Fresh from telling Tim what a great piece he wrote I here to tell Bill his is trash even for a book review. Bill your suppose to be reviewing the book not have a love fest with the author. I don't know were to start here. I just for the moment deal with your last few paragraphs. Bill wrote
"What one makes of Darwinism is a matter of scientific debate. The evidence can be weighed and considered. But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.

Those wanting an attack on Darwinism will not find it here. The work of the Intelligent Design movement, for example, is not even mentioned in this volume. Yet ID has landed some telling blows on an already shaky evolutionary edifice."

What a load of tosh the ID movement has made a big impact in religious circles not in any other. It is full of stupid logical leaps and starts with the assumption that the old testament is factual. AS you say the ID is not mentioned in the book so why mention it. It is not as if any rational person working in the field thinks it is a alternative. Ideas like ID should be printed on soft paper so we can make full use of them. But let's get back on track your comment about science having no place in the debate about the existence of the supernatural why not? Why can we not use our best tool for critical investigation to investigate the validity of some of the wild claims made by spiritualist. Those who don’t want the light shed on their beliefs are those who have something to hide. What strikes me is there is still people who believe that science isn’t the tool to shed light on everything

Kenny.. you are too harsh, and u look like "dont confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up"

"And McGrath is well-suited to the task. He is a professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University and has a PhD in molecular biophysics. Indeed, McGrath has written on issues of science nearly as much as on issues of theology and philosophy"

I think the author is well qualified to critique Dawkins. Don't u ?

Reread what I said BOAZ_David I'm having a go mainly at Bill not McGrath. try this link much better. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/more_reviews.asp?ref=1405125381

This review hardly talks about the book which I have ordered by the way I think you might be surprised about what on my bookshelfs. Bill as used this piece as a thinly veiled vomit of his own views.

Kennnnnny.. there u go again.."vomit".... did u do your training with mr "pus bucket' Keating ? :)
but at least you did give me a link....so I WILL check it out..
here is one for you, u seem to have an adventurous attitude which is good.
http://www.tonycampolo.org/messages.shtml

Have a listen to the message "Staying balanced in an unbalanced world"
I'd love to know if he fits into your stereotype "right wing rabid fundamentalist" :)

Kenny
yep.. a good link. I had a peek and a read of the various reviews.
Bill does tend to do that, I noted that with the Kinsey work, where he accepts Reismans work uncritically, specially table 34, which was debunked.
I wrote to him personally about this to challenge him, and he replied basically referring me to the work of REISMAN.. which was a total circle because it was her work on that which had been debunked.
Not a great commendation for Bills credibility either.

This abbreviated extract from Richard Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" is worth a look, since the subject of intelligent design has been raised.

"[Intelligent design] is the theory that life was created, or its evolution master-minded, by a conscious designer. It would obviously be unfairly easy to demolish some particular version of this theory such as the one (or it may be two) spelled out in Genesis. Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than that belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants. All these myths have in common that they depend upon the deliberate intentions of some kind of supernatural being.

"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called "instanteous creation" and "guided evolution". Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. The evidence for some sort of evolution has become too overwhelming. But many theologians who call themselves evolutionists....smuggle God in the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history...or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change.

"We cannot disprove beliefs like these, especially if it is assumed that God took care that his interventions always closely mimicked what would be expected from evolution by natural selection. All that we can say about such beliefs is firstly, that they are superfluous, and secondly, that they assume the existence of the main thing we want to explain, namely organised complexity. The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organised complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity.

"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist, whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop, simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow ourselves the luxury of postulating organised complexity without offering an explanation, we might as well make a job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we know it!"

Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution reveals a Universe without Design", Norton 1986, p 316.

TABLET 1 EPIC OF GILGAMESH

supposedly 'comparable' to the Genesis creation story.

Out I went, into the world, but there was none better, none whom he, Gilgamesh, could not best.
And so, with his arms, he returned to Uruk. But in their houses, the men of Uruk muttered:
'Gilgamesh, noisy Gilgamesh! Arrogant Gilgamesh!'
All young men gone - Defeated by Gilgamesh, and no son was left to his father.
All young girls made women by Gilgamesh
His lusts are such, and no virgin left to her lover!

GENESIS 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"

um.. I rather like the 2nd :)

That comes as no surprise BOAZ_David :). I use words like that when people tell things they know rather then things they think. As for your like I did not listen to any of the audios but I had a look at the tittles seemed the usual fair until I got to the last one "Would Jesus Drive a BMW?" that seemed interesting might even download to see what he is saying.

Good on you Kenny :) yes.. it is a good one,

But to be honest..the others are REALLY GOOD also, and they are NOT the 'usual fair' trust me on this. This guy is incredible..some of his STUNTS would blow you away :)....
He is reallllly radical.

The meaning of life? Life , with all its toil, tears, sweat, pain, disappointments, injustice and tragedy [interspersed with occasional happiness] DOESN'T make any sense at all UNLESS you regard it and accept it as a test, a trial run for another life to come, when you'll be judged on how you lived your life.

BIG (and long silent) AL30
long time no see.

Umm.. u have some reference for this view of life ? :)
Goto the handbook mate.. read Ecclesiastes.
Av a good 1

Had to take a break Boaz. Just a personal view ref. Book of Big Al 30, chapter 1 verse 1. I will read Ecc as you suggest. I had a contribution to the WA homosexual issue but the site seems jammed.
You are doing a great job. More power to your keyboard!

Thanx Al :) back at ya moite

Is it just me, or doesn't it seem a little bizarre for us to be critiquing Bill Muehlenberg's critique of Alistair McGrath's critique of Richard Dawkins' book?

Insofar as the opportunity for intelligent comment goes, it is a non-starter, witness the attempts to introduce extraneous material, including a completely manufactured opportunity to sneer at the legend of Gilgamesh.

Pericles
u got it in 1. With that level of nesting ... how does one find the energy to say much which is related to the critique of the critique of the book ?
Hence.. off-topic mush. Mostly mine most likely.
By the way.. how do u get 'sneer' re Gilgamish ?
I'm just posting an excerpt and anyone can make a judgement.
There is a difference between 'sneer' and 'compare and contrast'

Grace posted quotes which include the words "Naive bible thumper'
er... why didn't u take exception to that ?

People often refer to the Epic and claim "But see.. Genesis is JUST LIKE the contemporary creation myths" so putting an excerpt side by side with the simplicity of 'In the beginning..' seems a worthwhile exercise. It also is a defense to 'naive Bible Thumper'

But defending ones 'turf' aside, your remarks in the Anti Semitism thread are insightful, rarely seen, its usually justifying or condemning one side or the other. I want to recommend a passage of scripture to you:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

You and Paul are not far apart. His analysis of the position of being 'Christian' in this chapter is brutally honest.

How can any intelligent person find it easier to believe that this Planet formed itself and all the plant and animal and human life [with all their mind-boggling complexities] life from dust caused by a "Big Bang"?
Who or what caused the "Big Bang" anyway? It's easier to believe that an Infinite IIntellect, a Creator, made the World.

Let me relate the story of the Christian and the Atheist. Despite their differences they were friends. One day they had a day out in the city and dropped in at a science display. One of the features was a working model of our Solar System. They were fascinated, and the Athiest said "Hey that's terrific - I wonder who made it." The Christian replied "Nobody made it, it made itself." "Come off it" said the Athiest, "how could it build itself, that's impossible." The Christian said "Of ourse it's impossible, but people of your persuasion claim that the real Solar System, and the Universe built itself. Now you can see just how impossibe that is." "Even this model had to have someone intelligent to make it, and the real Universe, including our Solar System had to have a Super Intelligence to build it." " And we call Him God."

AL it is no wonder that you cling to superstitions nonsense you have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the fields of cosmology or biology. Now it is either because you have are of low intelligent level or that you are a zealot or that you ignorant of the science behind these fields. No from your previous posts I think you’re the later maybe the second but you could follow up this post with the explanation of the theory of the big bang and we could judge your suitability for membership into the first group.

Kenny !
c'mon mate... u will find urself judged with the same criteria :)
The idea that belief in creation is a supersticious myth is A MYTH perpetrated by people with an agenda, its not related to the 'science' behind the stuff as u said. Perhaps the belief in 'your' version of what Christians understand about these things is a myth, but its stretching things a bit far to write off all Christians in that way.
Kenny.. have u had a read of 1 Corinthians 15 ? try it out. We tend to find less problem with Creation as per the Biblical account (when properly understood) when we have recognized the Risen Christ, as Paul outlines. But then, that is psychologically 'logical' :) and if u read the passage I just offered, u will see why that also is not a problem. No one knows how "STUPID" is our position better than we ourselves mate.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

Kenny, just the sort of ignorant abuse I would have expected from a ning nong like you. You haven't attempted to tell us how the Universe could have been formed by itself without a Creator, when even a working model can't build itself.

You guys. It amazes me that 'how the universe was formed' is still a point of discussion in 2005. The simple fact is, we don't know. In universe terms, we are pretty young, whosever measure you choose. And all the indications are that humans won't be around for much longer, whether you listen to the scientists, your neighbourhood doomsday cult or Aum Shinrikyo. We are the tiniest of specks, in any dimension you choose.

What I find it hard to comprehend is that some folk actually believe they do know - and this is again without making any judgement on the route they take to arrive at their solution. The concept that one-and-a-bit kilos of brain cells can understand our universe, and the hundred-plus billion galaxies in it, is simply not tenable.

We can guess. We can estimate. We can postulate, reason, argue, discuss, debate, dispute, wrangle, bandy words (thanks Mr Roget), but we sure as eggs cannot know.

We can also believe, but that is still not the same as knowing.

Pericles.
yes.. I think most of us who 'believe' would not say that we 'know' in the scientfic sense.. our brains can only go as far as the available science can take us. Your point could be seen as support for 'how Great is God' or 'how puny are we'.

I guess that's why its easier to accept

In the beginning, God created...

Its amazing how clear Genesis becomes when u are living in the 15th chapter of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. (naturally understandable psychological outcome, I realize this)

Bear in mind, we know most of what we now know based on the knowledge of the past 100 yrs.
While we are curious about things, u said it all when u described how immense is the measurable universe, not to mention the unmeasurable or unknown, and that 'we' might be the special focal point defies the imgination, true.

Well yes, and no, Boaz.

Much of what we see around us is "explained" through rules established and observations made over many years by scientists. But I don't believe the latest-and-best theory of the Big Bang any more than I accept the six-day manufacturing cycle proposed in the Bible. The dimensions are too many - in one, you have to envisage time coming into being at the same time as matter; in the other, you have to imagine a superior being masterminding it all. I know it sounds strange to you, but I still favour the former over the latter, but with the sure and certain knowledge that no-one will be able to prove or disprove either during my lifetime.

To me it is a cop-out to blithely say, as Big Al did "[h]ow can any intelligent person find it easier to believe that this Planet formed itself ... It's easier to believe that an Infinite IIntellect [sic], a Creator, made the World." Or in your words, "I guess that's why its easier to accept In the beginning, God created..."

Well of course it is easier. It is far easier to picture a benevolent old guy with a long white beard zapping Adam into life than to stretch the mind around the complexities of evolution. Far more difficult to grapple with the thought that we might just be a statistical blip on the right-hand extreme of a bell curve.

But it is nothing to do with "how puny we are". On the contrary, I think that there is something extremely special about how we have evolved into sentient, and thinking beings. But I am actually quite comfortable with the real possibility that the human race is no more than a cosmic chemical anomaly. I wouldn't dream of spending my life worrying about it though

PERICLES....
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

"BANG".......

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Doesn't seem to be too radically different from the scientific view.
"Formless" ... after a big bang, cosmic dust is circling, but not yet formed into planets ?

I won't go further :) You can read more on 'young earth/old earth' Genesis/big bang etc from a host of better informed (and some less I speculate) sources than me.

I appreciated your more relaxed tone of that last posting. As you say, life is about being curious and discovering things.

Sorry I didn't tick the email box.

Well it is obvious that none actually understand the current state of cosmology or how the theory has been developed or even for that matter the issues with it. I won't bother to much because few people every read the links given. For those who are interested there are lots of books around. As for something created out of nothing well guess what at the quantum level it is happening all the time. While individual scientist will “believe” in their work the scientific movement is quite dispassionate with no theory not backed by evidence surviving long. The thing that get most people is if they don’t understand it then it must be wrong. Most people are unwilling to say they can’t understand something because they are too stupid but the bell curve of human intelligence shows us that many will not get it. The current theory’s for the creation of the universe have one thing in common they must stand up to the testable evidence and stand on their scientism merits. They actually don’t have to be logical in the everyday sense and that what gets most people. Fact is much of this area is very counter intuitive. Relativity is a prefect example and so is quantum mechanics both are quite difficult concepts to grasp. This debate really boils down to groups that believe in things they can’t test for and those that only believe in things they can test for. Boaz_David I know full well that there are many Christians who subscribe to many positions on this matter. In a area like this it makes more sense to discuss the classic fundamentalist rather then the old Earther's and other positions.

The scientism method is mans greatest tool for unlocking knowledge not holy books.
I can’t help notice Al you didn’t try to answer the question.

BOAZ_David just about every creation myth can be read into a big bang context if you try hard enough.

Kenny..good one..
Just about every creation myth... etc :) duh. It seems you know as much about the contemporary creation myths as we know about the 'current state of the debate' which according to you is very little. I find little in the epic of gilgamesh (the one usually described as 'close' to the biblical one) which can be construed as in any way fittable to the Scientific understanding. Gods chopping each other up.. feet becoming moon and head becoming the sun etc.. c'mon mate.. thats a bit of a stretch even for you.

U are most welcome to post uptodate links for me to peruse, as my interest in these matters is much stronger and more personal than how english is taught.
So, here I am... waiting.. LINKS LINKS LINKS :)

As an atheist who believes in gods, I tried to clarify my thoughts in a small article titled "The Science of Religion" which was published in the Summer 2004 edition of The Skeptic,vol 24 #4. I offer that reference as a contribution to the Forum.

Me to BOAZ_David, I will be happy to I'll post some tonight.

JFW
thanx for that article. But your credibility will be much higher if you dont put 2 contradictory ideas in the one sentence :)

"Atheist...... who believes in gods"... I guess the articule will relate to us the deeper meaning eh :)

BOAZ_David I'm a bit pressed for time but a good starting point is
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_home.html
http://superstringtheory.com

I'll chuck in a alt to the big bang as well
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
Read it with caution.

Thanx Kenny.. I WILL read those sites and comment.
Have u listened to 'Would Jesus drive a BMW' yet ? :)

I must apologise: my reference, posted on February 15 was misplaced. I should have realised that The Skeptic is an Australian publication and, so, not easily available to others in this wide world. It is not fully on the internet. The article was too long as a forum comment but, briefly: all supernatural beings are products (figments) of human brains and as such are real. That is, they do play a real part in human behaviour. In that sense I believe in them. One can’t deny that billions of people respond when told that their particular god wants them to behave in a particular way. However, in recognizing that they only exist in thought, and cannot themselves exercise physical powers I do not believe in them in the same way that I believe someone who calls him/herself Boaz exists physically somewhere and can control a keyboard. I believe in the existence of the image but I do not believe in their physical reality; hence, atheist.

Does that explain, if not help?

JFW
thanx for that, it does explain much better.
Did I refer you to a read of Pauls letter to the Corinthians chapter 15 ? Its worth looking at in the light of your statements.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

This is a major critique of the idea that 'gods' were just 'invented' by human minds. All such gods would be for the 'moral and social convenience' of the inventors. Contrast that with Pauls experience and testimony. A reading of Acts chapter 6 thru to 9 inclusive gives the historical background of Pauls life to the 15th chapter to Corinthians. I just cannot comprehend why a guy would endure stoning (among other torments) knowing full well that it was based on a false idea. There are plenty of examples of people who believed this and that, and who suffered for it, but I think most of such belief is based on less testable ideas than 'The risen Christ appeared to me', as was Pauls experience, and I think that he would know well enuf whether it was 'real' enough for him to suffer thus.

KENNY... I had a look at 'Big Bang Never happened' and I'm not enuf of a try hard Astro physicist to engage very meaningfully with that debate. I don't find anything partcularly threatening in it though (for Creation I mean). The idea of a universe in flux may also be how God made it. No biggy :)


Keep it up.

I just cannot comprehend why a guy would endure stoning (among other torments) knowing full well that it was based on a false idea.

BOAZ_David there in lies the issues doesn't it. Many People of many faiths endued similar treatment as your chap did for beliefs that you believe to be untrue. The human mind has a great capacity for self delusion. A good example of this is a funny story told many times over many years may well have started out as a true event, but will eventually have a realty of it’s own as the story tellers remember the story and not the event.

Boaz_David

One of the great difficulties we humans have in understanding the world around us is the problem of recognising the image in our brain as an image and not reality itself. It helps if one accepts that everything evolves, including stars, organisms, societies and ideas or images in the brain. Belief in the death of Jesus and his resurrection was long preceded by belief in the murder, dismemberment and miraculous resurrection of Osiris, god of the Nile. Belief in the family of Zeus living on Olympus long preceded belief in the triumvirate of God the father, son and the Holy Ghost. The image has evolved but the reality has not. No-one ever took tea with Zeus, you can think about it but you can’t do it. You can discuss the nature of Zeus or the Christian God but if you understand that it is only an image created by human beings themselves in their own image then you are only discussing the nature of human beings themselves. That is a circular discussion which can only die in emptiness. St Paul discusses the mythical images in his brain as if they existed in the world outside, they do not.

The Jesus myth is as old as man itself. The Bible itself is merely a retelling of myths from ancient Egypt and the cult of Mithras. The difference is the pagans of ancient Egypt knew that these stories were myths. They believed in the truth of the message, but not in the story itself. The Christian Church of the 3rd century destroyed hundreds of thousands of texts which outlined just this fact. Their aim was to turn the myth into history and unfortunately they succeeded very well.

An excellent book on this subject is "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. Also see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm which discusses this topic as well.

Bozzie.
you and JWT are a worry, my my myyyyyy.. that you guys would sink to such dubious and shabby sources, is regrettable, it makes serious and intelligent debate quite difficult. I checked those sources/references, and (forgive me for a bit of carnal nature here) after I got up off the floor from laughing for about an hour, (this was better than Frazier :) No, seriously, I took one look at the Egyptian myth, and just the very first claim, ( also I noted a good set of 'similarities' done for Horus and Hitler.. came out pretty close).... and the Myth of Isis and Osiris.. I mean..give me a break,
Isis was married to Osiris. We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated. Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal about that.
If that's the level of the 'scholarship' you guys are residing in, I strongly suggest u review your choice of reading material.

I just gasp that you guys would give even the slightest credibility to that kind of stuff.

Boaz_David

Nothing can kill a discussion as quickly as when one participant risks wetting themselves from uncontrollable giggling. There are some simple introductions to philosophy which could continue to give you amusement in my absence; try Amazon.com. Bye

bozzie
Having in mind the old Jesuit dictum: "Give us a boy and we will return you a man...and a child of God", one could wish that the material in your recommended site, religioustolerance,was used as a teaching tool in primary and early secondary school. We might then have more enlightened adults with an understanding of the fact that their ideas have developed through a long history and will evolve further in the future.

The choices that Mankind makes are the true evil on earth. Blaming religion is an escape to take the pressure off of the public in general. We should be demanding stiffer laws that will have an effect on crimes committed but we are so passive with the political world that it allows
such easy forgiveness for crimes that they are repeated.
Everyday a choice is made by someone to break the law, hurt a child or do something that they should feel the emotion of guilt. Some people do not feel that emotion and to me the way we prosecute these people is what should be debated. At one time or another in all of our lives we experience "guilt" of one kind or another and religion is a tool to help us deal with it. Our faith is one of the only positive feelings in our world and should not be brought up as a negative. It will survive.
God did not create the internet for pornography or petophiles and most certainly does not submit the earth to global warming or any other problem we are experiencing. We do.