pain and emotional isolation he felt as he struggled to recover in a Liberian Ebola ward."

After acknowledging the obvious, that it was the evacuation that saved his life, he remains intensely practical...

"Brantly urged fellow healthcare professionals to consider traveling to West Africa to lend their skills in the Ebola outbreak.

Somewhat tellingly, he did not advocate sending an army of chaplains armed with prayerbooks.

"'If we do not provide education and protective equipment to caregivers, we will be condemning countless mothers, fathers, daughters and sons to death simply because they chose not to let their loved ones die alone,' Brantly said."

I'm with Dr Brantly. Send the army. Send nurses. Send medicine. Praying to the God whom those who do the praying also (I assume) determine was responsible for the existence of the disease in the first place seems not only perverse, but quite insulting.

Is he a Catholic? miriacles are prevalent in that organisation.

'The Sydney Morning Herald article asks why Brantly arrogantly assumed that God deemed him more worthy of saving than the 1400 people who have died of the disease. '

The Sydney morning Herald journalist are the arrogrant ones for being stupid enough to question God's right to do what He wants. If He chooses for one to live another dies what right has a created puny journalist to question their Maker. Pathetic really. You can be sure the progressive fools asking such a question think they are gods themselves.

So being "stupid enough to question God's right to do what He wants" in relation to deaths from Ebola doesn't apply to deaths from abortion?

Stezza

abortion is man playing God and most of your stupid questions come as a deliberate result of you and others first denying Him and then somehow misreprenting the One you claim does not exist.

runner,

How dare You question His right to allow Man to play god!

Stezza, quite right, lol!

Dr. Brantly would have died but for science based medical intervention.
No doubt about it.

'Dr. Brantly would have died but for science based medical intervention.
No doubt about it.'

maybe , maybe not Susie although with your track record of idiotic statements no one can be sure.

'runner,

How dare You question His right to allow Man to play god!'

with the intelligence you display Stezza playing god is about all you would be capable of. And thank God He has limited your capacity to that.

Anybody who includes meaningless sentences such as "God is harmony's selfhood" obviously does not feel the need to be rational.

Piffle such as that is an insult to the reader's intelligence and is a certain indication that the remainder of the article will be twaddle.

As it was.

runner,

Why do refer to God as "He"?

Why do you refer to God as having a gender at all?

"abortion is man playing God..."

Surely intervening to cure someone of Ebola by means of medical science and modern transport, etc is "man playing God" too?

So man is allowed to "play God" if you approve...but not if you don't?

'So man is allowed to "play God" if you approve...but not if you don't?'

Got it in one, Poirot.

THEOLOGY is the art of seeking a blind, black man, in the middle of a moonless night, who is hidden in a dark cellar, looking for an invisible black cat that might or might not be there! :-)

Yuri:
A blind black man?
A post nuclear war, braille bible carrying Eli Perhaps?
A really competent driver!
And absolutely the best guy with a sword or at knife throwing!
And given Eli was completely blind!
And at his best in a street fight, in the darkest night, where he remained just as deadly; but particularly, when he didn't smile and give his position away!
Evidence that God sometimes does work mysterious ways?
I also enjoyed Aesop's Fables; particularly sour grapes; or Tinkerbell's famous search for magic power giving, Disney's stardust! Cheers, Rhrosty.

Rhorsty, you should be a Movie Reviewer! David Stratton - move over! :-)

Methinks you are referring to this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037705/

LOL...

What an insult to human intelligence this article is. Those who profess to believe in the million myths of religion are to be pitied.

Virgin births, rising from the dead, heaven and choirs of angels, the fires of hell, etc, all are products of sick minds by those who prey upon human gullibility.

Unscramble your brains. Use your intelligence. You'll be glad you did!

"Many people describe spiritual experience as something that's actually quite natural if you take time daily to quiet the mind and open thought to a sense of peace, beauty, and harmony that is wholly apart from the usual perceptions of the physical senses. It may be precisely within this transcendent sense of harmony and peace that people find their connection to Spirit, and new pathways to healing."

Sounds like a process of systemic noradrenaline suppression which is known to inhibit disease vectors... but I hope never to be lying in an Ebola ward testing a theory of 'peace, beauty and harmony' whilst my organs liquefy over several days.

I am genuinely pleased for Dr. Grantly when he says, "God saved my life..." since he makes it clear that this was “Through the care of the Samaritan’s Purse and SIM missionary team in Liberia, the use of an experimental drug, and the expertise and resources of the health care team at Emory University Hospital..."

The alternative to Dr. Gantly's, "But what I can tell you is that I serve a faithful God who answers prayers." would have been his widow coping with God's answer being, "No."

I can't get my mind around the selfishness in that whatever trauma makes humans suffer God gets his own way.

It is not God keeping me alive, it is the scientific pills I take, without the pills it is a one way ticket to the urn.
David G I can never understand why people with so called intellect can believe in fairy tales. When dead, that's it for ever, same as before you came, knew nothing then and will know nothing after, simple to understand, just a bit of rooting tooting inbetween to keep the flock going, then again I could have disappeared down the plug hole like trillions of other sperm and not enjoyed that trip down the pipe with the other rubbish, lucky it was the other pipe and being a good swimmer.
Regards

'runner,

Why do refer to God as "He"

Poirot

I refer to God as He because Jesus taught us to pray Our Father not our Mother. The apostle Paul also refered to believers calling upon Abba Father. Added to that God chose to reveal Himself through a man (Christ Jesus).

also
'So man is allowed to "play God" if you approve...but not if you don't? '

u easily get mixed up with being a vessel for God or a vessel for the devil. I would of thought it is clear who you are working for when killing the most vulnerable.

'Virgin births, rising from the dead, heaven and choirs of angels, the fires of hell, etc, all are products of sick minds by those who prey upon human gullibility.

yes David G and believing that all this order came from chaos and that we evolved from monkeys is a product of sick minds by those who prey upon human gullibility.

Stezza's original comment is pertinent; "On the other hand, I'm pretty sure god is the one responsible for ebola in the first place!"
There can be no doubt and the ineluctable conclusion is.....human beings must be gods in Runner's view. Human intellect can confound the purpose of his god. Unless of course, the entire Ebola episode was masterminded by his god in the minutest detail. But there can be little comfort for our ubiquitous Runner in this scenario.

Brantly can rant about his delusional views. But by doing so he demeans his own inner contribution to his recovery as well as the assistance given him by the blood donor and dozens of health workers and researchers. Nevertheless, his motives and goals are admirable and if he finds incentive and enthusiasm for his work therein then he can worship the FSM for all I care, though his purpose in declaring as he did is both ingenuous and naive and reveals a certain unattractive smugness, traits not uncommon in the religiously afflicted

' Human intellect can confound the purpose of his god.'

Extropian1,

I am waiting for u to display just a little. So far what I read in Scripture is a thousand times wiser than the rubbish you have posted.

Poirot writes [asking Runner]; "So man is allowed to "play God" if you approve...but not if you don't?".......in reply to which we are regaled with a lecture on vessels and a threadbare, irrelevant, snide and poorly worded limp-noodle riposte.

A non-answer to a challenge if there ever was one. Anonymity replaces intestinal fortitude.

Runner writes;
"I am waiting for u to display just a little [human intellect]. So far what I read in Scripture is a thousand times wiser than the rubbish you have posted."

It seems your own intellect has atrophied and descended into the granite walled dungeon of total unreason and the cultivation of invective. If courage's spark still glows dimly in your mind, why not illuminate Poirot's calumny, if calumny it be? Why not belabour the wretched atheist with the gauntlet of reason and intellect, thus demonstrating your belief's at least the equal of your antagonist? Merely asserting it is will attract derision.

runner,

Thank you for your answer....."I refer to God as He because Jesus taught us to pray Our Father not our Mother"

It's a shame you don't adhere to other tenets that Jesus handed down.

You seem to think the best way to display your faith is to fire off derision and insult.

Where is the Love?

Poor little runner. Calling everyone else "gullible" while you worship a reflection of yourself. So heartening to see there are thinking people who have posted here, who have thought logically about the issue at hane. The man would have died without scientific/medical intervention which is the result of humanity. It has nothing to do with what you think of yourself.

Poirot

'It's a shame you don't adhere to other tenets that Jesus handed down'

Yea Poirot first to admit I do it poorly at times. I do find it strange however that many including yourself want to hold me to Christ's teaching when claiming not to believe in Him yourself.

'Poor little runner. Calling everyone else "gullible" while you worship a reflection of yourself. So heartening to see there are thinking people who have posted here, '

obviously you are not one of those 'thinking people' Herenow, Gone tomorrow.

runner,

"Yea Poirot first to admit I do it poorly at times. I do find it strange however that many including yourself want to hold me to Christ's teaching when claiming not to believe in Him yourself."

What's it got to do with anything what I believe?

I was merely noting that your reason for calling God "He" was because Jesus taught it...and that your approach on this forum doesn't appear to be in line with his other teachings.

That's all.

Runner, I understand you live your life according to what is written in the Holy Bible and your, and like-minded people, interpretation of what is written in this over the centuries cobbled together, many times translated, book.

I've had the good fortune to meet and be able to speak with people who also call themselves Christian. The main difference between you and those I've come to know and respect, who have dedicated their lives to serving Christ is their sheer humility and unconditional love. This is inspirational and an example of a way of living a good life, like the doctor who is the subject of this thread.

So, when you flippantly respond to Poirot: 'Yea Poirot first to admit I do it poorly at times. I do find it strange however that many including yourself want to hold me to Christ's teaching when claiming not to believe in Him yourself.' Actually, Yes, we do expect and have a right to hold you to do just that. You hold up Christ and His Teachings as the example to live by to others, before you dare do that, look at your yourself first and judge yourself first. Your disdain for others, who I presume you believe to also be God's creation is just dripping of the page.

I ask you: who are you to judge another human being? Who are you to determine for another 'you are playing God, but you are not?'

You are a self-righteous zealot. No different in essence to many other self-righteous zealots creating fear, hatred and abomination in this world. All purporting to speak in God's name.

Onya yvonne, agreed in full. Nowhere in the bible is there any praise for the intelligence of man.

Runner, are you representative of your religion or are you an embarrassment to it? Why is it that you who think you know what god hates, serves a hateful god?

'I ask you: who are you to judge another human being? '

And then from the judge herself

'You are a self-righteous zealot'

Yea Yvonne its fine for you to spew out your hatred on me simply because you lefties are brainwashed into demonising anyone disagreeing with some of your abhorrent beliefs such as killing the unborn. Ever thought of getting a run on Q&A?

'No different in essence to many other self-righteous zealots creating fear, hatred and abomination in this world. '

sound to me like some of the self righteous gw zealots who have made millions through fraud you are describing.

To be criticized by the likes of you for pointing out the truth about abortion or the promotion abhorrent lifestyles more than likely means I am on the right track. You might call my opinions an abomination Yvonne but I have no faith in your predictable views.

Calling evil evil is not judging another human being Yvonne. That you can be sure of.

'Runner, are you representative of your religion or are you an embarrassment to it?'

Give up while you are behind Herenow

There is an inevitable corollary to engaging with the likes of Runner, his ilk and kith. It is the default, the fall-back position, the silence enabler, the vacant-eyed thin-lipped resolution of a cornered mind unable to satisfactorily resolve an inconveniently frequent internal conflict.

The more discomfitting the martyrdom for Runner, the more his smug self-approval is confirmed. The greater the odds and suffering, the more elevated the euphoria of his god's approval. Thus is willful ignorance elevated to highest virtue.

Of course science was the overwhelming force in Brantly's recovery. It is, or will soon be, the only fully and factually evidenced way such recovery could have happened. For two millennia and longer faith has claimed only it knows the only truth. But still, after all that time, the same old story.

Science advances, improves, refines, conquers. Faith would have none of this. It was invested with a bronze-age "truth" that is immune from scientific revisionism. Thus, again, is willful ignorance elevated to highest virtue.

Runner, an inspiration you are not.

Romans 14:10
You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

It is your contempt Runner, for others that is hard to take.

Philippians 2:3-11
Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men

It is your conceit Runner about yourself.

This is from the book by which you purport to live your life.

yvonne,

Romans 14:10
You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

doing again what you accuse me of doing Yvonne

' It is your conceit Runner about yourself. '
I suppose you believe Jesus Himself was judgemental when He said

(Mat 18:6) But whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believes in Me, it would be better for him that an ass's millstone were hung around his neck, and he be sunk in the depth of the sea.

(Mat 18:7) Woe to the world because of offenses! For it is necessary that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

ever considered the unborn might fall into this category Yvonne. I suspect not. More concerned about the person pointing out the evil.

Extropian1 You say "Science advances, improves, refines, conquers"
What is the object for this sentence? Is it civilisation or culture...or perhaps both?

Does it refer to knowledge, skills, language, tools, techniques of civilisations as they follow an evolutionary path?

But have you thought beyond this vision of man as a highly evolved animal?

If we are merely producers and consumers why do some things appear to us as wrong or right? Why do we even bother with ethics? Is there a parallel in the animal kingdom for a notion of humane behaviour? In what other animal do we find religion and art? ...or culture? Why have suicides and mental illness increased with living standards? Is there such thing as "spiritual development" and does being more materially advanced entail spiritual advancement?

Just some thoughts which I think are worth pondering.

A comment on the advertising on this forum. It seems to target men looking for female companionship. Curious :-)

...and the intellectuals: UWA. Male intellectuals seeking female companionship? Lol

Agreed Grateful, they certainly wouldn't find many 'intellectual men' on this forum :)

I like seeing Runner on the run, spitting out his usual 'unborn!' rants in the wrong thread as he goes.

Scientific-based medicine saved Dr. Brantly, no doubt about that.
At least we can see proof of that fact, as opposed to invisible gods....

Surely the answer is embedded in your question, grateful.

>>But have you thought beyond this vision of man as a highly evolved animal? If we are merely producers and consumers why do some things appear to us as wrong or right? etc. etc.<<

Because, as you point out, we are "highly evolved animals".

We have evolved to have ethics, to exhibit humane behaviour, to invent religions and create art, to fret about our humanity to the point of suicide and so on.

In short, we have evolved to become thinkers, not merely "producers and consumers". If we had not so evolved, we would still operate on the same instinctive basis as frogs, or bats, or lorakeets.

' If we had not so evolved, we would still operate on the same instinctive basis as frogs, or bats, or lorakeets.'

yea Pericles, real evidence based science. No wonder so much of science is treated with contempt. You certainly have a lot of blind faith.

Why are all you people being sucked in by the ravings of RUNNER?
His tiny mind is never going to come to grips with the real world.
I am also an atheist, but I believe in the power of prayer, not because the power comes from God, but because of the tremendous power of the human brain to react favourably to all forms of external stimuli.

David

"We have evolved to have ethics, to exhibit humane behaviour, to invent religions and create art, to fret about our humanity to the point of suicide and so on."

Pericles, here you have describe a process but can you provide a coherent explanation that is consistent with the facts?

Ethics and humane behaviour, to be products of evolution, would mean a world in which they are profitable, useful endeavours, for "highly evolved animals" in their pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.

However the fact is crime, notably organised crime and state-sponsored crime against communities and nations, has proven most profitable. Crime pays...unless of course there is a God. Virtue and sacrifice can only be rational if there is a God.

Indeed don't Atheists point to the injustice of this world as evidence that there is no God. So how can you now argue that ethics and humane behaviour are an outcome of human evolution.

Secondly, how can fretting about our humanity be the outcome of an evolutionary process ---a process where only the fittest survive---when it leads (in increasing numbers) to suicide!? Those who fret about their humanity should be falling by the wayside, while the less fretful, less reflective, the less concerned with the welfare of others should be the winners of the evolutionary race. And, again isn't this what Atheist put as evidence against a God who is both Merciful and Omnipotent.

In short, your contention is incoherent and comes into direct conflict with the Atheist argument against the existence of God.

Have another try. I'm enjoying this.

Thank you VK3AUU, well said and so true. The indoctrinated like runner will not answer even the simplest questions, throw out irrelevant quotes in dated English, threaten in the name of their vengeful god, and resort to insults when confronted. They give mental illness a bad name.

Grateful,

Clearly you do not understand evolution. Not surprising given that you reject it.

<<Ethics and humane behaviour, to be products of evolution, would mean a world in which they are profitable, useful endeavours, for "highly evolved animals" in their pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.>>

No, just survival. The “pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain” are simply useful means by which that goal may be achieved.

We're not “highly evolved” either. Evolution is not a ladder to be climbed and nor does it have a “path”. We are not the pinnacle of evolution; nor are we a step closer to it. Evolution can only work with what it’s given. We consider ourselves highly evolved because we have characteristics that we value. Whales might consider themselves highly evolved because they are the biggest creatures. A Lion can take down an unarmed human with ease. Who’s to say they’re not more highly evolved?

<<However the fact is crime, notably organised crime and state-sponsored crime against communities and nations, has proven most profitable. Crime pays...unless of course there is a God.>>

Or a community that’s survival relies upon keeping deviant behaviours to a minimum. You even said “against communities”. You clearly don’t understand the evolution of humans if you don’t understand the role our social structures have played in it. Your opinion on what is consistent with “the facts” is irrelevant if you don’t understand what the facts actually are.

<<Virtue and sacrifice can only be rational if there is a God.>>

Self-preservation and utilitarianism are rational reasons for virtue and sacrifice.

Because some other being wants you to do something, or be some way, is not a rational reason to do it. Unless, of course, they’ve got some hideous, cruel and inescapable punishment in store for you if you don’t … oh, that’s right.

<<Indeed don't Atheists point to the injustice of this world as evidence that there is no God.>>

Injustice is not evidence of no god, it’s just evidence that an omnibenevolent god doesn’t exist. Which is a real problem for the Abrahamic god, wouldn't you think?

A neat piece of doublethink, grateful.

>>Pericles, here you have describe a process but can you provide a coherent explanation that is consistent with the facts?<<

My explanation is in total accord with the facts, grateful. As you very kindly point out:

>>Ethics and humane behaviour, to be products of evolution, would mean a world in which they are profitable, useful endeavours<<

I'm sure that even you can understand that communities of human beings that lack a common basis of ethics would not survive very long. Ethics and humane behaviour form an essential foundation of communities, and have evolved well past the idea that animal instincts alone can support societal living.

And this is a total furphy:

>>Virtue and sacrifice can only be rational if there is a God.<<

I would be interested to hear your justification for that assertion. What evidence can you offer that shows virtue to be a uniquely God-driven state, as opposed to a rationally-evolved product of the human will to survive?

And this is purely preposterous:

>>Secondly, how can fretting about our humanity be the outcome of an evolutionary process ---a process where only the fittest survive---when it leads (in increasing numbers) to suicide!?<<

"Fretting about our humanity" is simply an observation that we are capable of self-awareness in a manner far beyond that of the animal kingdom as a whole. While one of these evolved gifts is the ability to envisage our own death, it is not in itself a sufficient condition to cause suicide.

>>Those who fret about their humanity should be falling by the wayside, while the less fretful, less reflective, the less concerned with the welfare of others should be the winners of the evolutionary race.<<

Do you actually have any evidence for this, grateful? On what basis do you propose that the self-aware are more prone to remove themselves from the gene pool? Or are you just throwing God-shaped rocks?

Grateful 22/09 writes: "Extropian1 You say "Science advances, improves, refines, conquers"
What is the object for this sentence? Is it civilisation or culture...or perhaps both?"

The conversation on this topic seems to have significantly diverged from that originally intended.

Did science or god save Kent Brantly?

I provided a logical way of reasoning that science was the agency of the good doctor's recovery to good health. How would the religiously afflicted know that the recovery is full and complete without confirmation from science? Leave science out of the issue and presume he has recovered through a miracle. Without the confirmation, would it be safe to allow him to resume his duties? If you were among the medical staff, believer or unbeliever, would you see it as completely safe to serve beside him? How do you think the patients would react learning that their doctor's "recovery" was put down to a miracle and no medical tests were deemed necessary?

Grateful, I would be inclined to attempt answers to your questions if they were relevant to the subject and title of the thread concerning Dr. Brantly. Contributors seem to be ignoring the rules and as I have suffered the non-publication of a post to this subject I am doubly conscious of compliance.

I must observe though, that your questions have not much to do with Dr Brantly, scientific methods or miracles.

I confess to a profound skepticism of all things "spiritual". Such concepts exist solely on the presumption that science can never intrude in such a realm. Do you see a synonymy or sharing of traits between "spiritual" and "supernatural"?

And further to Grateful.....You seem to be using a strawman device in your exchanges with Pericles. As for your first questions to me......I ceased answering such ingenuous interrogation in discussion groups 15 years ago.

Justice is an artificial concept devised by humankind. It does not exist in the natural world where humans are absent [except as below]. Our sense of justice was an outgrowth of a sense of fairness. Our judicial system is an outgrowth of our sense of justice. Concepts like justice, fairness, innocence, guilt, co-operation, fellowship have names because humans recognise them as conducive to progress and prosperity in groups and societies. They are found to a degree in chimpanzee society. I recommend the Jane Goodall chimpanzee site for irrefutable evidence supporting my contentions. It may be that the concepts mentioned above will be found in other animals such as elephants and cetaceans.

Grateful writes: "Ethics and humane behaviour, to be products of evolution, would mean a world in which they are profitable, useful endeavours, for "highly evolved animals" in their pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.

However the fact is crime, notably organised crime and state-sponsored crime against communities and nations, has proven most profitable. Crime pays...unless of course there is a God. Virtue and sacrifice can only be rational if there is a God."

Your use of the word "profitable" in two disparate contexts is a glib resort unworthy of you. Not only do the concepts mentioned in a previous post exist in positive form but their antitheses exist. That some animals, like humans and chimpanzees, harbour a "criminal" element is the very reason for these concepts to exist. They describe thought and behaviour. There can be no doubt that crime is anti-social and inimical to progress and prosperity of society as a whole. The incidence of crime on an industrial and international scale has followed developmental trends. Its cost in relative or per capita terms is little changed since the Industrial Revolution.

The concept of world-wide anarchy, society's unraveling and a new dawn rising from the ashes would profit no one except provide a frisson of martyrdom to a few fanatics.

Virtue and sacrifice are artificial concepts not found in nature where humans are absent. The suggestion of a holy origin is piffle.

Thank-you for the thought-provoking and challenging responses. And I acknowledge each one of you as my superior in knowledge and intellect.

I have selected the follow comments for reflection and a response. Please say if you think i have omitted a remark that deserves separate attention or you want to add something.

AJ Philips:

<<Indeed don't Atheists point to the injustice of this world as evidence that there is no God.>>

Injustice is not evidence of no god, it’s just evidence that an omnibenevolent god doesn’t exist. Which is a real problem for the Abrahamic god, wouldn't you think?

Pericles

>>Virtue and sacrifice can only be rational if there is a God.<<

I would be interested to hear your justification for that assertion. What evidence can you offer that shows virtue to be a uniquely God-driven state, as opposed to a rationally-evolved product of the human will to survive?

Extropian 1
“Did science or god save Kent Brantly?”
ANS: For myself, everything is from God: whether we may deem it good, bad or ugly (or a miracle). I like to see you create the disease, the cure let alone the person involved. We’re all His creation. And of course science allows us to know whether or not the person is better.

Extropian 1

I confess to a profound skepticism of all things "spiritual". Such concepts exist solely on the presumption that science can never intrude in such a realm. Do you see a synonymy or sharing of traits between "spiritual" and "supernatural"?
ANS: What is Art

cont..

Extropian 1
Justice is an artificial concept devised by humankind. It does not exist in the natural world where humans are absent [except as below]. Our sense of justice was an outgrowth of a sense of fairness. Our judicial system is an outgrowth of our sense of justice. Concepts like justice, fairness, innocence, guilt, co-operation, fellowship have names because humans recognise them as conducive to progress and prosperity in groups and societies. They are found to a degree in chimpanzee society. I recommend the Jane Goodall chimpanzee site for irrefutable evidence supporting my contentions. It may be that the concepts mentioned above will be found in other animals such as elephants and cetaceans.

Extropian 1
Virtue and sacrifice are artificial concepts not found in nature where humans are absent. The suggestion of a holy origin is piffle.

By the way, this week's New Scientist leads with an article on "Imagination", discussing how it must have evolved (if you accept the premise that it is a random product of evolution). Check it out. its very relevant to this discussion.

Hi Grateful,

Thanks for taking the time to consider our responses. I will have to wait to see what your response is before I can consider whether or not it encapsulates everything I have said in my response to you. But you certainly have quoted a part of my response that is, what I believe to be, an insurmountable challenge to the existence of your god (and the Christian god, of course). So I look forward to what you have to say.

As for the New Scientist article, I can't seem to access that at the moment, but all I can say (for now) is that if you think evolution is the product of random occurrences, then not only did you not read it properly, but my assumption that you know nothing about evolution was correct.

Evolution is not the result of random chance, but the result of random mutations and variation guided by the processe of natural selection.

BIG difference!

A.J.Phillips writes; "Evolution is not the result of random chance, but the result of random mutations and variation guided by the processe of natural selection."

Thankyou AJP for a timely reminder and one that sometimes is a little too subtle for the religiously afflicted. But of course simplistic dissembling permeates the teaching of science by religious institutions, particularly among the creationists. May one enquire, Grateful, if you hold to the tenets of creationism in general, the Anthropic Universe, Intelligent Design, a Young Earth and biblical and papal infallibility?

A religious person who actually has a comprehensive layperson's acquaintance with [for instance] scientific knowledge is a much more interesting challenge than the melancholy, repetitive drone that assails the ears of the non-religious.

Grateful, if you had at least tried to deal with my post re the miracle and scientific confirmation of said miracle then you might attract more respect for your views.

Pericles you write:
">>Virtue and sacrifice can only be rational if there is a God.<<

I would be interested to hear your justification for that assertion. What evidence can you offer that shows virtue to be a uniquely God-driven state, as opposed to a rationally-evolved product of the human will to survive?"

Man is different from nature. He has choice. If he is God-driven he chooses deeds that will please his Creator and avoids those that will not. If he is not God-driven he will only choose such virtuous deeds as serve his own personal interests. He will be just, for example, when justice serves his personal interests, but if it works against his personal interests then the rational man will not be just. So a virtuous deed will always be rational for the God-driven. For others, a virtuous deed is contingent on his personal interests.

Grateful writes; "ANS: For myself, everything is from God: whether we may deem it good, bad or ugly (or a miracle). I like to see you create the disease, the cure let alone the person involved. We’re all His creation. And of course science allows us to know whether or not the person is better."

Create a disease? What a bizarre thought. But your idea does raise the issue of the faithful's rather immature petulance with science for not having the answer to every question available to them for immediate use. Had you a modicum of familiarity with the history of science you would be familiar with example after example of where men of science have proven the nay-sayers wrong and in most cases, foolish and willfully ignorant. Men who risked life and limb that you might be less so.

Are you so foolhardy that you confidently predict science will never create a new, artificial disease? And it is intellectual sweat and blood that is creating the cure. As for creating a person.....first, define "person". It might take a few weeks to discover that we should agree to disagree.

Let me record it here, with no intent of disrespect, that I find it insulting to humankind generally that the vast intellectual achievements of humankind, sometimes bought at great cost, should be attributed by the faithful to a figment, a ghost, a spirit inhabiting a supernatural realm. Properly-engendered pride in achievement is not a shameful attitude.

The last sentence of your statement above obviates the need to invoke the supernatural. Your use of the words "allows us to know" has a rather obsequious ring to it though. Much better "informs" or "reveals".

Grateful writes; "ANS: What is Art".[?]

I will never deny that religious faith has moved humankind to great achievements in the arts and philosophy. I acknowledged so in an earlier post concerning Dr.Brantly's motivation and courage.

You might well have asked; "What is beauty?" and prompted a similar response to the one I offer here.

The inspiration that drives the human intellect to achieve is derived from many and varied sources. The death of a child might provoke a music composer to create a great symphony. The transcendental and the numinous are conditions of our minds that arouse creativity, sends poets into rapturous elegaic pursuit, drives great artists to paint the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel. In similar vein, did the beginnings of the Theory of Relativity burst into the mind of Albert Einstein, who was at most an incipient deist, most certainly not a christian with the accompanying belief in a personal interfering god.

Intellectual creativity, in all its ramifications, finds its highest development, for the present, in humankind. Once again, the antithesis, the inimical side of creativity has found expression in the development of horrible weapons of destruction, in the early denial by religious leaders of sedation to women in childbirth, of messianic leaders seeking absolute power, of the billions of words that have shackled human minds in religious faith. Though I freely admit to the last condition being a personal opinion. Nevertheless I can stoutly defend said opinion.

At the present, grateful, I'm prompted to thank you for the apparent honesty of your philosophical stance and the general openness in the way you have expressed yourself. Satisfactory indeed........I hope for all here.

Extropian1,
I will not pretend to be your peer, or even close, in the content, nature and history of science. My main purpose is to learn from learned people like yourself. Its healthy to open oneself up to scrutiny and criticism, provided it is with those who have the knowledge and generosity (indeed patience!)to do so constructively.

You ask:
"Are you so foolhardy that you confidently predict science will never create a new, artificial disease?"

If a scientist were able to "create a new, artificial disease", or an aspirin for that matter, they would have no need for science. They would just say "Be!" and there it would be.

In your view, can science create a Picasso?

Grateful writes; "If a scientist were able to "create a new, artificial disease", or an aspirin for that matter, they would have no need for science. They would just say "Be!" and there it would be."

I can make no sense of your assertion, except to draw the conclusion that you are repeating nonsense gained from someone you trust. Please explain what you mean, if you know.

"In your view, can science create a Picasso?"

I don't know and I have no shame in admitting this. But science is not tasked with creating great works of art and that is a good thing for if it could the art market would suffer a drastic change. Artists would have no reason to create. Art lovers would see a grotesque devaluation of the creative genius in humankind.

You are assigning a burden to science for which it has no identifiable responsibility. Science is not in the business of imitating genius. Its great value, its purpose, is in explaining the natural world. Science is a method of revealing nature's secrets.

The way the human minds works is a major pursuit of science. Currently our knowledge is far, far, FAR from being comprehensive. The tasks of investigation and observation, of formulating inferences therefrom for testing, are daunting. Science can only research when one mind investigates another and for many years into the future the imperfections and unknowns will vastly outnumber the "certainties".

Kindly note the inverted commas. Science does not and indeed, cannot, deal in certainties. Though many scientific theories are held with great confidence the explanations they offer can never be the last word, for new discoveries may force a rethink or in rare cases an abandonment of the entire theory itself.

Science has much more important purpose than to attempt a frivolous imitation of human genius. It would have no value.

May I just correct a potential misapprehension, grateful.

When you said earlier:

>>Pericles you write: ">>Virtue and sacrifice can only be rational if there is a God.<<<<

It is possible to infer that I wrote those words, when in fact they were your own.

Which you proceeded to defend thus:

>>Man is different from nature. He has choice. If he is God-driven he chooses deeds that will please his Creator and avoids those that will not. If he is not God-driven he will only choose such virtuous deeds as serve his own personal interests.<<

I can certainly accept the first argument, since it forms the basis of many religions: do that which your God commands.

But you produce no evidence to support your second assertion. I know personally many, many individuals who accept that they have a level of responsibility to their communities, and choose "virtuous deeds" solely on that basis. In fact, I would suggest that the vast majority of us do likewise, in everything from careful disposal of garbage to acts of selfless philanthropy, both small and large.

>>He will be just, for example, when justice serves his personal interests, but if it works against his personal interests then the rational man will not be just.<<

Surely you must recognize that acts of justice are almost inevitably in one's personal interest. If this had not been the case, society would long ago have divided itself into "for-God" and "not-for-God" camps. And last time I looked, the majority of conflicts of "justice" appear in the divide between different religions, as opposed to religious vs. atheist.

>>So a virtuous deed will always be rational for the God-driven. For others, a virtuous deed is contingent on his personal interests.<<

Given that for the vast majority of individuals, "personal interest" is entirely congruent with "living in a community", I reject the need for God to appear in any of your equations.

I am not sure what the argument is about here. It could not have been god that saved the good doctor because God does not exist.

Piney of Perth, you are not alone in your thoughts, God does not exist ,

On the basis that "God does not exist" is allied with the topic heading I offer a brief synthesis of why it is legitimate to hold such a conviction.

There is no reason to be convinced that the whole of existence is NOT comprised entirely and simply of matter, its alter-ego energy and the physical laws that govern them. This scenario is the ultimate expression of William of Ockham's Principal of Parsimony, a valuable rule of thumb in the scientific method.

There is no Law of Nature [or physics] that renders this conviction invalid.

Given that the notion of gods is just one of any number of phenomena that can be postulated to exist in this universe, it is meet that we should examine the term "any number".

The sequence of natural [counting] numbers, both negative and positive is, as far as we can know, infinite. Staying with numbers, the figure for Pi has been computed to 10 billion decimal places and counting with no conclusion in sight. There is, I suggest, an infinity of things that can be postulated into existence. Within this infinity of things, somewhere, is a thing called a god. There have been, and still are, quite a few of them actually with each one clamouring for supremacy and legitimacy. Where on an imagined line of infinite length do they belong? If this discomforts some purists, perhaps we could ask then, where in a hierarchy of infinite dimensions would gods be? To my way of thinking, carrying the postulation further toward a conclusion really concludes in absurdity. For what reason should a god's claim to pre-eminence in an infinite hierarchy be recognised? What makes the claim more legitimate than Russel's teapot or Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster, or pink-eyed Uxigrabes for that matter?

Pink-eyed Uxigrabes don't exist? Prove it! And smile indulgently while the faithful advise that logically this kind of negativity cannot be proven.

It wasn't some god that cured Dr.Brantly, it was my P-EU. You'd better believe it Pilgrim!

Easily done, Extropian1.

>>Pink-eyed Uxigrabes don't exist? Prove it!<<

Google says:

"Your search - Pink-eyed Uxigrabes - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords."

QED.

Extropian1, writes:

"Grateful writes; "If a scientist were able to "create a new, artificial disease", or an aspirin for that matter, they would have no need for science. They would just say "Be!" and there it would be."

I can make no sense of your assertion, except to draw the conclusion that you are repeating nonsense gained from someone you trust. Please explain what you mean, if you know."

Yes, the Qur'an (Surah 19, Mariam):

They said, "O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. (27) O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste." (28) So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?" (29) [Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. (30) And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive (31) And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant. (32) And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive." (33) That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute. (34) It is not [befitting] for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. (35) [Jesus said], "And indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path." (36)
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/19:26

The logic seems impeccable: "When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. "

Your thoughts?

Pericles writes, in reply to
>>Man is different from nature. He has choice. If he is God-driven he chooses deeds that will please his Creator and avoids those that will not. If he is not God-driven he will only choose such virtuous deeds as serve his own personal interests.<<

the following:
<<I can certainly accept the first argument, since it forms the basis of many religions: do that which your God commands.

But you produce no evidence to support your second assertion. I know personally many, many individuals who accept that they have a level of responsibility to their communities, and choose "virtuous deeds" solely on that basis. In fact, I would suggest that the vast majority of us do likewise, in everything from careful disposal of garbage to acts of selfless philanthropy, both small and large.>>

Even if they do a "virtuous deed" because it is a "virtuous deed" it is still them doing what they are doing because it is what pleases THEM. Logically, when a someone is God-driven they are doing what they are doing because it pleases GOD.

So like i said: Man is different from nature. He has choice. If he is God-driven he chooses deeds that will please his Creator and avoids those that will not. If he is not God-driven he will only choose such virtuous deeds as serve his own personal interests.

In reply to
"He will be just, for example, when justice serves his personal interests, but if it works against his personal interests then the rational man will not be just."

Pericles writes:
"Surely you must recognize that acts of justice are almost inevitably in one's personal interest."

The point is intention: when an act is performed is it intended to please God or ythe person?

As an aside: I wouldn't agree with your statement. It is certainly not the case: much injustice has been done which serves the personal interests of whole communities and nations (they get more land, cheaper more secure oil etc) . But like i said, this misses the point

Pericles, I'm somewhat surprised.

I would be prepared to re-examine my synthesis if you can produce a verifiable quote from a high profile scientist wherein he declares that Google is the ultimate authority on anything, that his work relies on the authority of Google for its legitimacy.

You are making an error by presuming scientific knowledge is complete and there is nothing more to discover. However unlikely it may seem to you, uttering something into existence is legitimate whether it be an uxigrabe or a god. Both have no scientific evidence of their existence, both are creations of human imagination and both share equal status in an infinite hierarchy of things that may be postulated to exist.

Perhaps you should Google up Bertrand Russel's orbiting teapot or Jim Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster. Does Googling make them real, bestow legitimacy in either the scientific or religious realms, provoke inferential speculation and hypothesising in either realm? These,too, have a place in the infinite hierarchy of things imagined into existence by the human mind.

So, in the synthesis I have suggested why should gods be accorded special status? What property do they have that sets them apart from uxigrabes, orbiting teapots, flying spaghetti monsters, Spiderman,
hobbits, fairies, the Ancient Mariner, the Winged Serpent, the Bunyip, Satan, werewolves, talking snakes and dragons?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and as you well know arguments from popularity are groundless assertions for existence.

Sorry Grateful, you've lost me. I'm not going to argue with your idea of logic and nor will I be drawn into arguing with or about holy books and scripture. This is not the place.

Just let me ask you; have you ever uttered "Be!" and whatever you had in mind was given to you "miraculously" and apparently from nowhere?

Extropian1 writes:
<<On the basis that "God does not exist" is allied with the topic heading I offer a brief synthesis of why it is legitimate to hold such a conviction.

There is no reason to be convinced that the whole of existence is NOT comprised entirely and simply of matter, its alter-ego energy and the physical laws that govern them. This scenario is the ultimate expression of William of Ockham's Principal of Parsimony, a valuable rule of thumb in the scientific method.

There is no Law of Nature [or physics] that renders this conviction invalid.>>

If this were the case, then there would be no reason for Brantley to be grateful to the medical staff who treated him.

The fact that gratitude is warranted has nothing to do with medical science. Gratitude is warranted because the medical staff had the intention to use their resources and skills to save Brantley's life and this is why we say Brantley should be grateful.

The desire and intention to help could just have readily have existed 30,000 years ago as now. Fortunately for Brantley it existed in people who had the skills and equipment to act effectively on their intention.

This whole discussion is about intention, free will, and science is a secondary consideration. If medical science is to be thanked then it is because of the intentions of those who advanced this area to a point where Brantley could be cured. Its not because of the outcome of a medical procedure. Even if the doctors were unable to save Brantley's life, his family would no doubt have expressed gratitude for their efforts.

Gratitude is due precisely because human beings are more than products of an evolutionary process. Physically, we can be compelled to do a lot of things, but our inner experience is beyond compulsion. Spiritually, we have choice.

There is no compulsion in religion or art or morals.

Oh dear, Extropian1.

>>Pericles, I'm somewhat surprised. I would be prepared to re-examine my synthesis if you can produce a verifiable quote from a high profile scientist wherein he declares that Google is the ultimate authority on anything, that his work relies on the authority of Google for its legitimacy.<<

My sincere apologies for a failed attempt to introduce a modicum of levity into an otherwise fruitless exercise in "god vs. reality".

Witness this particularly pointless exchange with grateful:

>>Even if they do a "virtuous deed" because it is a "virtuous deed" it is still them doing what they are doing because it is what pleases THEM. Logically, when a someone is God-driven they are doing what they are doing because it pleases GOD<<

It is of course utterly impossible, when faced with this style of "logic", to point out that when someone is God-driven they are only doing what they are doing because it pleases them, since they believe it pleases their God.

Think about it, grateful. "Pleasing God" is obviously something that God-driven people do, because it wouldn't please them not to do it. They'd be unhappy, wouldn't they...

There is nothing quite so sterile as an argument for, or against, God. Neither side can possibly introduce any insights that would hold any meaning whatsoever for their adversary.

Which also applies, of course, to arguments between the different versions of god-believers, none of whom could provide a convincing argument for changing their belief system - except, of course, to themselves alone - from one particular form of worship to another.

Thanks Pericles.

However, I wasn’t out to prove the existence of God. I was responding to your challenge about evidence for my statement: "Virtue and sacrifice can only be rational if there is a God."

In defense I said:

“Man is different from nature. He has choice. If he is God-driven he chooses deeds that will please his Creator and avoids those that will not. If he is not God-driven he will only choose such virtuous deeds as serve his own personal interests.”

Consider the following example. Someone is holding a gun to my head threatening to kill me unless i kill someone else. The moral law states don't kill and i have no right to choose my life over someone elses (at least in Islam). For those who are not God-driven a rational decision is to kill the person and so violate the moral injunction not to kill. In their eyes, there no possible gain from adhering to a moral injunction if, as a result, they will die. By living, at least there is an opportunity for some joy even though they will have to live with the trauma of their decision.

On the other hand, it is rational for the God-driven to adhere to the moral injunction. They would see themselves entering the Hereafter as a martyr. If they killed they would see themselves entering the Hereafter as a murderer. It would be irrational for them to break the injunction.

Hence, it makes good sense to say: Virtue and sacrifice can only be rational if there is a God.

Moral values of those who are God-driven are worth something because they are non-negotiable.

For those who are not God-driven an act regarded as virtuous one day, can be considered not so virtuous the next day. Morality becomes contingent on fads and fashions, when the whole point of morality is as a constant offering guidance as to what is right and wrong, proper manners, justice, rights and responsibilities towards family, neighbours, friends and travelers, the community, the human race, the animals, the plants....

Is that the "evidence" you need?

That's a nicely contrived situation, grateful. But believe it or not, the choice to not pull the trigger is not confined to the godly. I suspect that most people, faced with that choice, would think "how could I possibly live with myself, knowing I had been the agent of another man's death?" Once again, a moral choice made simply for the purpose of self-gratification.

Here's one for you.

You are on the jury in the trial of a serial killer. All the evidence shows him to be guilty. However, the criminal has accomplices who have kidnapped your 9-year-old daughter and are holding her hostage. They have told you that if you convict the killer, or alert the police in any way, they will kill your daughter. What will you say to the rest of the jury?

And suppose for a moment that you happen to know that ten of the remaining eleven in the jury are in the same situation - they also have had loved ones kidnapped, for the same purpose. Would you expect them persuade the remaining juror to declare the murderer innocent? Would you help them do so?

What would be your God's moral injunction in these situations? Let a murderer go free to kill again? Or let the kidnappers kill your daughter?

Pericles writes; "My sincere apologies for a failed attempt to introduce a modicum of levity into an otherwise fruitless exercise in "god vs. reality"."

Your excuse for not developing a cogent argument in opposition to my synthesis?

Some of the best brains I have encountered in discussion groups on the internet have baulked at trying over a period of around 10 years. They are cemented into 99.9% atheism and seem scared to venture into 100%. They still tremble at the suggestion of a completely indifferent nature and universe.

Religion will always have the upper hand while self-styled atheists dither about degrees of certainty. I can't be a ditherer like Dawkins. My ire rises every time he's forced to admit that his atheism is 97% god-free. It's a mugwump stance whereby he has his mug on one side of the fence and his wump on the other.

Religion has stolen and codified the choicest parts of human experience that spans many millennia and falsely lays claim now to be the source of said parts. The Golden Rule pre-dates codified religion by a similar time span.

The entirely natural origins of existence will be revealed by science, not by religious faith. That conviction and the Golden Rule are about all the philosophy an atheist, a real atheist, needs. Had the good Dr.Brantley been such an atheist, all other things being equal, he would have survived.

Grateful writes;
“Man is different from nature. He has choice. If he is God-driven he chooses deeds that will please his Creator and avoids those that will not. If he is not God-driven he will only choose such virtuous deeds as serve his own personal interests.”

When you write "Man is different from nature.", you exclude more than half Earth's human population from your considerations. The word "humankind" involves everyone and simultaneously acknowledges the presence of a female population. Or do you hold to the islamic tenet that a female is of lower status/value than an islamic male?

Humankind is not different from nature, it is entirely within and an integral component of the natural world. No human can break a Law of Nature. We are ineluctably bound to and are subject to these Laws. To try to imagine something outside the Laws of Nature leads into the supernatural and religious froth and bubble. But because humans imagine makes that imagining a natural consequence and within the Laws. Thus is the supernatural a contrivance, something of a perversion, of the natural.

Viewing ourselves as special in some ways might be a salve to some timorous egos and a prop to low self-esteem but nature could not care less. In fact it doesn't care at all and would take little note if all humans suddenly disappeared. Earth and the universe would continue. The natural world would have endured a species extinction. It has seen millions of those.

Religious faith takes the sourness out of a lot of unpalatable truths.

Most God people who worship are as if not more than non believers hate driven, let's take some of the people such as Obama, God driven but a warmonger, Bush the same, Abbott and Howard not far behind, Blair the same, the list goes on and on, being an Atheist I do not have warmongering beliefs to kill any one,I love life without the prop of a God who does not exist.
HIV-aids in the 1980's - 1990's was a certain death sentence for those with the virus, thanks to science, not God, it is now no more dangerous to the a Western world than Sugar Diabeties, it is still a death sentence to those in Africa because of poverty and unable to have the science created medicine, your God should be treating them the same, but he is not, if not why not? he is not supplying the pills to them when he should be, if it is not science
Science is what creates cures not some make believe God,even with Evola

That's a bizarre statement, Extropian.

>>Religion will always have the upper hand while self-styled atheists dither about degrees of certainty.<<

Anyone who self-styles themselves as an atheist cannot have "degrees of certainty", just as one cannot be pregnant by degrees. Each is a binary state.

Be that as it may, my point was that any attempt to discuss the existence of God with a religious person is both sterile and frustrating. It is like a monolingual Australian and a monolingual Inuit negotiating a peace treaty.

In Swahili.

>>Humankind is not different from nature, it is entirely within and an integral component of the natural world.<<

Absolutely. That is precisely the point at which the atheist and the theist arguments diverge. And since this is actually the starting place of any discussion, the lack of effective communication can only be comprehensive.

After all the diatribe off the subject I would suggest the question is moot. Why would God have saved him anyway?

David

Pericles writes; "Anyone who self-styles themselves as an atheist cannot have "degrees of certainty", just as one cannot be pregnant by degrees. Each is a binary state."

It seems that you have little familiarity with Dawkins' public admissions that science and logic prohibit him from asserting that he is 100% certain that gods do not exist. I extrapolated from that to observe that he is a 97% god-free atheist, as are most, if not all, of his scientific colleagues. But, IMHO, he is and they are wrong. Where the phenomena of gods are placed in an infinite hierarchy leads to insoluble absurdity. There is no end to infinity, it is open at both ends or it is an impenetrable intellectual thicket. I prefer the former over the latter but it is irrelevant as to what shape it takes on. The former makes the concept easier to visualise as a sort of meandering line where no thing is fixed in any one place.

I admit that the notion of a "hierarchy" in this is something of a misnomer for in an infinite hierarchy there can be no permanent and fixed positions because there is no fixed point from which to begin a count. We end in striving to extract credibility from absurdity. I maintain that neither science nor logic profit from having to take such into any consideration.

It follows with an elegant inevitability [as Sir Humphrey would say] that divesting one's self of the "Dawkins Burden" of uncertainty is not only logical, it is required!

You are quite correct, Extropian1.

>>It seems that you have little familiarity with Dawkins' public admissions that science and logic prohibit him from asserting that he is 100% certain that gods do not exist.<<

But to me, Dawkins is just another bandwagon-rider, trading on his pallid punditry in order to make some kind of living. Turning atheism into some kind of "movement" is the absolute pinnacle of self-aggrandisement, to the point where it turns a simple enough concept - there is no God - into a parody of itself.

>>I extrapolated from that to observe that he is a 97% god-free atheist, as are most, if not all, of his scientific colleagues.<<

I'd be interested to view the mathematics that led you to that conclusion. How are you able to identify the 3% theism? And in what way does that 3% differ from the full 100%?

I can only conclude that "the Dawkins Burden of uncertainty" is just an invention of yours. Right down to the spurious accuracy of its calculation.

Pericles, Grateful et al.

It might also be germane to point out that often, much injustice has been carried out in the name of God. Presumably, if God is so powerful, He would not stand idly by and allow this to happen. Surely this alone brings into question, the very existence of God.

David

Pericles writes; " Turning atheism into some kind of "movement" is the absolute pinnacle of self-aggrandisement, to the point where it turns a simple enough concept - there is no God - into a parody of itself."

Sometimes we are called upon by circumstances over which we have no control to defend our convictions. For an atheist, one of the convictions that needs almost constant vigilance over is the sustained hostility held by those of religious faith toward any aspect of people's lives not already saturated with or governed by religion. Government in general and education in particular receive their constant attention. If you are unaware of this then you live on another planet. Brutal wars are being fought as we write over these issues.

Atheism as a "movement", a cause, an ideal, was made so not by atheists but by those offended by the atheist's existence. For myself, I would rejoice in not being assailed by religion's tentacled presence and influence every day. Yet I have no choice but to accord a respect demanded but not reciprocated. The faithful have created the faith of atheism and the religion of science.

Accusations of self-aggrandisement are misdirected and rejected. The glib simplicity you adopt is an abrogation of the right to independent thought without fear of penalty or retribution by government. Religious faith's persistent attacks on that freedom are pervasive and seldom recognised until it is almost too late. Not many centuries ago such independence attracted the most awful retribution, particularly for women. Give religious faith free rein and those times may return.

Pericles writes; "I'd be interested to view the mathematics that led you to that conclusion. How are you able to identify the 3% theism? And in what way does that 3% differ from the full 100%?"

I regret confusing you here. How many times have you read on the label of a food container "97% fat-free!"? I was using a device called "literary license" in a frisson of levity. Of course, the 3% is an arbitrary figure, but it is reflective of the degree of Dawkins' atheism

"I can only conclude that "the Dawkins Burden of uncertainty" is just an invention of yours. Right down to the spurious accuracy of its calculation."

Indeed, the DBU is another morsel of literary license that sprang to mind. I make no apology for it, for it accurately expresses my opinion of the issue. I admire Dawkins for his persistent defense of and advocation of scientific pursuit, his voluminous output and his preparedness to be kind in the face of hostility toward his opposition. I admire Carl Sagan for the same reasons.

I believe it is an inalienable right to hold different convictions and to be able to say to anyone, "I disagree with you and I'll tell you why." There's no shame in being wrong if you're honestly wrong. But if, like A.A.Snelling, you can hold unshakeable and unflinching conviction in two irreconcilable paths of thought then IMHO, that person is a charlatan and a hypocrite.